Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Margaret Mullane Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. After years of broken promises, it should come as no surprise that the public do not trust politicians in Westminster on immigration. The distrust is compounded by regular reports of individual cases in the immigration system, the most shocking and nonsensical of which are often those of foreign criminals allowed to remain in this country due to human rights laws.

The system is broken. It has been broken for many decades, and that is now plain to see. Our basic decency—our desire to do the right thing—is exploited by paedophiles, rapists, terrorists and hardened criminals, who threaten not just individual members of the public, which is terrifying enough, but the broader social fabric of our country. The news reports that we read are possible only because upper tribunal judgments on asylum and immigration are published at regular intervals. The publication of those judgments allows everyone in the country to see what tribunal judges have decided in asylum, immigration and deportation cases. Crucially, it allows us to scrutinise both their decisions and their reasoning. We can see why the judgments were made and what that says about our laws, and decide for ourselves whether we think that is right. Judges are not accountable to the public, but transparency allows everyone to see our laws in action and to form a view about whether they are the right ones.

However, upper tribunal judgments do not tell the full story. All immigration and asylum cases are first heard by a lower-tier tribunal, the judgments of which are not made available to the public. Unless the initial decision of the lower-tier tribunal is appealed, the public do not ever get access to the details of any given case. Given the absurdity of the cases that we do hear about, many members of the public will rightly be wondering what is happening in the cases that we do not see.

If we want to restore public trust in the immigration system, we must restore transparency. Publishing the decisions of lower-tier tribunals is not the biggest or most consequential change in the grand scheme of our broken immigration system, but it is a meaningful one. The public have a right to know about the way our tribunal system works, to know about the rules judges use to make fundamental decisions about immigration and asylum—about who can be in this country and why—and to see how those rules are applied in practice so they can decide for themselves whether that is right or wrong and whether it serves Britain’s interests. That is why we tabled this new clause, and we sincerely hope that the Government will consider making it part of the Bill.

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve on your Committee, Dr Murrison. I do not see how turning border security into public discourse on a case-by-case basis is beneficial to the process, either for those administering or presiding over the hearings, or for those subject to the tribunal process. I accept that there is an argument for greater transparency, but given the circumstances of people’s arrival at our borders—they are fleeing trauma, in a vulnerable state—I feel it is inappropriate to parade the lives of asylum seekers in the public domain.

I have every faith that the Bill will create a robust system that is effective and accountable. The new clause would add nothing to its overall strength. The hon. Member for Stockton West says that trust has been lost in the asylum system. I think it will take this Bill and this Government to bring that trust back.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I have to compliment the hon. Member for Stockton West on his tie, since he raised it, and the hon. Member for Weald of Kent seems to have good taste in the colour of her jackets. I promise that that is the last fashion statement that I will make in our proceedings today.

On new clause 24, we agree that accountability and transparency are absolutely vital for building trust and credibility in the immigration system. Under rule 27 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014—note the date—the presumption already is that hearings at the first-tier tribunal must be public unless the first-tier tribunal gives a direction that it or part of it is to be held in private. Indeed, the majority of hearings at the first-tier tribunal are public. However, there are sometimes appropriate reasons for a hearing not to be public. For example, hearings may be held in private to preserve confidentiality in respect of sensitive medical details or to protect the privacy of a victim of a serious crime—for example, of a sexual nature. It may also be done to protect a party or witness from duress.

That is precisely why the Tribunal Procedure Committee has broad discretion to determine what practice and procedure in the first-tier tribunal will best support the overall interests of justice, and why the judiciary has a range of case management powers under the tribunal procedure rules to decide how individual cases should proceed. Those tribunal powers were published and written when the party of the hon. Member for Stockton West was in government, in 2014. It is expected that judges will have a wide discretion in dealing with these sensitive issues.

On making rulings of the first-tier tribunal available to the public, currently judgments of the immigration and asylum chamber of the first-tier tribunal are not routinely published. The decision about whether to publish a judgment is a judicial one. However, members of the public and the media can apply to the tribunal for a copy of the judgment in a specific case. I know that the Lord Chancellor will continue discussions with the judiciary about how we can bolster accountability and transparency to build public confidence, but I cannot help feeling that perhaps certain people who might work for a certain newspaper are getting to the end of their search engines for absurd cases that they can publish, and want a whole new database to search. If they want to bring these issues out into the open at the first-tier tribunal, perhaps they should send some reporters to listen to the case or apply on an individual basis for the judgment to be published. Perhaps that might assuage their ongoing interest in these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

I have already acknowledged that the margin for error is massive—that is clearly true. If everything that the hon. Member is saying is correct, I would like to see Government figures to replace the CPS figures. I think that is a reasonable request.

The £234 billion cost is equivalent to £8,200 per household, or around six times our annual defence budget, and this about not just money but capacity. Our public services are clearly already overstretched and this could push them to breaking point. If we accept, as we should, that previous Governments have failed on migration, then we should do everything in our power to limit the long-term impacts of that failure. That is why the Conservatives propose to extend the qualifying period for ILR and reform settlement rules to ensure that only those genuinely likely to contribute will be eligible for long-term settlement. That would give us an opportunity to review visas issued over the last few years. Those who have come to this country legally on time-limited visas and have subsequently not contributed enough, or have damaged our society by committing crime, should be expected to leave.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the levels of immigration under the last Government were wrong and that it was a mistake to allow so many people to come to the UK. This amendment would allow the Government to limit the long-term consequences of that mistake, so why would they oppose it? It is not too late to change our rules around settlement. By refusing to extend the eligibility period for indefinite leave to remain, the Government are actively choosing to saddle the British taxpayer with a likely bill of hundreds of billions of pounds. We must make difficult decisions on this reform and the many others required in our migration system. Those decisions may be painful, especially in the short term, for individual people, families or businesses but they are the only way for any Government’s actions to match their words. The public have had enough and rightly so.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East talked about LLR, which must be applied for every two and a half years on the existing 10-year route. That is the case only because, as it stands, the 10-year route, by design, is for those not on eligible visas. The five-year route that we here propose to change is exclusively for those on eligible visas. I therefore cannot see why, within the existing rules, there would be any requirement for LLR applications. I hope that reassures the hon. Member.

[Margaret Mullane]

The new clause is not in keeping with the provisions outlined in the Bill, which primarily focus on border security through new and strengthened law enforcement powers, providing intelligence to address organised immigration crime.

I fundamentally disagree with the context of the new clause. Subsection (2) relates to existing legislation whereby the qualification of indefinite leave to remain applies to people on skilled work visas, scale-up worker visas, entrepreneurial or investor visas, innovation founder visas, or UK ancestry visas, and people with a partner who holds citizenship. Those people are, for the most part, contributing to our society through work. If somebody has been living and working here in a skilled role, or innovating in our country—and possibly even supporting job creation—for five years, that is long enough for them to identify Britain as their home. They will have friends and community networks. In most instances, they are boosting our economic productivity. The increased qualification period set out in the proposed new clause would move the goalposts for skilled workers after years of contribution.

I will bring the conversation back to the purpose of the Bill: the Committee’s focus should be on those entering the UK illegally and those engaged in organised immigration crime, not the construction workers, nurses, doctors, investors and business owners in Britain on work visas.

[Tom Hayes]

I will speak briefly. I welcome the hon. Member for Weald of Kent’s clarification of the Conservative party’s position on the amendment, but that clarification also raises further questions; I wonder whether the hon. Lady could respond on the spot. If there is no requirement every 30 months in the 10-year period for an individual to pay fees of £2,608—or, for a child, £2,223—to the Home Office, how will the Home Office fund much of its work? The fees paid by adults and children contribute significantly to the Home Office’s budget. The point is particularly important because the Home Office has had to borrow from the official development assistance budget in order to fund asylum hotels. I worry that there is going to be a significant financial gap here, and I wonder if the hon. Lady could clarify what her costings are?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Seventh sitting)

Margaret Mullane Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

There are no more gimmicks. Instead there is investment in a workable system with new structures and resources to smash the gangs that cause so much misery to so many vulnerable people.

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Good morning, Mr Stuart. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire that he considered the Rwanda scheme a crackpot scheme. Another opinion is that it was “un-Conservative and un-British”—the opinion of John Major, the former Conservative Prime Minister. We have to acknowledge that the basic principle of this Bill is to address the failures of past legislation. Indeed, the Minister explained during an earlier debate that it is not possible to make the suite of legislation involved in the Safety of Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act work together coherently. Not to repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act would undermine confidence in the credibility of the Bill. We are moving away from reliance on expensive gimmicks, hotel use, the flaw that is the Rwanda Act, with its price tag of £700 million of taxpayers’ money, and failure to effectively process the people arriving on our shores. Do we really believe that clinging to a piece of dead legislation is the way to protect our borders and put the safety of our country in focus and at the front?

[Tom Hayes]

May I start by saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart? I am particularly enjoying the opportunity to have these debates in a free-flowing way—while sticking to parliamentary etiquette, obviously.

I commend the hon. Member for Stockton West, with whom I have some sympathy. He has been sent here to defend the impossible. I half wondered, when he came in wearing that fetching yellow tie, which I slightly covet, whether he had come to hold his hands in the air, make an apology and perhaps stand on the side of classical liberalism, but no: he stood true to the 2024 manifesto on which he was elected. I hope that in addressing how he would define a deterrent, I will add something new. When I asked him for a definition, he said that a deterrent would prevent people from coming and that it would do so by detaining and removing them. I shall make a case that challenges his assumptions on that basis.

A deterrent is a strategy aimed at preventing external actors, targets and adversaries in the military sense from taking unwanted actions. For the Rwanda asylum policy to be a deterrent, the Conservative Government would have needed to achieve certain things: to maintain the capabilities required to deter and be highly resolved to deploy them—as the hon. Member said, to be able to detain and remove—and to effectively communicate their resolve to act. In any communication, one needs to be understood to be highly resolved and capable of following through.

For the Rwanda asylum policy to be a deterrent, the Government would have needed to persuade potential migrants of their capabilities and resolve to send them to Rwanda to process their claims after they had illegally entered the country, and to have stopped migrants from paying significant sums of money to smuggler gangs facilitating illegal migration. In short, from what the hon. Member said, it feels as though the principal target of deterrents was migrants. The Rwanda asylum policy was always doomed to fail on those key conditions, because it was not able to achieve detention or removal.

On detention, Professor Brian Bell, the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, told us that the numbers given by the Government

“are certainly not consistent with a story of a very significant deterrent effect from the Rwanda Act.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 56, Q84.]

Dr Peter Walsh of the Migration Observatory cited concerns about

“where people would be detained”,––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 14, Q13.]

as the UK immigration detention system had capacity for only 2,200 people, with roughly 400 spaces free. Moreover, he said that Rwanda would struggle to process more than “a few hundred” asylum claims a year.

That takes me to the question of removal.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fifth sitting)

Margaret Mullane Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

The clause represents a further entrenchment of an enforcement-led approach to migration that prioritises deterrence over protection. The human cost of this Bill is far too high, and its provisions risk punishing the very people who we should be supporting. Surely we need to prioritise an approach rooted in humanity, justice and practical solutions over one driven by punitive deterrence, which tries to criminalise even more of these poor souls who end up on the shores of our country.

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve on your Committee, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire and for Stockton West for their contributions. There are a few points I want to make. Clause 18 already outlines provision within the lines that amendment 17 seeks to remove. Naming the act of supplying an unseaworthy vessel, while removing the broader terminology of an act from the Bill, sets a precedent where we would have to outline all possible acts within the Bill. That is wholly unnecessary and not in keeping with the structure of the Bill. Although providing an unseaworthy vessel is the initial act that causes risk to life, amendment 17 would serve to de-prioritise further acts of criminality that could endanger life in a sea crossing. The wording already in the Bill provides sufficient scope to address what the amendment seeks.

Following on from this, I think everybody in this room agrees with the sentiment of amendment 5—that genuine asylum seekers are vulnerable—but it is also important to recognise that someone with the right to asylum could be involved in criminality. The Bill already establishes, through clauses 16 to 18, the provision of a reasonable excuse as a defence, creating a clearer distinction between humanitarian activity and genuine asylum seekers, journalistic or academic works, and those involved in immigration crime as well. I believe that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire has already conceded that point, having withdrawn amendments of a similar nature.

[Tom Hayes]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham, who made a very persuasive case. She has stolen much of what I was going to say, which is actually quite helpful. I want to start by reflecting on the international situation, following up on the equally persuasive points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal about the relationship between the UK and France. It is worth reflecting on where we are. The current Home Secretary was the first to visit northern France in almost five years. Using a parallel Conservative political time continuum, that was six Home Secretaries ago.

In December, we had the meeting of the Calais Group in London, which was able to agree a plan to tackle people smuggling gangs. We have seen the Home Secretary and Interior Ministers from G7 countries, Germany included, meeting in Italy to agree a new joint action plan. We have seen the French Government appoint a new special representative on migration, Patrick Stefanini. He will work closely with our new role of Border Security Commander so that we have the closest, strongest, deepest engagement and interaction.

It is worth reflecting on that, because we are not going to solve the problem of small boat crossings on our own. We have to repair the damage done by the previous Conservative Government to our relationships with our major EU allies and partners. One of the consequences of the botched Conservative Brexit deal is that the UK no longer participates in the EU’s Dublin system, which determines which countries should take responsibility for processing an asylum claim where a person has links with more than one country, and provides a mechanism to return the person to the responsible country. That is underpinned by a shared database of asylum seekers’ fingerprints. It is chaotic that we had a deal that robbed us of the opportunity to take part in that system.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fourth sitting)

Margaret Mullane Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I set out in some detail in my reply on the previous clause some of the things that the commander is involved with, including some of the meetings he is involved in convening and the purpose of those strategic meetings. During the evidence we heard last week from operational partners, both the NCA and the police chiefs set out some of the benefits they felt there would be.

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that we seem to be having repetition in our discussions about the commander and his abilities within his role? The role is respected, and that came up in the evidence we heard. Does she feel that there is repetition of this point, with the Opposition picking up on it at every moment?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The Opposition have asked which bits of the commander’s functions may be delegated and to what level. In theory, it can be any of them. We are trying to ensure that there are no issues in primary legislation that would mean something is prevented from being delegated that would have been effective.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Stockton West would expect me to go into great detail about what might happen with delegation in the future, but I can give an example. If there was to be a high-level visit to Iraq to conclude a memorandum of understanding on returns and activity against organised immigration crime, and the commander was detained elsewhere, it would be possible to delegate that function to somebody who would then go in his place.

We are trying to get to the stage in legislation where we create the commander and give flexibility as to how the job can be put into effect in scenarios that may crop up, without being too prescriptive. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton West will accept that example of the sort of thing that may crop up.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting)

Margaret Mullane Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

This may be the last question, unless anybody else has indicated that they wish to ask one.

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

In his evidence, Enver Solomon spoke about the “meltdown” of the immigration system—that it is chaotic. I think we all heard that. I am on the Home Affairs Committee, and we are also looking into that. Quite a few people from different groups have given evidence, and their evidence was slightly more optimistic than what has been said today.

We are all in mass communication, so I think word will get around when this starts rolling out. If the system had been chaotic and everything had ground to a halt, the gangmasters running the boats would have got to grips with it as time went on, and that would have seeped through. It therefore would not necessarily be the case that people would want to risk the boats and the gangs.

Dr Peter Walsh: On communication, many of these individuals who are travelling receive information from their handlers, agents and smugglers. Sometimes it comes from people who have already made the trip and are in the UK, but that has the effect of emboldening them. I am not sure what the prospects would be for them learning about the reality of the UK’s asylum system more broadly. We see that knowledge of the system—whether it is chaotic or functioning well—is always filtered through their agents, smugglers, handlers and those they know in the community who are making the trip or have already successfully made it.

[The Chair]

We have two quick questions to squeeze in.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting)

Margaret Mullane Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Sorry, we have four minutes left and I have three people to get in.

David Coleman: Forgive me; I ran away with myself. I am so sorry.

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Following on from what the Minister asked you about how we have to be mean or have open borders, I looked at your written evidence, in which you have put as your ninth point, “Make Britain unattractive again”, and then you refer to the Rwanda policy. You say that you do not really know, but we had the National Crime Agency in before you and they were quite optimistic about the deterrent aspects of the Bill. Are you saying that you are not at all?

David Coleman: I am not, but at the moment it is to some extent a matter of opinion. The sorts of measures being proposed in the Bill are a development and accentuation of what has been done already. After all, the Government are not doing nothing to try to moderate asylum seeking; they have already, like the previous Government, been involved in discussions with our neighbours to try to come to an agreement on all sorts of aspects of migrant trafficking. The Bill is trying to ratchet that up, perfectly reasonably.

So far those measures, although admittedly not as intense as this Bill wants to impose, have not been notably successful. I drew a parallel with the war against drugs, which has an effect. It reduces the volume of drugs in circulation and puts drug pushers in prison, but it also puts up the price of drugs. There is a rather depressing parallel there.

[Chris Murray]

Q In 2018, the Government was spending £18,000 per asylum seeker, per year. Then they brought in the Illegal Migration Act, the Nationality and Borders Act, and the Safety of Rwanda Act. By 2024, they were spending £47,000 per asylum seeker, per year. If you have any respect for public money at all, is it not self-evident that this legislation has failed and that we should try a different approach on immigration?

David Coleman: That, I suppose, is the reason why the previous Government wanted to try to do something very different indeed in the Rwanda policy.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Margaret Mullane Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

The Bill paves the way to end 14 years of gimmicks and sticking-plaster politics. The previous Government threw £700 million of taxpayers’ money at the Rwanda scheme, which, from the time it was introduced to the day it was scrapped, saw 84,000 people arrive on our shores in small boats. Given the focus of the Bill, it is important that clear distinctions are drawn on its purpose, and on immigration itself.

Workers arriving here legally to fill the gaps in industry and institutions such as our national health service are vital contributors to our society and economy. Migrant labour and immigration from Ireland and the commonwealth nations built my constituency in the 1920s and 1930s. Not only is that a part of Dagenham and Rainham’s heritage, but my heritage as the daughter of an Irish immigrant. My dad came here for work in the ’50s and contributed to our society throughout his life. Equally, those fleeing war and devastation, human rights abuses and more, have an international right to seek asylum.

It is also important to acknowledge that our borders cannot be an open door, especially not to criminality or exploitation. That brings us to the focus of the Bill. It is why I welcome the Bill and will be supporting it on Second Reading. The Bill seeks to close the gaps, ensuring that law enforcement agencies are granted counter-terror-style powers to tackle organised immigration crime. There is a public perception, and a perception of some who are new to the House, that those arriving here are somehow stealing from the British people—taking something away, whether it be jobs, homes or services. The truth is, however, that many thousands of those who arrive on our shores find themselves exploited and trapped, used in criminality, and thrown into the life of modern slavery. With no recourse to public funds, they are not accessing our services, and without citizenship or national insurance, they are not taking our homes or our jobs.

Lives are being lost, but the organised crime groups who are fuelling this—they are despicable people—do not care whether those who are exploited live or die, as long as they make a profit. Back in October 2019, close to my constituency, we saw how that leads to the terrible tragedy of which the Home Secretary spoke earlier, when 39 men and women were found dead in a lorry in Grays. This cannot continue. The Bill is, first and foremost, a way to disrupt organised immigration crime by scaling up law enforcement and the response to border security checks. It is about our Government getting things done: being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and protecting our borders while still ensuring that the vulnerable, and victims of organised crime, are offered the protection that they deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.