Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Matt Vickers and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Lots of processes are in place, but we are putting down a principle. It is the same as the skilled worker visa threshold of £38,700. We have to set a line that requires people to be self-sufficient and not a drain on resources. This is the line that we are setting.

There are also Hongkongers. By 2025, nearly 180,000 British national overseas visa holders had escaped Beijing’s iron grip—huge British talent. More than 20,000 Afghans have been resettled since the Kabul airlift. Those were the right things to do, and we would exempt them from this proposal. These are not random arrivals; they are people we invited, whose stories of sacrifice and loyalty resonate with the values that we hold dear, from duty to decency. We would not renege on those commitments and tarnish the trust that we have built.

Let us cast our eyes across the globe, because other nations are not just theorising about this; they are proving that it works, day in, day out, with systems that do not just talk a good game but deliver tangible, measurable results that we would be foolish to overlook. Take Australia, a land of vast horizons and sharper borders, whose points-based residency system does not mess around. If someone is pulling in less than 53,900 Australian dollars—£28,000—and they are dipping into welfare, Australia will show them the door, an approach that is saving taxpayers billions.

These are not quirky outliers or flukes; they are lessons carved in policy stone and shining examples that tying status to contribution is not some pie-in-the-sky dream but a practical, proven playbook that delivers real savings and sharper borders, and stands up to scrutiny. New clause 32 lifts straight from that script, making £38,700 the line in the sand, with no benefits to lean on and no criminal record to tarnish the deal. It is not radical; it is road-tested, and echoes what works elsewhere on the globe.

Critics might cry, “Unworkable!” but the conditions in new clause 32 are trackable. HMRC already logs income for tax. The Home Office flags criminals under the UK Borders Act 2007, and the Department for Work and Pensions tracks benefits down to the penny. We are not reinventing the wheel—just syncing data to enforce the rules, with £38,700 as a clear line, 10 years as a fair test, and exemptions for the Ukraine, Afghan and British national overseas schemes, showing that we can tailor it.

This is a framework that says, “If you’re here for the long haul, you’ve got to bring something to the table, not just pull up a seat.” Australia and Canada have shown us the path with lower costs and tighter controls; we would be stupid not to take it. I would like to know why the Government would disagree with the principles behind the new clause. Why do the Government want foreign criminals to remain in the UK with indefinite leave to remain? If the Government believe in the £38,700 amount for skilled workers to obtain a visa, why would that not apply to people remaining in the UK indefinitely?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I was not going to speak to the new clause; I was just going to let the hon. Gentleman drone on, in the hope that we could possibly get away on Thursday morning, but I have been irked to my feet. I am not sure whether I prefer the new loquacious hon. Member for Stockton West. I do not know what he has done about his speechwriting, but I preferred the version that we had last week. That was probably more in keeping with the Conservatives’ contributions to this Committee.

This is a horrible new clause, which penalises lower-income workers, deters skilled immigration and harms vulnerable groups. The retrospective nature of some of the provisions is simply absurd, and would lead only to legal challenges and all sorts of administrative complications. The new clause would introduce retrospective punishments, taking ILR away from individuals who had received it under the previous rules simply because a future Government—thank goodness this will never be so—had later decided to raise the bar. People make long-term decisions to buy homes, raise families and contribute to communities based on the stability of ILR. Changing the rules after the fact destroys trust in the whole system.

The proposal sets an arbitrary income threshold of £38,700, meaning that a nurse, teacher or social worker—people the UK depends on—could lose their ILR. Many industries, including healthcare, hospitality and retail have workers earning below that level. Are we really saying that under no circumstances would they be welcome? The proposal also ignores economic realities. People face job losses, illness or temporary hardships. Should losing a job also mean losing the right to live in the UK?

New clause 32 states that ILR should be revoked if a person has received any sort of “social protection”, including housing support. This would punish people who have worked hard and contributed but who need temporary support due to circumstances often beyond their control. It targets families, disabled people and those facing financial hardship, effectively saying, “If you need help, you don’t belong here.” Skilled workers, investors and entrepreneurs want certainty. If they fear that a downturn in income or a short period of hardship could see them lose their right to remain, they will choose other countries over the UK.

As we have also heard, how can this be enforced? Constantly monitoring ILR-holders’ income, benefits and job status would be an administrative disaster; it would be costly, error prone and unfairly target individuals. This new clause is simply cruel. It is unnecessary and unworkable, and I hope that it is rejected out of hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We allow our domestic courts to use it. We have created the framework and put it in place, and they do what they can with what is in front of them. I am concerned about the way in which it is applied, and we need to change that if we want to impact the outcomes of those cases and appeals.

Last year alone, we saw far too many appeals built on article 8, the right to a family life, flooding courts with ridiculously broad pleas. This Parliament is elected to decide the laws of the land. Judges are there to uphold that law, yet they have morphed into border gatekeepers, perched on high and second-guessing Home Office decisions with interpretations so elastic they would snap any thread of reason, and family life ballooning to mean whatever they fancy on any given day. The new clause yanks that power back to where it belongs: with MPs, who are answerable to the people who elect them.

New clause 33 is not just a legal tweak; it is a turbocharge for a deportation system bogged down by endless appeals, with removals stalled by Human Rights Act challenges. Each case drags on, costing tens of thousands of pounds per detainee in legal fees and housing, and clogging up detention centres that are already at capacity. Disapplying the Human Rights Act for immigration would fix the logjam, letting Ministers and officials act fast, deporting those our domestic legislation was created to deport and freeing up resources for border patrols and visa processing, which actually keep us secure.

New clause 33 would restore public safety—a lifeline for a priority that has been fraying at the edges and unravelling thread by thread, as dangerous individuals exploit Human Rights Act loopholes to cling to our soil like barnacles on a ship. In 2024 alone, thousands of foreign national offenders—thieves, drug peddlers and worse—languished in UK prisons, costing taxpayers millions to house. Nowhere near enough were bundled on to planes and removed, leaving thousands to stroll out post their sentence, free to roam our streets, because of Human Rights Act claims tying our hands and deviating from Parliament’s intended outcomes.

New clause 33 would cut through that mess. It would mean swift, no-nonsense removal of those who have shattered our laws—not endless hand-wringing debates over some nebulous right to stay that keeps them loitering in our towns. Public opinion, or the view of British law-abiding taxpayers, is clear—nearly three quarters call for foreign criminals to be removed—yet here we are. The current set-up lets threats fester when they should be gone. As the months go by, more of these bizarre judgments emerge, undermining public confidence in the entire system and our legal institutions.

Let us take a tour beyond our shores, because other nations are not fumbling in the dark; they are lighting the way, showing us that this is not some wild, radical leap but a steady, proven path that we would be daft not to tread. For starters, France increased its deportations by 27%, and is also seen to be deftly side-stepping ECHR interim measures, with domestic law overrides. Twenty-seven per cent. sent home—no faffing about with Strasbourg rule 39 edicts; just a clear-eyed focus on keeping France’s borders taut and its streets secure.

Then there is Australia, where the Migration Act does not blink. Rights claims bow to border control, and many are whisked out yearly with minimal fuss. The law, created by those elected to do so, determines who stays and who goes. These are not rogue states; they are democracies—proud and pragmatic, balancing security with sovereignty. New clause 33 strides right into that company. Parliament would lay down the law, not Strasbourg’s fleeting winds, echoing what has clicked abroad, from Paris to Perth.

I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this proposal—in particular, whether she thinks that some of the recent examples of failed deportations are acceptable. We are apparently very familiar with chicken nugget-gate. If she agrees that some of these outcomes are unacceptable but does not feel that this approach is the way forwards, how will the Government end these cases, which are making a mockery of our justice system and undermining public confidence in our legal institutions?

[Pete Wishart]

I am compelled again to rise in opposition to what is probably the most egregious of all the new clauses that we are having to consider in today’s marshalled groups. The hon. Gentleman has laid some competition before us, but this new clause is by far the most disgraceful and appalling. The Human Rights Act is an important guarantee. It is what makes us good world citizens and provides rights that are universal. It protects fundamental freedoms such as the right to life, the prohibition on torture and the right to a fair trial—and the Tories do not like it one bit. The right-wing nonsense that we heard from the hon. Gentleman is a fundamental departure from the principle that human rights apply universally, not just to those the Government deem worthy. It is a dangerous precedent that undermines the UK’s long-standing commitment to justice, fairness and the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is vital to giving immigration enforcement the powers it needs to smash the gangs and tackle any criminality surrounding those who arrive here illegally. It would give immigration enforcement access to asylum accommodation centres. Currently, there are limitations around the detention of those arriving illegally on small boats. These limitations arise from a lack of statutory power, as well as a lack of state capacity to detain those arriving illegally.

In government, the Conservative Administration set up accommodation centres, which provided a plausible alternative to hotels. Because the centres were not used to make immigration decisions, in practice immigration enforcement officers did not find it possible to enter them for the purposes of examining, arresting and detaining persons residing therein for the purposes of refusal and removal.

Tony Smith, the former director general of UK Border Force, has powerfully argued that immigration enforcement teams must have clear authority to enter all places where asylum seekers are residing to examine, interview, arrest or detain them as appropriate. The Opposition agree wholeheartedly, for these would be proportionate powers for the state to use to enforce the law. Currently, centres housing thousands of small boat arrivals are not detention hubs. Instead, they are in effect halfway houses between the point of processing and where decisions can be made. Consequently, there is a substantial asylum backlog, which has created bottlenecks in the system. This is simply inadequate for everyone involved. It cannot continue, and it must stop.

The new clause therefore tries to end this predicament and failure in the system. Enforcement cannot be allowed to be bereft of action, unable to chase absconders who vanish into the ether without a trace. We need to empower officers to go into these sites to interview, arrest and detain where appropriate. That would allow faster decisions, faster refusals and quicker removals. The clause would not only mean a more efficient system that saves hardworking taxpayers’ money, but help decimate the business model of the people-smuggling trade. In just the last two years, traffickers have accumulated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds in profit. We all know the tragic consequences of people who have made this life-threatening journey.

We must, at all costs, undermine the business model of the people smugglers. That is the truly compassionate thing to do, so I am proud to support clause 36 because it eliminates gaps in our asylum enforcement system, ends centres being off limits and hence makes it much more difficult for people to get lost in the system. So we have to act, and act now. As such, clause 36 appears to be common sense, allowing our enforcement agencies the access that the average person would probably assume they already have. Does the Minister think an amendment or power such as this would be of operational benefit to immigration enforcement, and if not, why not?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not want to detain the Committee for long with this amendment, but this is just another abhorrent amendment from the warped imagination of the Conservative party. I do not know where they come up with things like this. They would have to be very creative and very cruel to propose something quite like this. The amendment would allow immigration enforcement officers to visit accommodation centres at any time without prior notice. Asylum seekers and other residents at these centres are often fleeing persecution, war and violence and will have suffered severe trauma. The constant threat of unannounced visits from immigration enforcement will create an atmosphere of fear, making it even more difficult for individuals to feel safe.

Allowing immigration enforcement to visit any resident at any time is a clear violation of privacy. It undermines their dignity and wellbeing and could lead to harassment or increased surveillance, further marginalising already vulnerable populations. Vulnerable individuals should not be made to feel constantly watched or threatened by authorities, especially when they are seeking safety and stability. The presence of immigration enforcement officers may discourage asylum seekers and migrants from seeking support or reporting issues of abuse, exploitation or trafficking. All this could do is undermine the very support structures designed to help individuals rebuild their lives in the UK.

The amendment lacks any clear safeguards or accountability mechanisms for how immigration enforcement would operate, and I urge the Committee to reject it. I hope it rejects the rest of the Conservative party’s amendments, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require the revocation of asylum or refugee status, or leave to remain, in relation to an applicant who returns to their country of origin, either subsequently or while their application is being processed. It would also apply to people who make an immigration human rights claim.

If an individual has made a claim that being made to return to their country of origin would violate their human rights and put them in danger, then their choosing voluntarily to return to their home country would suggest that something does not add up. Fundamentally, no reasonable person would consider an individual’s returning to their home country to be compatible with their claim for asylum in such circumstances. If a person needs to remain in this country because they have a legitimate fear of persecution in their country of origin, a return to that country of origin fundamentally undercuts that claim.

[Pete Wishart]

I have studied this measure closely. Conditions change within the countries that people leave, and asylum status and human rights records change accordingly. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that there is no reason whatsoever that an asylum seeker may go back to their country of origin and then come back to the UK? What about family emergencies? Surely the Conservatives are not so callous as to suggest that people cannot go back to their country of origin for a family funeral, for example.

[Matt Vickers]

People arrive in this country out of fear of persecution. People come from the most awful, extreme circumstances. That is the bar that we put to asylum. We allow people to come here to claim asylum out of fear for their welfare, and if they are happy to pack their bags and pop back for a break, then that is on them. I believe, and I think the public would believe, that if someone comes here claiming fear of persecution in their country of origin then they should not be going back. It is not an opt-in or opt-out—it is not a holiday. If they are coming here out of fear of persecution in that country then they should not be going back.

We have tabled new clause 41 in order to address a loophole that people can and do exploit. The new clause would uphold British fairness—a value that welcomes those in need but rejects exploitation. As Members from across the House know, the United Kingdom has supported over 20,000 Afghans since 2021 through the Afghan relocations policy and over 200,000 Ukrainians since 2022 via visa schemes, alongside our Hong Kong friends with British national overseas visas, backed further by £4.7 billion in asylum costs in 2023-24. These commitments reflect our readiness to help those with genuine cases—those fleeing real danger who have ties to Britain. The value of fairness demands a fair system that is not abused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

People who claim asylum arrive here from some of the most terrible, awful circumstances—their life is threatened and they are at real risk. If someone is at that level of risk, on the balance of probabilities, they would not be going back. If someone fears persecution in the way that many of the people who get asylum in this country do, then they would not be returning.

[Pete Wishart]

We really cannot let them away with this, because it is just cruelty personified. Would the hon. Gentleman not make every effort and take every risk to return to his country of origin if it were the funeral of his mother or father?

[Matt Vickers]

I hear what hon. Members are saying, but in the current system we allow people to pop back on holiday. Is that acceptable?

[Pete Wishart]

It is not a holiday; it is a funeral.

[Matt Vickers]

I am talking about those circumstances. We have heard one extreme; at the other extreme, we have people claiming asylum at huge cost. That is not a cost to well-heeled people, in particular, but to British taxpayers, some of whom are struggling to get by, but are contributing to this country and this system, which pays out for various other things. We want to be generous. We want to support the people who need that help. It is the right thing to do and, I have just outlined, we have done that. But we cannot allow that generosity to be abused; we cannot allow people to pop off on holiday back to wherever they came from and then come back. That is the principle that is at stake here. People out there feel that it is very unfair that people pop back, and use asylum here as something hotel-like. That is the other extreme. That is the abuse that we are seeing, and that is what the new clause aims to end.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Matt Vickers and Pete Wishart

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman has got me. I was hoping he was going to spout some more of the common sense that I have contributed to Hansard.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

He doesn’t know!

[Matt Vickers]

We have said 10 years. That is a principle actually—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

The details and the need for people to engage with the authorities are already in place. This new clause is literally about saying “10 years” instead of “five years”. No part of it amends existing provisions regarding migrants’ responsibility to account for themselves during that period. There is no suggestion of any change to that; it is beyond what we are amending through the new clause. If we wanted to change that, there would certainly be a debate to be had, and there would probably be opportunities to bring forward amendments, but that is not what we are proposing here. We are proposing to increase the period from five to 10 years.

Our country is our home; it is not a hotel. We can guess what the Government’s response to this will be—more deflection and criticism—but they must remember that they are in government now and have a duty to protect the British taxpayer from unnecessary costs. If they do not act, every UK household is forecast to pay £8,200 as a result of between 742,000 and 1,224,000 migrants getting indefinite leave to remain in the next couple of years. The Government must act to ensure that everyone who stays in the country is a net contributor.

It may interest the Government to know that changes to indefinite leave to remain have happened before—and can and should happen again now. In 2006, under the then Labour Government, the Home Secretary extended the time required to obtain indefinite leave to remain from four years to five years, an extension that applied retroactively to those already actively pursuing indefinite leave to remain. It is hoped that this Government will make a similarly bold move and support new clause 25.

Before the accusations start to be thrown around, let me make it crystal clear that new clause 25 is not some cold-hearted exercise in exclusion; it is a robust, principled stand for expectations—a line in the sand that says that if someone wants to live here, stay here, and call Britain their home, that comes with a reasonable cost. That cost is not measured just in pounds and pence, but in commitment, in responsibility, and in proving that they are here to lift us up, not weigh us down.

A recent study undertaken by the Adam Smith Institute found that, according to figures produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the average low-wage migrant worker will cost the British taxpayer £465,000 by the time they reach 81 years of age. It is clear that opening the ILR door to millions of new migrants will impose a considerable and unwanted financial burden on the British taxpayer for decades to come.

The OBR report explores the opportunity to reform indefinite leave to remain rules, which new clause 25 seeks to do, to help mitigate the long-term fiscal burden of low-skilled migrants, who are unlikely to be net contributors to the public purse. A refusal to back new clause 25 is not just inaction, but a choice to prioritise the untested over taxpayers—to keep the welcome mat out while the costs pile up. The Opposition say no, this is our home, and we expect those arriving to treat it as such.

[Pete Wishart]

It is a pleasure to once again to serve under you as Chair, Dr Murrison. When I look at the Tory amendments in their totality, they are quite frankly an absolute and utter disgrace. It is as if the Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the Rwanda debacle and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Some of the amendments that we will be debating are simply heinous, lacking in any reasonable standard of compassion and empathy. What a country they would create: one devoid of human rights and international protections, where people are simply othered and deprived of any rights whatsoever. Some of the most desperate and wretched people in the world would be denied and booted out.

I used to say that the Tories would never beat Reform in the race to the bottom, but looking at the collection of amendments that we are debating today, they are going to give it their best shot. It is just possible that they will out-Reform Reform colleagues in the House of Commons. The amendments are not only terrifying but ludicrously unworkable—blatant political grandstanding, designed to appeal to the basest of instincts. We have the grim task of having to debate them one by one; I just hope that the Committee will reject them totally out of hand.

New clause 25 was raised in a blaze of publicity at the end of the self-denying ordinance from the Leader of the Opposition when she announced her new immigration policy, which I understand has been changed and finessed over the course of the past few weeks, but is still as grotesque underneath as it started. The Conservatives do not believe that British citizenship should be a privilege; they believe that British citizenship should be virtually unobtainable, and that the strongest possible tests must be applied before anybody is ever going to get the opportunity to call themselves a British citizen. That is totally and utterly self-defeating.

The provision will apply to work-based visa holders, skilled workers and global talent, who can currently apply for ILR after five years. Extending that period to 10 years could deter highly-skilled workers and investors from coming to stay in the UK. It may lead to workforce instability, particularly in sectors reliant on international talent. It would also disadvantage certain migrants and people who have lived legally in the UK for 10 years but do not hold one of the listed visas. This is an unworkable, crazy proposal that can only be self-defeating and have a massive impact on our economy. It would create a massive disincentive to the very people we need to come into the UK to fill some of our skills gaps. I hope the provision is roundly rejected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I hope the Minister agrees that we should be doing more, rather than less. We need to give agencies all the opportunities and powers to do so, with or without the consent of people who aim to deceive. That is the right thing to do.

If we rewind to 2022, 490 disputes in quarter 1 ballooned to 1,782 by quarter 4. Now we are at 2,088 and counting. This is not a fading headache; it is an escalating emergency. It is a conveyor belt of fraud clogging our borders and spilling into our schools. Failure to conduct these vital checks would mean that we are not just blind, but complicit in handing traffickers a playbook that says, “Send adults, call them kids and watch us flounder.” The public sees it and parents feel it, and every day we delay, the risk festers. We need science, not sentiment, and we need it now.

[Pete Wishart]

I rise to speak to new clause 43 on age determination by the Home Office. The one thing we can agree on with the Conservative Front Benchers is that my new clause could not be more different in objective and tone than what we have heard from the shadow Minister. My new clause aims to uphold a simple yet vital principle that no child should be wrongly treated as an adult, subjected to detention or placed in inappropriate accommodation, as happens right now. The new clause would ensure that the Home Office treats as an adult an individual who claims to be a child only in exceptional circumstances or following a Merton-compliant age assessment conducted by local authority social workers. Furthermore, any decision to treat a young person as an adult would have to be made by an appropriately trained official, with reasons recorded and subject to independent oversight. Where such a decision results in the person being placed in adult accommodation or detention, the relevant local authority would have to be notified immediately.

Labour Members are right to have a go at the shadow Minister, but it is imperative that we get this right. This is life-determining and life-shaping for the individuals at the sharp end of these age assessments. The consequences of flawed age assessments at our borders are severe.

Recent data reveals that between January and June 2024 alone, at least 262 children were wrongly assessed as adults and placed in adult accommodation or detention, exposing them to significant safeguarding risks including exploitation, violence and even criminal prosecution. It is worth noting that in many cases, those children endure months of uncertainty before being correctly identified and moved into appropriate care settings. Such errors not only violate child protection principles but undermine the credibility of our asylum system.

The current process of visual assessment, often conducted at the border by immigration officers, is wholly inadequate. Assessments based solely on appearance and demeanour are inherently flawed and have led to serious misjudgments. International and domestic guidance is clear that age assessments should be undertaken only when necessary and should be conducted using holistic, multidisciplinary approaches, yet that is far from the reality.

Concerns about visual assessments have been raised not just by non-governmental organisations, but by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, the Children’s Commissioner, parliamentary Committees and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In response to those great concerns, the Government have argued that they are improving the age assessment process through the national age assessment board, and by introducing scientific methods of assessing age—we are back to that debate again. It is important to note that neither of those initiatives has any impact on visual assessments made by officials at the border. Biological methods such as dental X-rays and bone age assessment remain highly unreliable, as medical and scientific bodies repeatedly state. I listened to the hon. Member for Stockton West make great play of saying that that is what all of Europe does, but there are countless cases that the EU and other European nations have got wrong. I can send them to him; he can spend most of the day looking at them. They get cases wrong, just as we do with visual assessments.

It is right that in this Bill the Government seek to repeal clause 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which would have meant that children who refuse to undergo these invasive and questionable procedures are presumed to be adults by default—an approach that runs contrary to any safeguarding principles. The previous Government attempted to justify that policy by highlighting the risk of adults falsely claiming to be children to access benefits and services designed for minors. However, the reality is that the greater danger lies in the wrongful treatment of children as adults, which places them in unsafe environments, denies them their rights and can have devastating long-term consequences. The number of children found to have been misclassified as adults outweighs the number of cases where an adult has falsely claimed to be a child, so we have the balance totally wrong.

Crucially, there are greater risks and consequences to placing a child among adults, where there are no safeguards in place, than to placing a young adult in local authority care. It is essential that we restore local authority-led age assessments as a primary mechanism for resolving age disputes. As child protection professionals, local authority social workers are best placed to conduct those assessments in a manner that is thorough, fair and in the child’s best interests. The new clause would ensure that young people who assert that they are children are treated as such unless and until a proper assessment proves otherwise. It also guarantees transparency, independent oversight and accountability in decision making, thereby restoring trust in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

People who arrive here deceptively claiming to be children cannot be allowed to succeed. We should make use of the best scientific age assessment methods available to us, with or without consent. Those will not be used in isolation, but alongside all the other possible assessment methods available to us. We can debate the science all day. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to define those methods within six months through a statutory instrument, using expert advice to do so. One deceptive adult migrant in a classroom or care setting alongside children or vulnerable youngsters is one too many. Giving our agencies the ability to use the best scientific methods available to them to assess age without consent can further their ability to protect children. I would therefore like to press new clause 26 to a Division.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response to my new clause 43, but a lot of what she claims is in it is not actually there—I hope she accepts that. Those of us who visit asylum seekers in our constituencies will recognise that the determination is probably the most contentious issue that asylum seekers bring to us; it is the thing that perplexes and concerns them the most. They are very sensitive to it being done wrong, and it gets done wrong in both directions, as the Minister said.

The number of children found to have been misclassified as adults outweighs quite significantly the number of cases where an asylum seeker has falsely claimed to be a child. Everybody is right that there is no scientific or other method to determine age that is 100% effective—visual assessments certainly are not. Surely, however, the people who are best qualified to make these assessments are people who work with children—whose main business is to make these sorts of judgments about children. That is why we have asked for Merton-compliant age assessments, so that an holistic view is taken of the individual and they are assessed properly by social workers trained to work with children. Surely that is the most effective means to determine these things.

I am not saying that we should not use other things, but where the issue is in dispute—perhaps I should have included that in my new clause; clearly, the people sitting in this Committee could not be classified as children—we must get it right. That is so important as we go forward. It is life-changing, dangerous and damaging to be misclassified. As I said in my initial contribution, this is not an immigration issue, but a safeguarding issue. We must get it right. That is why I will press my new clause to a vote as well.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Matt Vickers and Pete Wishart

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Pete Wishart]

I trust everybody enjoyed the five-course banquet we had in the 20 minutes available to us. I apologise if I seemed to be unnecessarily detaining the Committee and depriving them of a good and solid lunch; we will make sure that that does not happen again, Dame Siobhain.

It was with a gasp of astonishment that we learned of this Government’s intention to change the nationality good character requirement guidance—it came totally out of the blue. I think we are all still reeling a little bit, thinking about what this involves and what is at stake. It establishes a new standard that individuals who previously entered the UK illegally or without valid entry clearance, particularly in what is described as a “dangerous journey”, will now be refused citizenship. That is a huge departure from previous practice, where illegal entry was typically considered a barrier to citizenship only if it had occurred in the past 10 years. Regardless of how long a person has lived in the UK, their mode of entry could now be used to deny them the right to naturalise.

This policy has been implemented without prior consultation or parliamentary scrutiny—it is going to get a little bit this afternoon, but that is only because we have brought the issue to this Committee—and that raises serious concerns about its fairness and legality. The majority of refugees arrive in the UK through irregular routes; safe and legal pathways remain extremely limited, as we learned in the previous debate. By effectively banning these individuals from citizenship, this policy risks permanently disenfranchising those who have sought protection in the UK and who have built their lives here.

We already heard from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which wrote to the Committee to say that the decision to deny citizenship based on mode of entry contradicts the UK’s commitment under international law, particularly article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention. This article’s non-penalisation clause states:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

The denial of citizenship based on how someone arrived in the UK is a clear penalty, which goes contrary to the convention. The UNHCR notes that it previously highlighted in its legal observation on the Illegal Migration Bill 2023 that restricting access to citizenship under section 31 to 35 of that Act would constitute a

“penalty under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention and be in breach of that provision. It further stated that the provisions ran counter to Article 34 of the Refugee Convention and Article 32 of the 1954 Convention on Statelessness which requires States to ‘as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of’ refugees and stateless people”.

Despite the proposed repeal of these provisions, updates to the nationality good character requirement guidance issued in February 2025 appear to reintroduce similar barriers, further restricting pathways to citizenship for those affected. In addition, the policy change is likely to deter many from applying for citizenship altogether, given the high costs involved and the lack of an appeal process in case of refusal. Even if the guidance states that an exception may be made, which I am pretty certain is what the Minister will tell me, those who would be likely to obtain citizenship due to their personal circumstances will be deterred from applying.

Currently, a naturalisation application costs £1,605, with an expected increase of £1,685. That financial burden, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the application process, creates significant barriers for refugees and stateless persons who would otherwise seek to integrate fully into British society.

The application of the policy will go beyond individual applicants. Citizenship is a key factor in social integration, providing security, stability and full participation in civic life, including the right to vote in general elections. Without access to naturalisation, many individuals who have lived and worked in, and contributed to, the UK for years—if not decades—will remain in a precarious status. Although the Home Office guidance allows for some discretion in decision making, it provides no real criteria on how that discretion will be applied. The lack of transparency makes the process unpredictable and risks creating a system where citizenship decisions are inconsistent or arbitrary.

The changes also highlight the broader issue of immigration law being shaped through administrative guidance rather than through democratic scrutiny, which is our role as parliamentarians in this House. By changing the interpretation of the statutory good character requirement without parliamentary oversight, the Home Office has effectively reinstated elements of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that were meant to be scrapped through this Bill. The lack of accountability is deeply concerning.

Granting citizenship is a key step in ending an individual’s status as a refugee or stateless person. It also benefits the host country by fostering economic, social and cultural integration while promoting social cohesion. Restricting access to citizenship undermines those objectives, and that is why I tabled this new clause.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to change current Home Office guidance stating that people who entered the UK illegally, regardless of how long ago, will normally be refused citizenship. The new clause states that illegal entry—in other words, breaking into this country—should be disregarded as a factor for the purposes of assessing whether a person applying for British citizenship meets the good character requirement. Effectively, both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP want to ensure that entering this country illegally is not a bar to gaining citizenship.

British citizenship is a huge honour and privilege, and the benefits that come with it have attached costs. Can hon. Members see what a pull factor this measure would create for making dangerous channel crossings in small boats? There is nothing compassionate about allowing small boat crossings to continue, and this new clause would do nothing but encourage more. The Labour Government are already repealing provisions in our Illegal Migration Act that prevented illegal migrants from getting citizenship. It seems that the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government are all in agreement that illegal migrants should get British citizenship. Do the SNP and the Liberal Democrats agree with the Prime Minister that British citizenship is not a pull factor for illegal immigrants?

If people believe that crossing in a small boat will ensure that they can not only stay, but stay for evermore with all the attached benefits of British citizenship, they will continue to come in ever-increasing numbers. Even the Government’s own Border Security Commander has said that we cannot smash the gangs without a deterrent. British citizenship and all its associated benefits would provide an incentive for making that small boat crossing, inducing people to feed the model of the evil people-smuggling gangs. The Conservative party believes that British citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not a reward for illegally crossing the channel. We do not support the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Liberal Democrat new clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that incorporates the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings into UK law, and to report on compliance with the convention. New clause 19 would prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.

We have seen the abuse of human rights legislation by criminals who want to remain in the UK, such as an Albanian criminal who was allowed to stay in Britain partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets. The judge in the case allowed the father’s appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to family life under the European convention on human rights. Foreign criminals pose a danger to British citizens and must be removed, but so often that is frustrated by spurious legal claims. The human right of our own citizens to be protected from the criminals is routinely ignored. How do the Liberal Democrats plan to stop the abuse of the clauses by people who know that their asylum claim is likely to be rejected, for example?

[Pete Wishart]

I rise in support of the new clauses, particularly new clause 18. There have been a number of references to ECAT throughout our proceedings. New clause 18 would give clarity and ensure that we are properly engaged in all the provisions of ECAT. It is designed to ensure that those caught up in human trafficking are protected, and that Governments do everything they possibly can to ensure that people are cared for and looked after. I fully support this important new clause.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Matt Vickers and Pete Wishart

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Pete Wishart]

I will not push the amendment to a vote.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 52 details the financial provisions. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the regulations. Clause 55 extends the Act to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 56 details when the sections of the Act come into force. We welcome the clarity provided by the Minister on collaboration. We will not oppose these measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 53 and 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

The new clause makes provision about the conditions that can be imposed on a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom or a grant of immigration bail. The new conditions focus primarily on electronic monitoring, and we are supportive of those. However, given that the Government are repealing the provision passed by the last Conservative Government to mandate scientific age assessment, I am interested to know how they intend to ensure that the requirement that an electronic monitoring condition

“may not be imposed on a person unless the person is at least 18 years old”

can be delivered. As the Minister may have noticed, I am deeply concerned about the repealing of mandatory scientific age assessment provisions, and this is another reason why. Can she give us any timetable for when the Government might return to the issue?

[Pete Wishart]

I am a little disconcerted by this new clause. It is disappointing that it was introduced so late in proceedings; it should have been included in the Bill as presented on First Reading. Regardless of that, the new clause seems to fit a trend that I have detected with this Bill: there seems to be a cavalier attitude, approach and relationship with international obligations and some of our human rights commitments. Whereas I think everybody would accept that we want to target high-risk criminals and offenders, and the Government require the necessary powers to do that, they do admit that there are issues to do with the ECHR. I want to hear the Minister explain clearly what she means by high harm and risk. I think she has to give the Committee examples of the type of person who would fall foul of the new clause.

Human rights protections are in place for really good reasons. They have been designed and concocted to ensure that people get the protections regardless of what they may have committed in the past. We muck about with them at our peril. All that this cavalier approach to human rights will do is encourage those who want to get rid of our international obligations and our human rights entirely. I am looking at my Conservative friends; this does nothing other than encourage them and push this Government to go further.

We need to hear from the Government what they actually mean by the new clause. Given this watering-down of our commitments, we need to hear a real commitment from the Government that they stand by our international obligations and everything that is included in human rights for everybody we have a responsibility and obligation for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I have been impressed by his contributions thus far in public, but it is utterly absurd and ridiculous to suggest that offering safe routes is somehow on a par with the Rwanda scheme. It disrespects the hon. Gentleman’s case to suggest there is any similarity about this. We are trying to ensure that the business model of the gangs will be smashed and tackled.

[Matt Vickers]

Who and where does the hon. Gentleman see the scheme applying to? It is very easy to go along with the case for compassion, but who and where? The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot give an indication of numbers or costs, but who are the priorities, and who exactly will benefit from such a scheme?

[Pete Wishart]

If we look at the international situation, we know the hotspots and the areas and issues that have difficulty, because there are people queuing up in France to come to the United Kingdom. Safe routes should not be the only solution; they are part of a solution. We also have to look at what we are doing on the ground in these countries about particular difficulties and issues. We seem to be making the situation 10 times worse by withdrawing international aid from a number of these countries, which will only put more pressure on these areas. The scheme is part of a package. It looks at the criminalisation clauses and uses safe routes as a means to assist that process, getting involved in countries where there are difficulties and issues and trying to help resolve the tensions and difficulties there. For every single organisation that works with refugees and asylum seekers and is concerned about their care, this is their main ask. We should listen to them.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Matt Vickers and Pete Wishart

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

There is a lot to do in the way of commencement; the Bill is there and could be commenced at any time, if the Government felt it was of help. In fact, in a few years’ time, when they come back to the drawing board to try to find a deterrent, they might well want to do that.

Sections 31 and 32 of the Illegal Migration Act prevented people who have entered the country illegally from obtaining British citizenship. The Labour Government are repealing this provision. Their position is hardly surprising when the Prime Minister does not think that British citizenship is a pull factor, but that does not mean it is the right thing to do. Why are the Government repealing this clause, allowing illegal migrants to get British citizenship?

Do the Government not believe that British citizenship is a privilege rather than a right, especially for those who have entered the country illegally? If so, why have the Government not included measures to stop illegal migrants obtaining British citizenship, and instead only issued guidance stating that

“applications made after 10 February 2025 that include illegal entry will ‘normally’ be refused citizenship, regardless of when the illegal entry occurred.”?

Section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act states:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations about the effect of a decision by a relevant person (“P”) not to consent to the use of a specified scientific method for the purposes of an age assessment…where there are no reasonable grounds for P’s decision.”

This means that, if a migrant refused to undergo an age assessment, they would be considered an adult. Labour have removed age assessments for illegal migrants who claim to be under 18, resulting in the risk that grown men may end up in schools with teenage girls. In fact, the most recent data on age disputes shows that more than 50% of migrants claiming to be under 18 were actually adults. How do the Government therefore intend to ensure that migrants claiming to be under 18 actually undergo age assessments, and why is that not included in the Bill?

The SNP’s new clause 2 would repeal the Illegal Migration Act entirely, so the SNP must be agreeing with the Labour Government that illegal migrants should be able to get British citizenship and should not have to undergo age assessments. Therefore, I ask the same questions: does the SNP not believe that British citizenship is a privilege rather than a right, especially for those who have entered the country illegally? How would the SNP ensure that migrants claiming to be under 18 actually undergo age assessments, and why is that not included in new clause 2?

By repealing the Illegal Migration Act in its entirety, the SNP want to stop the seizure of mobile phones from illegal migrants, something that helps to establish identities and obtain evidence of immigration offences. As Tony Smith said:

“Passport data, identity data, age data and travel history data are often held on those phones—all data that would be useful when considering an asylum application.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 40, Q43.]

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 9 would have repealed section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, which requires the Secretary of State to remove people who have sought to use modern slavery protections in bad faith. Do the Liberal Democrats think that people using modern slavery protections fraudulently should be allowed to stay in the UK? If so, do they believe that people who make fraudulent immigration claims should be allowed to stay in the UK? We believe that the effect of repealing the majority of the IMA and the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda Act will be an increase in the number of people arriving in this country illegally and remaining.

I have therefore asked the Government whether they would be prepared to be transparent about the numbers. If they are convinced that the approach set out in the Bill will be successful, let us measure it. Will the Minister commit to publishing all the numbers, and the nationalities, of all those who might have been excluded from the UK asylum system on grounds of connection with a safe third country or a late claim, but have not been—with reasons why not—and to setting out the obstacles to returning them to their country of origin and what steps are being taken through international agreements to overcome that, as recommended by Tony Smith in evidence to this Committee? We will oppose the inclusion of this clause in the Bill by way of a Division.

[Pete Wishart]

I must say to the hon. Member for Stockton West that he really does not want to know my views on British citizenship, because they are likely to blow his head—but we will leave that one at that.

It is disappointing to note the absence of our Liberal colleagues. Back in the day—the good old days, Mr Stuart —when we had an effective, efficient, diligent and conscientious third party, there would always be someone present to ensure that the views of the third party were represented. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats have good excuses, but I hope they start to take a bit of interest in this important Bill, because it has been disappointing thus far.

I say to the Minister, “‘Useful clauses?’ Come on!” We are talking about sections 29, 12, 59, 60 and 62, some of the nastiest and most pernicious parts and aspects of the Illegal Migration Act. I cannot believe that this Government want to continue that horrible and heinous Tory set of proposals and clauses in this Bill. This was their great opportunity to wipe the slate clean of the previous Government’s hopeless and useless crackpot Rwanda scheme and their heinous and horrible Illegal Migration Act.

I will give the Minister a few quotes from some of her colleagues, some of which I wish I had come up with myself. The now Prime Minister said at the time that the Illegal Migration Bill would drive “a coach and horses” through protections for women trafficked to the UK as victims of modern slavery. The now Home Secretary said that that IMA does the “total opposite” of providing support for those who have been trafficked, and that it was nothing other than “a traffickers’ charter”. There are other prize quotes from the Home Secretary and various Ministers within the Home Office—absolutely and totally correct, right and true—about the horrible Illegal Migration Act. Now we have a Labour Government inconceivably standing by large swathes of an Act that they so rightly and widely rubbished and wanted rid of only a short while ago.

It would be different if the Government were maintaining some benign, useful or helpful parts of that Tory Act, but they are maintaining some real, pernicious nasties. Provisions that were damaging, dangerous and contrary to human rights under the Tories are just as damaging, dangerous and contrary to human rights under this new Labour Government. I remind the Minister what the then Home Secretary said on that Bill when introducing it:

“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”

The previous Government could not care less about our obligations under international law or about human rights, and they were quite happy to set them aside. Now we have a Home Secretary who stands by certain provisions of that Act, with all its difficulties concerning its relationship with convention rights.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Matt Vickers and Pete Wishart

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

We support clauses 19 to 26, but only in so far as they endorse powers that we think already exist to seize, extract and retain data from mobile devices. Clause 19 provides definitions of key terms in sections 20 and 21 relating to the provisions of those clauses to allow authorised officers to search for, seize and retain relevant articles. The definition of a “relevant article” is

“any thing which appears to an authorised officer to be a thing on which information that relates, or may relate, to the commission of an offence under section 25 or 25A of the Immigration Act 1971 is, or may be, stored in electronic form.”

Will the Minister provide some concrete examples of what the Government think such information might consist of?

Clause 20 gives relevant officers—either an immigration officer or a police constable—powers to search a relevant person, which is someone who has entered the UK without leave or in breach of a deportation order. Will the Minister explain why subsection (2) does not allow for any more than one search after the person in question has arrived in the UK? The clause gives officers the power to search for “relevant articles”, which are described in clause 19 as

“any thing which appears to an authorised officer to be a thing on which information that relates, or may relate, to the commission (whether in the past or future) of an offence under section 25 or 25A of the Immigration Act 1971”.

That is quite a narrow definition, as it covers just electronic devices. Will the Minister reassure the Committee that the necessary powers to search for non-electronic items exist elsewhere? In practice, we suspect the power will be used to gather information and evidence to identify smugglers for prosecution. We fully support that, but most mobile devices are destroyed during or prior to travelling across the channel. Will the Minister therefore explain whether she expects any of the evidence gathered using the powers in these clauses to be used to support decision making on immigration enforcement?

If the devices are seized, as the former director general of Border Force pointed out in his evidence, they may contain useful information about nationality, identity, age and travel history, and may provide valuable evidence when assessing asylum claims. Will the Minister explain how effective the new powers will be in supporting evidence gathering to remove those with no right to be here? Will information gathered using these powers be available to asylum screening teams? Will that evidence be used in decision making for immigration appeals? These clauses do not have extraterritorial reach, so can the Minister explain to what extent the Government envisage these additional powers will make a meaningful difference to smashing the gangs, when many of the perpetrators are located outside the UK?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

These clauses create invasive new search, seizure and retention powers, along with the powers to access, copy and use information contained within an electronic device. The new powers can be applied to any person who arrives irregularly and has not yet been granted permission to enter or remain in the UK. They allow an immigration or police officer to fully search a person, including a search of that person’s mouth. I expect that the Minister will tell us exactly whether that particular qualification is required for these new powers.

This is not the plot and setting of some future dystopian film: it will be the UK sea border in the course of the next few months. These things will not be done to hardened criminals wandering the streets of the United Kingdom or those associated with violent crime. They are to be done to some of the most abandoned and traumatised people in the world. With these clauses we are starting, measuredly, to go into police state territory. They are essentially a hybrid form of stop-and-search powers, without the due qualifications and reassurances. I do not know if profiling will be a part of this—I will be interested in the Minister’s response—but it seems like only one profile will be included in all that, which is that of every asylum seeker. They may all be subject to these new powers.

For these powers to be exercised, there need only be reasonable grounds and suspicion that a relevant article appears to store some electronic information that relates or may relate to the future or past commission of a facilitation offence. That seems excessively broad. Practically any person who arrives irregularly to the UK may be subject to these powers. Any information received from these searches would be used for preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting facilitation offences. The property can be retained for as long as considered necessary to assess, examine or copy information for use in proceedings for an offence, before being returned or disposed of.

I trying to think why the Government want these clauses. I know they are going to tell us it is all about helping to disrupt organised crime and making sure they can find particular and specific information on electronic devices, but I think a lot of it has to do with the 2022 High Court ruling decreeing that the Home Office’s secret policy of blanket searching, seizing and returning mobile phones from individuals arriving by small boats was unlawful.

Just like the Tories before them, if any particular law that defends and protects people is seen or deemed to be a little bit unnecessary, the Government will just bring in a new one to override it completely, forgetting anything to do with the consequences and implications for people. These new offences clearly compromise a person’s right to a private and family life. Given the confidential, legally privileged, sensitive, private and personal nature of the messages, photographs, information, correspondence and data that may be on such mobile devices, we hold that that could only ever be the case. To be fair, the Government respect that and acknowledge it as fact, and the European convention on human rights memorandum suggests that the new powers could be distinguished and that phones will not be seized on a blanket basis when these powers come into force—well, thank goodness for that.

The memorandum says:

“The Home Office will issue non-statutory guidance about the use of the powers and training which will be required for authorised officers exercising those powers.”

We will have to see that happen pretty quickly, because we have no idea how any of these powers will be exercised. Again, I am entirely happy to take the Minister at her word on how the new law will be exercised as we go forward. However, there is no such guidance for parliamentary scrutiny during the passage of the Bill, so it remains entirely unclear how the Home Office proposes to use these wide and invasive new powers.

I am distinctly uncomfortable with the new powers, and I am disconcerted about how they may be applied and used. A number of agencies have serious misgivings about the type of individuals who will be subject to these new powers. The Minister has to explain just a little more how these powers will be used and what protections will be put in place, particularly for some of the most traumatised people whom we will be ever deal with in this country.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Matt Vickers and Pete Wishart

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Functions of the Commander

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(1A) In exercising the Commander’s functions, the Commander must have full regard to the provisions of—

(a) the Human Rights Act 1998; and

(b) the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.”

This amendment would confirm that the Commander must have full regard to the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Action against Trafficking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Police Scotland has a chief constable who is in charge, but in “Scot Squad”, Commissioner Miekelson is a chief commissioner. It is only right that we point out these distinctions; there is a significant difference between that mythical, fictional character and the reality of the role of chief constable, which is very efficiently and effectively looked after by the current inhabitant of that post.

I know you want me to get on to the particular amendment, Dr Murrison, so thank you for your forbearance and patience. My amendment confirms that the,

“Commander must have full regard to…the Human Rights Act 1998; and…the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking”.

The Minister is likely to tell me that none of that is necessary as human rights compliance is already implicit with Government operations. However, without these explicit legal mandates and safeguards, all of that can be overlooked. If the Minister is asking us to agree to 12 clauses at the outset of a Committee for an important Bill, relating to a job that is already being done, surely we can agree that one of these functions should be about the observance of our very important international obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings.

I do not think anybody is opposed to the border commander; I know there are a few jokes about his comparison to Chief Miekelson, but all of us agree that the Minister is establishing a necessary and useful role. I do not think, even though she was trying to chide her Conservative colleagues, that there was much disagreement from anybody on whether this is a useful role that could help bring together quite a lot of the structure and infrastructure that is responsible for operating our border security. There is a discussion about a lot of his tasks being administrative. There is nothing wrong with that, but for something as important as this, everybody would like to think that where there is administration, it will be effective and put in place in a way that we could look at it.

However, we need further clarity on the roles, functions and responsibilities of the border commander. Clause 3 is supposed to be the place where we find all of those things, but the one thing that the clause does not do is outline fully, perfectly, roundly and coherently what the actual functions of the border commander will be. Even if we look very carefully in all the different subsections, it does not say much about what he is expected to do. It lists a number of administrative responsibilities he will have, which is fair and fine, but all of us discussing the role of the border commander in the Committee would like to understand what he will be doing—what are his jobs, what are his functions, what responsibilities will he have, how will these things be discharged, and how will he be open to the type of scrutiny that we, as Members of this House, require?

There are provisions that seem to speak about the functions without actually identifying any of them. The only place where we can find objectives in clause 3 is subsection (1), but they are only objectives to which the commander must have regard. That is important. It just says he must “have regard” to the particular responsibilities that are outlined in the subsections. Subsections (7) to (9) are particularly interesting because they seem to suggest that people smuggling and human trafficking to the UK are to be regard as threats to border security. That seems fair enough; most of the Bill is about the perceived threat—disrupting networks and tackling the gangs that operate their vile trade across the channel.

Here is the thing: the people who board these boats are subject to the constraints imposed by these gangs and are at their mercy. They are controlled and reliant. Those people are totally and utterly ignored in the subsections in clause 3. Their realities—their need and right to seek safety, reunite with family and escape situations of extreme deprivation—are ignored, even though they have everything to do with the responsibilities and functions of the commander. As a matter of principle, then, it is vital that the Bill should be amended so that the Border Security Commander has regard to objectives concerned with respecting human life and dignity, and that must include specific shared obligations to provide asylum to people fleeing persecution and to enable victims of human trafficking to have security and safety from their enslavement.

There are concerns that, if border enforcement strategies do not include these protections for vulnerable individuals and victims of modern slavery, trafficking victims will enter further cycles of exploitation. In prioritising enforcement over protection, as the Bill does almost exclusively, we risk wrongfully criminalising victims of trafficking and failing to identify those in need of urgent intervention—or, worst of all, sending them back to their exploiters. If we stand by our commitments under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, the Bill should ensure that the commander respects those obligations too.

As we have discussed, the commander is a civil servant. I have taken no great view on that, and I listened carefully to the exchanges about the civil service role, but I have a couple of concerns in relation to my amendment 1 that I would like the Minister to address. The civil service code does not give a clear, enforceable duty to respect the UK’s obligations under international law. I am pretty certain that the Minister will tell me that there is a general obligation to comply with the law and our international obligations, as that is expected and anticipated in everything that the Government do through all their responsibilities and actions.

However, I refer the Minister to the recent case in the High Court. That was, of course, R (on the application of FDA) v. Minister for the Cabinet Office and others. I think the Government actually won that court case, which meant that any of the civil servants who were involved in compiling regulations had to abide by the legislative context but did not have to oblige and comply with the international obligations. At best, it is unclear, so I ask the Minister to clarify: will the Border Security Commander, who will be a civil servant, always be obliged—totally and utterly—to fully respect all our international obligations, particularly those around the HRA and the ECAT?

Without those specific obligations in the Bill, the Border Security Commander will be presumed always to prioritise enforcement over vital legal protection, potentially leading to human rights violations. Although the commander is required to comply with instructions set by the Home Secretary, which again I think everybody would accept is right and appropriate, they are not explicitly required to comply with the UK’s human rights obligations. For me, that is totally wrong, and it completely skews the whole modus operandi of our Border Security Commander and features of the Bill. I will come back to that as the Bill progresses.

We need to see this change to the Bill. We have 12 clauses and various subsections dedicated to the role and the functions of the commander. Let us have one—just one—that says that he must be prepared and obliged always to act in line with all of our obligations on international responsibility, being a good international actor, being a place that is recognised for exemplary human rights requirements and being signed up to the HRA and to ECAT. Let us put that in the Bill.

[Matt Vickers]

I have not come across Chief Commissioner Miekelson before, but I will endeavour to catch up on Netflix or iPlayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I will not detain the Committee for long. Amendment 2 covers the same sort of terrain as my amendment 1, which sought to ensure that the Border Security Commander takes cognisance of international obligations, most notably in relation to human rights and the provisions of the European convention on action against trafficking. Amendment 2 would require the commander, when making the annual report, to make reference to his compliance, in the work that he has done, with the Human Rights Act and with ECAT. That is all I am asking. There is no good reason why that cannot be included as part of the commander’s annual accounting to the House of Commons. That would give us an opportunity to understand how part of his work has been in ensuring that those obligations have been met, and I think it would be a worthy inclusion in his annual report. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 4 would give the Border Security Commander a duty to prepare annual reports, which must state how the commander has carried out their functions in that financial year and set out the commander’s view on the performance of the border security system that year, with particular reference to the commander’s strategic priorities. That all seems very vague, and a case of the Border Security Commander being allowed to mark their own homework.

Can the Minister explain what success would look like for the Border Security Commander? What are the measurable key performance indicators that the Home Secretary will consider? That is important because the Secretary of State, as set out in clause 2, can dismiss the commander. What would constitute poor enough performance for that to happen, and what would be a success?

To try to inject some objectivity and accountability into the process of annual reports, we have tabled amendment 14. We would like the Border Security Commander to report on the number of persons who have, since the later of the passing of the Bill or the last annual report, been charged or convicted of offences under clause 13, “Supplying articles for use in immigration crime”; clause 14, “Handling articles for use in immigration crime”; clause 18, “Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom”; or clause 43, “Articles for use in serious crime”. We want to know how effective the new offences will be in practice for achieving the Government’s aim of stopping illegal immigration.

The Government’s own impact assessment admits that very few people will go to prison as a result of the measures in the Bill. On the proposals to strengthen and improve the function of serious crime prevention orders, it says:

“It is estimated that between zero and three prison places, with a central estimate of one prison place will be required per year once the steady state is reached.”

On introducing an interim serious crime prevention order, it says:

“It is estimated that between 0 and 1.54 prison places, with a central estimate of 0.2 prison place will be required per year once the steady state is reached.”

On serious and organised crime articles, it says:

“It is estimated that between four and six prison places, with a central estimate of five prison places will be required per year once the steady state is reached.”

On new offences to criminalise the making, adapting, importing, supplying, offering to supply and possession of articles for use in serious crime, it says:

“It is estimated that between four and six prison places, with a central estimate of five prison places will be required per year once the steady state is reached.”

It is important to report on the new offences relating to immigration crime, which the Government think will not send a meaningful number of people to prison, and also on the new offence of endangering lives at sea, for which the impact assessment includes no estimate. Can the Minister confirm how many people the Government expect each year to be arrested, convicted and imprisoned under the new offence of endangering lives at sea?