Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Those asylum seekers who have not had their claims processed within a year through no fault of their own are allowed access to work. I am unconvinced that allowing access to work earlier would do anything other than create more demand for people to come here.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

It is widely accepted across the whole country, including in my constituency, that the Conservatives left us with open borders, with 150,000 people crossing on their watch and the opening of 400 asylum hotels, costing our taxpayers £9 million per day. This Government have already established Border Security Command and have deported 19,000 people; that is record numbers, up 24% from what the Opposition could achieve. We are also bringing in counter-terror powers to take on the smuggling gangs. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition need to get behind our Bill, so that those counter-terror powers can empower the National Crime Agency to take out the smuggling gangs?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which has been through Committee and is awaiting its Report stage, will create counter-terror-style powers that will help us prevent some of these crossings and disrupt the sophisticated criminal smuggling gangs that were allowed to take hold across the channel, unabated by the Conservative party. It will enable us to tackle this problem at source by working across borders with colleagues in other countries, tackling the people-smuggling routes as well as the gangs.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Katie Lam]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question—yes, I think it is fundamentally important that decisions about who can be and remain in our country are made by people who are accountable to the public.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katie Lam]

I will make a little progress.

The concept of universal rights is clearly a good one. It is one of the great gifts to humanity of the Judeo-Christian tradition to recognise that every human life has inherent worth, and every human being should be treated with the dignity that that inherent worth confers. But any set of rules that people might write over time can be distorted or abused, or exploited to take advantage of our society, our kindness and the British impulse and instinct towards trust, tolerance and generosity. Our rules and laws on human rights, and the organisations to which we belong that were created in the name of human rights, should be subject to scrutiny and debate no less than any other rules and laws. Lord Jonathan Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, said that the United Kingdom’s adherence to the European convention on human rights

“raises a major constitutional issue which ought to concern people all across the political spectrum.”

It is right for us to interrogate our rules. Indeed, that is arguably our main job and the fundamental reason we have been sent here by our constituents. None of our laws should be above repeal, replacement or disapplication, and that must include the Human Rights Act. We are among the luckiest people in the world in that we live in a democracy, and one that I believe has the world’s greatest people as its voters. When the British people see repeated activity that contravenes our national common sense, politicians in Westminster must acknowledge that and do something about it.

If the Government do not wish to disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in matters of asylum and immigration in order to control the border and put a stop to the perverse cases and decisions we are seeing relentlessly arise in the courts, what is their solution? How will they restore common sense, fairness and the primacy of public safety to the security of the border?

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I turn to new clause 40, which is the numerical visa cap. As I have mentioned to the Committee before, every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce immigration. Time and again, Governments of both parties have failed to deliver on that promise. Perhaps even more scandalously, those same Governments have often attempted to shift the blame for that failure, refusing to take responsibility for overseeing an immigration system that does not align with the expressed wishes of the British people.

[Mike Tapp]

Given that the hon. Lady worked previously in a special adviser role and is lecturing us about caps, how were her Government successful with the caps that they set?

[Katie Lam]

I think and hope that it has been clear from everything I have said that I make no defence of the previous Government’s activity. It is incredibly important that Conservative Members are able—as is our duty and our responsibility to the public—to talk about the many things that went wrong and, I hope, to help this Government to avoid making the same mistakes.

[Mike Tapp]

I appreciate the collegiate working environment that we are now in. In which case, will the hon. Lady expand on the caps set by the previous Government and the results that came after?

[Katie Lam]

As I have set out already, there was never what we are talking about here, which is a formal cap set by Parliament in legislation. However, a number of aims and promises were given to the electorate over the years, and those promises were not kept.

Selective, limited and tailored to our needs—that is the immigration system that the British public have voted for time and again. If we are serious about delivering it, we must take steps to ensure that future Governments do not renege on their promises as previous Governments have. But this is not just about delivering the immigration system that the British people have voted for repeatedly; fundamentally, it is about public trust and accountability.

Put simply, a hard numerical cap on the number of visas issued each year would force Government and Parliament to have accountability for their immigration decisions. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too high, we should set the cap accordingly, to ensure that technical mistakes do not produce the kind of migration wave that we have seen over the past few years. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too low, we should be willing to say that publicly, to explain our reasons and to defend our record. Either way, we must be transparent. That will not rebuild public trust in our political system overnight, but it will represent a significant step in the right direction.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

We have seen what has happened since the election. We will not go into the fact that numbers are up significantly, and whether the number of people arriving by small boat is down significantly, but actually, regardless of when it is changed, here is an opportunity, with a piece of legislation, to change this. The trust that the public have in the system is completely battered by these decisions, so it is right to have that transparency. The answer to the need to build public trust is not to hide a good chunk of what is going on, but to let more people see it. The light of day would be very good at getting rid of some of this toxicity, holding people to account and ensuring that the legislation that we have tomorrow is fit for purpose. As parliamentarians, we should be held to account for the legislation that we are putting forward. We should be held to account for its consequences, including in the tribunals that are making so many decisions on these cases.

Public trust is pivotal when advocating for Opposition new clause 24. It transforms the subject of the debate from a dry procedural tweak into a fundamental issue of democratic accountability. The British public’s faith in the immigration system has been battered by the bizarre tribunal rulings highlighted earlier—decisions hidden behind closed doors that defy common sense and insult victims. By mandating public hearings at the first-tier tribunal, we can signal that justice is not just for claimants but for taxpayers, who fund it.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

The hon. Member has a lot to say in Opposition, but the big question is: why did he not do this when the current Opposition were in government?

[Matt Vickers]

We were doing lots of things. I am sure we will come on to some of the progress that was being made, including the Albania agreement, which has taken thousands and thousands of people back to Albania and reduced the number of people coming. That deterrent stopped people setting off in the first place. It was real progress.

The Bill—this is the reason why we are sitting here today—is the opportunity to shape what comes next, what impact that will have on the number of people coming across the channel and what impact that will have on public confidence in our courts system. That is what we are here for. It is why we have bothered sitting here for so many hours—to ensure that the legislation that goes forward tomorrow is fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman is a fan; I made an effort today with the tie. I think I was speaking as much common sense then as I am today. I agree that the system does not work. That is why we are here. It is why I hope these proposals will make a difference. It is why we are trying to improve the system. And that is why I think we should have transparency in these tribunal outcomes.

As I said, we are talking about decisions hidden behind closed doors that defy common sense and insult victims. By mandating public hearings at the first-tier tribunal, we can signal that justice is not just for claimants, but for taxpayers who fund it and citizens who live with its consequences. Transparency exposes these absurdities, has the potential to curtail judicial overreach, and could reassure a sceptical public that the system prioritises their safety and fairness over secretive leniency, because trust, once lost, is hard to rebuild.

It is only right that the general public, who foot the bill for these cases time and again, are allowed to fully understand what their money is being used for. It is only right that the public can see these sessions so that there is a place for scrutiny and accountability. It is only right that such a shameful abuse of the UK’s legal system be exposed to the taxpayers of this country.

[Mike Tapp]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The hon. Member for Stockton West has made a creative argument, and I will try to bring some sense to it. First, we have to look at what the new clause would actually do for the country and our judicial system. Public hearings could expose vulnerable individuals, including victims of persecution or trafficking, to undue public scrutiny, which could deter genuine applicants from seeking justice. There are also security risks. Sensitive information about applicants’ backgrounds, including details that could endanger their families in their home countries, could be exposed.

There is also the risk of the legal system being overloaded further, given what we have inherited. Increased public interest in the hearings could lead to more appeals and challenges, which would cause more delays and inefficiencies in the system. Finally, the new clause is simply unnecessary as courts already have the discretion to allow public access when appropriate. It would remove vital judicial flexibility.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We have said that there are several methods. If we are unhappy with one, we can use alternatives. This is something that British taxpayers want to see. They want to ensure that our classrooms and social care settings are safe.

[Mike Tapp]

What are the other methods, and how accurate are they?

[Matt Vickers]

There are a raft of methods. I am happy to be directed, but every country in the EU uses the method I have mentioned. It is tried and tested. It is easy to criticise, question and find holes in a plethora of methods, but I think this is the right thing to do.

[Mike Tapp]

What are the other methods, and how accurate are they?

[Matt Vickers]

We can debate the methods at length, I am sure, but I think we have a responsibility to have a method. The fact that the rest of Europe is doing it means it is something we should be doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

How safe would be the procedures that the hon. Gentleman is not telling us the names of to detect whether somebody is a child or an adult? How safe would they be, particularly if the person turned out to be a child?

[Matt Vickers]

I would trust our agencies to use them in context and apply all the other things that they might apply in any given context. This would be another tool that agencies could use, on top of all the knowledge that they might have of people coming in and what their ages might be. This is an opportunity to give our agencies another tool, and it is the right thing to do.

That is why we tabled new clause 26, which would ensure that scientific methods for assessing a person’s age are used, while disapplying the requirement for consent for these methods to be used. That would ensure that adults could not claim to be children. It also gives the Government an opportunity to undo the mistake of repealing the relevant sections of the Illegal Migration Act and allow age assessments for those claiming to be children.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Seventh sitting)

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Does the hon. Gentleman want me to use my fingers to help him to count? The deterrent is preventing people from getting in those boats. If people know that they will be detained and removed when they arrive in this country, they will stop coming.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the crossings have risen from 299 in 2018 to more than 150,000 since then, the majority of them on the Conservatives’ watch? Does he also acknowledge that deportations have increased by 24% under this Government?

[Matt Vickers]

Does the hon. Gentleman know what has happened with global migration? If we compare the movements that have been made in the last week, those into Europe and those into this country seem to be slightly misaligned. The number of people arriving in this country is up 28%. The number of people put into hotels in communities across this country is up 29%; that is 8,500 more people. The number of people who have arrived in this country illegally and been removed is down significantly since this Government came to office.

It is clear that a new approach is needed. The National Crime Agency said that stopping channel migrants is not possible without a Rwanda-style scheme. It was a terrible mistake for Labour to cancel our deterrent before it had even started. The Labour Government like to point out the cost of the Rwanda plan, but a deterrent that stops illegal migrants from making the crossing and settling in the country will save the state billions in lifetime costs.

As Karl Williams from the Centre for Policy Studies pointed out,

“the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis last summer…estimates that a low-skilled migrant, or low-wage migrant as the OBR puts it, will represent a lifetime net fiscal cost to the taxpayer of around £600,000.”

Williams then pointed to

“analysis from Denmark, the Netherlands and other European countries that asylum seekers’ lifetime fiscal costs tend to be steeper than that” ––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 43, Q49.]

The evidence therefore suggests that if 35,000 people cross the channel a year—that is roughly where we were last year—at that sort of cost range, the lifetime costs will probably be £50 billion or £60 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

I wonder just how long it will take the Labour Government to start to get into the same territory as the Tories. I can see it coming: they are backtracking on the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and some other features in this grotesque race to the bottom of who can be the hardest on Reform. I suspect that in a few years’ time the hon. Member for Stockton West might actually get his wish and the Labour party will introduce Rwanda mark 2. I say to Labour Members: “Think very carefully—particularly about clause 38, about the IMA—about wandering down this route.” I have my doubts that they will resist the temptation to revisit some of the territory that the Conservatives trailblazed with their last stupid scheme.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for his creative statement. The chaos in our asylum system and the dangerous rise in illegal small boat crossings is, of course, one of the greatest challenges facing our country, and for years the British public have been promised solutions. They were told that the previous Government’s Rwanda policy would fix the problem, but instead it proved a costly failure. It got stuck in legal battles, was riddled with operational flaws and was utterly ineffective. I will go into detail about that soon.

In 2018, 299 people crossed the channel on small boats. By 2022, the number had surged to 30,000—a hundredfold increase on the Conservatives’ watch. Despite their grand claims that the Rwanda scheme would act as a deterrent, more than 80,000 people crossed the channel after the scheme was announced, and not a single asylum seeker has been successfully removed under it—not one. It is clear that this policy failed.

Let us start with the legal reality. The Rwanda asylum scheme was not just controversial but unlawful. In November 2023, the UK Supreme Court struck it down, ruling that Rwanda was not a safe country to send asylum seekers. The reason for that was systematic defects in Rwanda’s asylum system: almost no claims from Afghans, Syrians or Yemenis were ever approved. The Court found a serious risk that genuine refugees could be sent back to danger, in direct breach of international law. Let us not forget that Rwanda has a track record here: a previous deal with Israel, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, led to refugees being secretly deported back to their home countries, in clear violation of human rights protections. This policy depends on breaking the law, and that is no policy at all. It is a legal and moral dead end.

That is why the Bill repeals the Rwanda scheme and replaces it with a system that upholds the rule of law. It will focus toughness where it belongs: not on desperate people, but on the criminal gangs who exploit them. Instead of wasting years in court, we will implement a legally sound system that actually works.

Further, the Rwanda scheme was not just unlawful; it was an economic disaster. As of mid-2024, at least £318 million had already been spent on this failing policy. What did taxpayers get in return? Nothing—no removals or deterrent effect, just an ever-growing backlog of cases and ever-rising hotel bills, which we have inherited. Even if the scheme had gone ahead, it would have been staggeringly expensive. The National Audit Office estimated that removing just a few hundred people could cost up to £2 million per person, yet we are expected to believe that this was a serious solution to the problem of tens of thousands arriving each year on the Conservatives’ watch.

This Government are putting an end to that waste. Instead of throwing money at a scheme that does not work, we are investing in practical measures. This approach is already delivering results: since taking office, the new Government have increased enforced removals by 24%. That shows that when we have a working system, we do not need gimmicks like the Rwanda plan; we just need competence.

This is not just about law or economics. It is also about how we treat people. A core British value is strength, but another is decency. Strength without decency is weakness, as the previous Government demonstrated. The Rwanda scheme was not just ineffective; it was cruel. It was based on the idea that people fleeing war and persecution should be someone else’s problem, no matter the risk to their safety.

Let us be clear that many of those crossing the channel are genuine refugees—they include people fleeing the Taliban in Afghanistan, dictatorship in Iran and war in Syria—but the Rwanda policy, and, it would seem, the Conservatives, did not care. The policy made no distinction, lumped everyone together and treated them as a problem to be shipped off 4,000 miles away, out of sight and out of mind—although of course it did not work.

That is not the British way. This country has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those in need, and we do not abandon our humanitarian duties for the sake of a headline and a gimmick. Of course, those who should not be here will be deported, as we are already seeing, and those who genuinely need help will receive it under this Government. A true deterrent is taking out the smuggling gangs and deporting those who should not be here. The truth is that we do not stop the boats by shouting slogans; we stop the boats by giving people an alternative.

Finally—I thank hon. Members for their patience—the Rwanda plan was never operationally viable. Even if it had survived the legal challenges, the logistics were impossible. To make it work, the Government would have had to detain nearly every small boat arrival indefinitely—a task for which we simply do not have the detention space, the staff or the legal authority. Rwanda itself had agreed to take only a few hundred people a year, which is a drop in the ocean—excuse the pun—compared with the scale of the problem. Meanwhile the real criminals—the smuggling gangs—continued to operate freely. The Rwanda plan did nothing to target them. It was an illusion of control, rather than a real solution.

This Government take a serious, workable approach. That is how we secure the border: not through wishful thinking, but through real enforcement. The Conservatives have tried gimmicks. They tried grandstanding; they tried expensive, legally dubious, headline-chasing policies, and they failed. It is time to move forward. We will uphold the rule of law, protect those in genuine need and take real action against the criminals exploiting them.

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

These are difficult problems and challenging questions. Practically every country in the western world is struggling with this and, with the notable exception of Australia, effectively none has solved it. The basic logic of the situation is that, if someone comes here illegally from a place to which it would be dangerous to return them, there are only four options.

First, they could be sent back to the country they came from. That is not legal in our current framework—even before getting to the morality of doing such a thing. Secondly, they could be put in immigration detention indefinitely. That is also not legal; a person can be held in immigration detention only if there is a realistic prospect of removal, which there would not be in this case. Thirdly, they could stay here indefinitely. That is not fair, and it is not what the public want. Finally, they could go somewhere else—a safe third country. Such an agreement was very difficult to broker; indeed, until the Rwandans agreed, many considered it to be impossible.

Clearly, the Government have little time for the Rwanda scheme and destroying it was one of the first things they did in office, but the basic logic problem remains. The last Conservative Government did not get everything right—that is for sure—but the Rwanda scheme was a genuine attempt to solve this truly hard problem, and it remains the only solution that we can see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad that the Home Secretary stated that, as she always does when it comes to our relationship with, and compatibility with, human rights. I want to raise a couple of issues and ask a couple of questions about just how very loosely this Bill is connected with the Government’s obligations and about some of our real concerns on human rights. I will come to that in the course of what I hope will be a short contribution.

It is completely incomprehensible that the Government have chosen to repeal only some aspects of the IMA rather than the whole Act, particularly since so many members of this Government have been so vocally opposed to the IMA in the past. Can we please just have a look at some of the stuff that they want to retain? The one that concerns me most, and the one that concerns the range of organisations, groups and charities associated with refugees and asylum seekers, is the retention of section 29.

Let us remind the Committee what section 29 does. It extends the public order disqualification originally introduced by section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and mandates that victims of trafficking and modern slavery who have criminal convictions or are considered a threat to public order be disqualified from support and protection. To me, that provision is deeply concerning, as it means that victims of trafficking, many of whom have been coerced into committing crimes as part of their exploitation, could face detention, deportation or removal rather than the support and recovery that they need.

[Mike Tapp]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, prior to section 29 coming into law, Home Office figures show that up to 73% of foreign national offenders were using modern slavery as a means to avoid deportation, which could in turn put members of the public in danger?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know where the hon. Member gets his figures, but let me give him some in return. Home Office statistics from 2024 revealed that 70% of the individuals disqualified under the provision had elements of criminal exploitation in their case. What is so wrong about this particular measure is that it stops us giving the necessary and relevant support that we should give—that we owe—to people who have been victims of human trafficking.

[Mike Tapp]

Does the hon. Gentleman also realise that under compelling circumstances, if there is evidence that they have been victims of modern slavery, those who have been convicted and apply will fit into the system?

[Pete Wishart]

This is where we start to get back into very uncomfortable and dangerous territory, where it is going to be up to the individual to prove that they are not guilty of such crimes. This is a blanket clause that will entrap them and leave it to them to make their way through the courts to prove their innocence when they have been innocent all the time, or particularly when they have been victims of trafficking and forced into criminal activity. The system could punish vulnerable individuals who were coerced into committing crimes, often by their traffickers, thus reinforcing the power dynamic that allows traffickers to exploit their victims further.

The retention of section 29 increases the likelihood of re-trafficking and re-exploitation as victims might fear coming forward to the authorities due to the threat of detention, removal or criminalisation. That has issues for us in Scotland. Quite rightly, I suppose, immigration is totally and utterly reserved, but we have responsibility under our devolved powers to ensure that victims of modern slavery who come to Scotland are looked after and tended to by Scottish legislation. There are powers that we have within Scotland.

In retaining section 29 of the IMA, the Bill also restricts the ability of the Scottish Government to support the victims under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. The Scottish Act places a duty on Scottish Ministers to secure immediate support and recovery services for victims of human trafficking and exploitation. In Scotland we have tried to design a system that, unlike this Bill, places an emphasis on victim care and rehabilitation.

That is the approach that we take in Scotland, and that is what we want to try to deliver within our range of devolved power, but it relies on the national referral mechanism identifying and supporting victims of trafficking. The disqualification provisions in section 29 could result in vulnerable individuals in Scotland being detained or deported without being properly identified and supported as trafficking victims, thus weakening the Scottish Government’s ability to implement their own modern slavery protections.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fifth sitting)

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Yes—it is the case that more people are coming on fewer boats. Equally, however, there is also a rise in the number of boats that are coming across. I think that both those things are problematic. One thing that we know about these boats being filled with yet more people is that they become ever more dangerous, and we have seen some of the horrible consequences and fatalities as a result of that.

Amendment 5, tabled by the Scottish National party, specifies that the offence created by clause 18—endangering another during sea crossing to the United Kingdom—cannot apply to asylum seekers. Surely, that would render the new offence even more ineffective, as it will not be possible to charge people until their asylum claim has been determined. Someone is perfectly capable of endangering lives at sea, whether they are an asylum seeker or not.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

I will respond to some of the points that the hon. Member for Stockton West has just made, starting with the point about the French. Under the last Government, we saw what amounted to Twitter diplomacy, continuous bashing of the French online and in the papers, and a breakdown of that relationship. Since we came into Government, we have seen that Keir and Yvette, who was out there in France recently, have looked to reset that relationship and rebuild it. I believe that recent visits that Yvette has made to France, including one that involved a meeting with the French Minister of the Interior, have been very productive. The French are looking at their laws and considering how they can improve things on their side—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr Stuart. I mean the Home Secretary, not Yvette. The smaller Committee Rooms sometimes result in some informality.

As I was saying, the French are looking to readdress their laws, including things such as intercepting boats in shallow water, which to date has been neglected. That adult approach to politics and working with the French will help us to reduce the number of these boat crossings.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

My hon. Friend is making a really important point: these cross-channel operations and strategies are more diplomatic than they are legislative. Does he agree that, because the UK is unusual in that our Border Force is not a police force, whereas the French police aux frontières, the Belgian police and all other European border agencies are police forces, we have very different kinds of operations and structures, and this work needs to be done gently, through diplomacy and not through amendments to legislation?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes the powerful point that the French need to be engaged with diplomatically rather than being bashed on social media, which damages our relationship with them. The way forward here is to continue with that gentle diplomacy to bring about the changes in their laws that may well benefit the United Kingdom. We have already seen results on that front in Germany. The Germans have changed laws around the facilitation of the kit to be used for these crossings, so diplomacy is already yielding positive results, and I expect we will see more of that.

My second point is that this amendment is fantasy land from the Opposition. We inherited a justice system that was completely broken and on its knees, with just 2% of prison places still available. Do the Opposition propose sticking all these people in prison? If so, where are those prison places going to come from, given what we have inherited?

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

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for a second day, Mr Stuart. I rise to speak to amendment 5 in my name.

Of all the new criminalising clauses in the Bill, this is the one that concerns me most. It is the most invidious and cruel. As we have heard, the clause proposes a new criminal offence of endangering another during a sea crossing, with a proposed maximum sentence of six years’ imprisonment. The offence is defined as committing an act that creates a risk of death or serious physical or psychological injury to another person during a sea journey from France, Belgium or the Netherlands to the UK—in effect, all the sea journeys across the channel by, mainly, asylum seekers who are seeking refuge in the UK.

How that is supposed to be assessed is anyone’s guess. Any potential transgression of the clause could happen only in the most chaotic of circumstances—on a small boat where people will probably be struggling for their lives to try to get here. The only witnesses to any transgressions of this clause will be other traumatised souls who had the great misfortunate to be there at that time. The new offence is concerningly broad, and explicitly aimed at people on the move; it exclusively and directly targets those on the boats.

Which people may get caught up in this offence? The first category that comes to mind is those people who may have been offered rescue by the French but refused the opportunity of rescue. But why would they take that opportunity? These are people who have travelled thousands of miles to try to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. I am supposing that they make up the first category that the Minister has in mind with this offence.

However, it is also possible to prosecute individuals who, in moments of panic or self-preservation, inadvertently put others at risk. That means that someone who makes a sea crossing out of desperation could face a prison sentence simply because of the circumstances of their arrival, rather than any deliberate intent to cause harm. This law makes no attempt to take account of the high risk and chaotic nature of these journeys, where panic, misjudgment or even attempts to help others could inadvertently lead to criminal liability.

What makes the clause particularly invidious, and why we should think about it very carefully, is that it does not do even one thing to tackle what the Government say they are tackling: the gangs—the people who organise this foul trade and are responsible for putting people on the boats. It does nothing to target them. The only people who will be in the sights of this invidious, cruel clause will be ordinary asylum seekers.

The refugee convention is clear that refugees should not be penalised for how they enter a country to claim asylum. The clause runs a coach and horses through that obligation. It also breaches the Palermo protocol, which enables asylum seekers to claim asylum freely and honestly. The European convention on human rights memorandum states that

“parents who bring their children on the type of journeys that the Endangerment Offence captures will be excluded from prosecution in almost all circumstances”.

The key words are “almost all”: there could still be prosecutions, and the memorandum notes that that could lead to families breaking up.

There is another main target of the offence. It is designed to entrap and ensnare those who pilot the boats. Let us look at how far we have come with this new distinction and new category of people that the Government are now going after. It was in 2019 that the Government started bringing criminal charges against people identified as steering dinghies across the channel. Prior to this clause, those identified as piloting boats have usually been arrested and charged with the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 increased the maximum sentence for that offence to life imprisonment. In most cases, the second charge is dropped due to a lack of evidence—as I explained, the deeply chaotic circumstances where evidence could be acquired lead to a lack of evidence being presented in court proceedings. However, there have been some successful section 25 prosecutions. For example, they can happen when a person pleads guilty to an offence at the first opportunity before it is dropped.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fourth sitting)

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Pete Wishart]

1971—there we go. Section 25 of that Act offers the protection of allowing for a reasonable explanation of why people are caught up in such activity. That is useful when it comes to this Bill, but why do we have to rely on something like that? We are creating a new Bill, which does something specific and unhelpful for some of the poorest and most wretched people who exist on our globe. We have a responsibility for those people under our international obligations and conventions, and this new legislation does nothing to assist them.

The collection of data from people’s phones is facilitated by the Bill, which creates new broad powers to enable the search and seizure of electronic devices. I will come back to the main point I made on Second Reading. We did not get much time to elaborate on this, but I think it is pertinent to the clauses that we are debating, and the Committee must consider it properly.

The gangs have a monopoly and an exclusive right to the irregular migration market. There is no other way for asylum seekers to get to the UK. It just is not possible. There are safe routes available for a small number of countries, but for the vast majority of potential asylum seekers in war-torn regions, areas and countries around the world, the only way to claim asylum in the United Kingdom is to put themselves at the mercy of the gangs, and to go on a small boat to get across the channel.

Business is booming. I do not know if anyone saw the shots today from the camps in France—I think it was on Sky News. What a hell on earth they are! What a disgrace that is for us, who are part of the problem. We cannot get the situation resolved, and we are keeping some of the poorest people in such circumstances. Shame on us, and shame on everyone in the international community who allows such conditions to develop and thrive. Business is booming for the illegal gangs.

I will tell you something else, Mr Stuart. It will only get better for the gangs when the Government cut the international aid budget. What do they think will happen? Do they think that conditions in those areas will get better? Of course they will not. That will lead to so many more people making the journey to the UK, and it will be down to the Government.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I hope the hon. Gentleman has some sort of reason for that.

[Mike Tapp]

I have an important intervention on that point. The Russians invading Ukraine and going further into Europe would create a much more serious refugee crisis than the one we are facing now. Increasing defence spending is very important.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed, but for the last three years we have had a refugee crisis from Ukraine—and there is such a distinction between how we have responded to Ukraine and how we have responded to everybody else. We put forward legal routes to allow Ukrainians to come to our country. My local authority, Perth and Kinross council, has the largest number of refugees from Ukraine in the whole of Scotland except the city of Edinburgh. I am immensely proud of the generosity of spirit of the people I represent who are taking part in that scheme.

Is it not so different when we allow schemes like that? That is what we are asking the Minister for. We will have a depopulation crisis towards the middle of the century, and immigrants might be at a premium by 2060 or 2070. Why have we not been inventive and creative? Why are we not looking to do things other than leave that mess—that disgrace—on the shores of France, as we have done to date?

I am sure the Minister will tell us that there is the defence of “reasonable excuse”. I accept that, and I know that it applies to each of these new offences—in other words, if a person has a reasonable excuse for engaging in the relevant conduct, they will not be guilty of the offence. I know that that is exactly what she will tell me, and she is already indicating that that is the case. But the burden lies on the defence to adduce sufficient evidence of a reasonable excuse, and if they have done so, it is for the prosecution to prove the contrary beyond reasonable doubt.

To be fair, the Bill sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which the defence of reasonable excuse would apply. Under clause 13, for example, a person will have a reasonable excuse if

“their action was for the purposes of carrying out a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm”.

They will also have a reasonable excuse if they were acting on behalf of an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services. All that is purely a matter of judgment, and there does not seem to be a specific threshold for conviction. The maximum sentences for each of the new offences is pretty stiff and those for offences in clauses 13 and 14 in particular are disproportionately high. To put it in context, the offence of possession of articles used in terrorism has a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, but someone could get 14 years for falling foul of the provisions in clauses 13 and 14.

The Bill is likely to have an impact on the prison population—I think I heard the hon. Member for Stockton West address some issues about the prison population with the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

We heard from a variety of witnesses on Thursday that the laws of the destination country make absolutely no difference whatsoever to asylum seekers and do not work in the least as a deterrent, so I do not want to hear about the deterrence from the hon. Members opposite, because there is no evidence to suggest that that works or to support that contention. Come on! Let us take these wretched souls out of the equation, remove them from the legislation and go for the gangs that profit from this vile trade. Let us make sure that we have a Bill that we can be proud of, that we know what the Bill will do and that it will not entrap lots and lots of innocent people.

[Mike Tapp]

Thank you for your passionate speech; I am sure it gripped us all—

[The Chair]

His!

[Mike Tapp]

His speech—my apologies; I will not make that mistake again. It is really important that we look at what is covered in the Bill, and how it enables our Border Security Command, the National Crime Agency, the police, the border forces and the security services to act. We said before the election, in our manifesto, that we were going to take this on in a counter-terror style, so that we can get to those who are looking to launch the boats before they launch them. These clauses go some way to achieving that; I will not quote the NCA director general again, but he was very enthusiastic about that. The further clauses include acts taking place abroad and not just in the United Kingdom.

On the specific amendments, we must be clear. We do not know who is a genuine asylum seeker at the point that they seek to cross; we will not know for some time. The elephant in the room is that, even if they are genuine asylum seekers, they are in France. They are not in danger, as they would be in Sudan, and putting others at risk by preparing these crossings, facilitating them or being involved is not acceptable. Asylum seekers are not above the law, and these clauses ensure that they will be held to account.

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

As hon. Members will have read, clause 13 creates a new offence of

“Supplying articles for use in immigration crime”.

The offence has two limbs. First, that the person supplies or offers to supply those articles to another person, and secondly that, when they do so, they know or suspect that the item will be used in connection with any offence under sections 24 or 25 of the Immigration Act 1971—illegal entry and assisting unlawful immigration, respectively. I have a question for the Minister on the reasonable excuse elements of the clause. It is a defence for a person charged with this offence to show that they had a reasonable excuse. Subsection (3) defines a reasonable excuse as explicitly including that,

“(a) their action was for the purposes of carrying out a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm”,

which seems reasonable, or,

“(b) they were acting on behalf of an organisation which—

(i) aims to assist asylum-seekers, and

(ii) does not charge for its services.”

That second defence seems to the Opposition to create a large loophole in the law. Does the Minister accept that these defences will have the effect of exempting non-governmental organisations from criminal charges for helping asylum seekers to cross the channel? Why would the Government seek to do that?

The defence categorises organisations that aim to assist asylum seekers into those that do not charge for their services and those that do. Surely this criminal offence is a criminal offence regardless of who is responsible; why would it be any less criminal if someone does it voluntarily? Why is making money from something the determinant of whether it is a crime? As we heard in evidence, charities can be “mischievous”—I think that was the word used—in their activities and in how close they come to facilitating illegal crossings to the UK. Does the Minister accept that the activities of some charities can veer close to the line of facilitating illegal entry? If so, what do the Government intend to do about it?

The threshold for the defence is low. The accused simply needs to provide sufficient evidence to raise an issue, and the contrary must not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Might that be why the Home Office impact assessment considers that between four and six prison places—I believe the central estimate is five—will be required per year once this steady state is reached? The Home Office has lauded the new powers and offences in the Bill as being key to smashing the criminal smuggling gangs, but it does not appear to consider that many people will be convicted under the new offences. How can both those things be the case?

Clause 14 creates the new criminal offence of handling articles for use in immigration crime. The person has to receive or arrange to receive a relevant article, remove or dispose of an article for the benefit of another person, or assist another person to remove or dispose of a relevant article. Again, the clause provides the same defence to the offence as clause 13 does—namely, that the action of the accused was

“for the purposes of carrying out a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm”,

or that they were acting

“on behalf of an organisation which—

(i) aims to assist asylum-seekers, and

(ii) does not charge for its services.”

I therefore have the same questions for the Minister about this defence as I did for the defence in clause 13.

Clause 15 provides a definition of “relevant article” for the purposes of the new offences in clauses 13 and 14. There are exemptions for food and drink, medicines, clothing, bedding, tents or other temporary shelters, and anything to preserve the life of a person in distress at sea or to enable such a person to signal for help. Will the Minister set out the kinds of articles that she therefore expects to be captured by the offences in clauses 13 and 14? It would be useful to know what items the Home Office, Border Force and the police specifically wish to disrupt. There is also a power in clause 15 for the Secretary of State to amend the list of relevant articles. Will the Minister explain what purpose that power serves? The list of what counts as a relevant article is almost limitless, so does she envisage that the power will be used primarily to create exemptions?

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire has tabled amendment 3 to specify that if a person is an asylum seeker, they cannot commit the offence in clause 13: supplying articles for use in immigration crime. It would be good to understand why the Scottish National party does not think it is possible for asylum seekers to commit that offence. How are law enforcement officers supposed to know that a person is genuinely an asylum seeker—and even if they are, what happens if their application is subsequently rejected?

The hon. Gentleman also tabled an amendment to require the commander to include in their annual report information about how they have paid due regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on action against trafficking. My views are the same as those set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West on amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

Clause 16, as the Minister has just set out, creates a new offence of collecting information for use in immigration crime. A person commits such an offence if a person:

“collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person organising or preparing for a relevant journey or part of such a journey…possesses a document or record containing information of that kind, or…views, or otherwise accesses, by means of the internet a document or record containing information of that kind.”

This is an extremely wide set of information that is being criminalised. We understand the desire to keep these offences broad in order to capture as many offenders as possible, and we support that aim. However, if the definition is too wide, there is a risk that it becomes meaningless and therefore self-defeating. So, it is important to understand how the Minister believes law enforcement will assess whether the information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person organising or preparing for a relevant journey. Could she please explain how this test will be met in practice? It would also be helpful, for similar reasons, to know when the CPS will publish its guidance on what might meet the threshold for an offence to be committed under this clause. Finally, it is again a defence for an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers if it does not charge for its services. So, we have the same questions and concerns about this defence as we did in relation to the preceding clauses.

[Mike Tapp]

I will quickly talk about this clause, because it is one of my favourite clauses in the Bill. Having worked in a counter-terror role in the past, I know that one of the most effective ways of preventing terror attacks on the streets of the United Kingdom is by identifying hostile reconnaissance, whether it is physical or online. That is why I am so happy to see this clause in the Bill, because it gives our authorities the opportunity to get to these vile criminals before they take to the seas.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I take my hon. Friend’s point. This clause is very much about being able to capture preparatory work for any effort to evade our immigration laws and bring people over in small boats, illegally putting their lives at risk and potentially costing lives in return for money.

This clause is about a wide range of potential research, but there are also explicit safeguards within it that are sufficient to protect individual migrants and refugees, or families of refugees, trying to help family members to flee danger or serious harm. The defence that a person is conducting these activities exclusively in preparation for their own journey protects individuals from falling foul of this law. The clause is explicitly focused on and aimed at the work done by gang-affiliated facilitators of immigration offences.

The express reasonable excuse of

“carrying out, or preparing for the carrying out of, a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm”

may—depending on the circumstances—protect the families of refugees wanting to help their loved ones flee. There is also an express reasonable excuse for a person

“acting on behalf of an organisation which…aims to assist asylum-seekers, and…does not charge for its services.”

The list of reasonable excuses in the Bill is not exhaustive, so it is very much a question of looking at the information that has been gathered and making a judgment, knowing that the idea of this offence is to focus specifically on organised immigration criminality, not the individuals who may be asylum seekers or may be being trafficked.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Third sitting)

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The hon. Lady implies that total independence from the machinery of government would somehow assist in the job that we wish the Border Security Commander to do. I do not agree with her in that analysis. The job of the Border Security Commander is to convene and cohere and to strategically focus, across Government Departments, with a focus on checking that our border security is as effective as it can be. I do not think that total independence is going to add to effectiveness in that context. In fact, we believe that having the commander operating out of the Home Office at a director general level, but appointed by the Prime Minister with a special place in primary legislation, is a more effective way to ensure that the commander’s basic role has the biggest-percentage likelihood of being effective.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

The Minister has been clear that we can of course recruit from outside the civil service, and that being within the civil service equips the person with the powers, the tools and, of course, the access to be effective in the role.

I am slightly concerned that the hon. Member for Stockton West tabled the amendment off the back of oral evidence from Tony Smith, who—with full respect—retired from his role 13 years ago. The director general of the National Crime Agency gave evidence on the same day as Tony Smith, and he said:

“For me, I have worked really closely with Martin Hewitt already, and it works well. It allows me to focus on the operational leadership of tackling the organised crime threat and Martin to have the convening power and to work across Whitehall on a range of issues. It provides clarity, and we have more than enough to get on with in the NCA in tackling…organised crime”.

Jim Pearce, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on organised immigration crime, then said:

“I sit on Martin’s board, so strategically I am heavily involved, and members of my team sit within the operational delivery groups. Speaking from a personal point of view, his strategic plans over the next few years make absolute sense in terms of what he is seeking to achieve for the Border Security Command.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 38, Q42.]

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for—is it Dover?

[Mike Tapp]

Yes, Dover and Deal.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was just checking that I had my hon. Friend’s entire constituency name. They have all changed, Dr Murrison, which can be a bit disorientating because I am used to the old names.

My hon. Friend is exactly right. He demonstrates, through the evidence we heard—particularly from the NCA, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police chiefs last Thursday—that there is and was a strategic gap. Everybody is doing fantastic work in the NCA, the police, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the security services, but nobody had taken a focused look at how border security could be delivered most effectively. From the meetings I have had since Martin Hewitt took up his post, it seems there is almost relief that somebody is convening a board that can look at analytics on where the threats are, how they are developing and how we can best deal with them, and do the legwork to come up with a strategy focused on border security. That is the whole point of creating the command.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I think there is an opportunity to strengthen this role so that it can provide that real fundamental change that we are apparently looking for in this Bill. I would not necessarily want to comment on the individual.

We have tabled new clause 21 to set out some clear and measurable objectives for the Border Security Commander, to attempt to give this co-ordinator some clear direction. New clause 21 would set out that, in exercising their functions, the commander

“must have regard to the objectives of…preventing the boarding of vessels, with the aim of entering the United Kingdom, by persons who require leave to enter the United Kingdom but are seeking to enter the United Kingdom…without leave to enter, or…with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception”.

In effect, we want it in black and white in the Bill that the commander will be given the objective of reducing illegal entry to the country, and that is what new clause 21 would achieve.

Since 2018, when the figures were first recorded, more than 150,000 people have arrived in small boats. As of 29 January, 1,098 people had crossed the channel since the start of 2025. In 2024 as a whole, 36,816 people were detected making the crossing. I would like to understand why the Government do not think it is worthwhile to give the Border Security Commander the direct objective of reducing or even ending those arrivals.

We also wish to ensure that those who arrive in this country illegally will not be able to stay. We know that effective returns agreements work as a deterrent. When in government, we cut the number of Albanian illegal migrants coming to the UK by small boat crossings by more than 90%, thanks to our returns agreement. In 2022, 12,658 Albanian illegal migrants arrived in the UK by small boat, but that fell to just 924 in 2023, following our landmark returns agreement with Albania.

We have therefore included in new clause 21 the objective for the Border Security Commander to ensure that a decision on a claim by a person who has arrived in the UK illegally is taken within six months of the person’s arrival, and for the commander to make arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of people who enter the UK illegally. It is up to the Government to put in place an effective deterrent to people crossing the channel in small boats.

[Mike Tapp]

I find it quite astounding that there are any claims of success from the Opposition, given that we saw 299 people cross in 2018 and then an exponential rise of over 130,000 on the Conservatives’ watch. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a deterrent, but four people went to Rwanda and over 80,000 people crossed when that scheme had been introduced.

Importantly, the whole system in the Home Office had completely ground to a halt. There is another deterrent that was overlooked by the Conservatives during their tenure, and that is having a process that actually functions. We now have record high deportations, and as that message cuts through to people who are looking to cross, it will start to serve as a deterrent.

[Matt Vickers]

I thought that we would get a bit further through the Bill before we got into records. In real terms, there has been a marked increase in the number of people coming here since this Government took office—small boat crossings are up by 28%. We now have 8,500 more people staying in hotels across the country—up by nearly 29%. We were closing hotels. The hon. Member talks about the number of people being deported, but they are voluntarily going back. In real terms, the number of people who have arrived on small boats being returned went down, and in the most recent figures, it has gone down again. We have not been sending back those people who have arrived in small boats since this Government took office—that is just not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way again; I will not make a habit of it. It is important to realise that the processing of those who come into Western Jet Foil and then Manston takes time, but of course they will be deported, if they are not genuine refugees, once the system gets there.

It is also important to note something else. Being the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal, I often look out across the sea, and I can tell when it is a good day to cross and when it is not. On those days when it is viable to cross, crossings have reduced. The Conservatives were relying only on the weather to bring down boat crossings.

[Matt Vickers]

I think, in the last week, we have found that the only thing that this Government are relying on is the weather, but I will carry on. I am sure we will come back to all these things in due course; it is good to be discussing them here instead of on a news channel somewhere.

As the Government are repealing the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 with this Bill, we want to make sure that the Border Security Commander is empowered to ensure that all relevant agencies are working towards taking timely decisions on any claims by illegal immigrants, and removing those who enter the UK illegally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is fairly astonishing to have a new clause that puts the Border Security Commander in charge of the entire asylum and deportation systems and asks him, in legislation, to achieve processing times that the Conservative party never achieved when they were in Government. It falls into the trap of empowering the Border Security Commander to such an extent that he seems to have to take over most of the Home Office. That is not really what we intend to do with this Bill. New clause 21 would result in a fairly astonishing increase in not only the power, but the reach of the Border Security Commander. That would be massively disruptive and would probably lead to an outcome similar to the collapse of the asylum system, of which we have had to clean up the mess.

[Mike Tapp]

I think the new clause is more of a political point than a constructive addition to the Bill. I am new to Parliament, but I think Bill Committees can be really useful. This new clause is far from useful, however, and there is nothing constructive in it. It is unrealistic and feels like political point-scoring.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Not for the first time today, I agree with my hon. Friend. When the time comes, we will be voting against this new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

As I said earlier, the Border Security Commander and the Border Security Command will work within the confines of international obligations and human rights law.

[Mike Tapp]

I apologise for my lack of timely bobbing earlier, Dr Murrison. I draw attention to the Home Secretary’s statement at the very top of the Bill:

“In my view the provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”

That adds to what the Minister has said: that those in public office have an obligation to abide by the law. If they were not to do so, there would of course be legal challenge.

[Pete Wishart]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We want to see how effective the offences will be. The Government have set that out in part, but not for the new offence of endangering lives at sea, which has great consequence.

Amendment 14 would also require the Border Security Commander to report on the number of people identified as entering the United Kingdom via sea crossing without leave to remain; how many of them are detained pending deportation or a decision on deportation; and how many are deported to a country of which the person is a national or citizen, or to a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that the person will be admitted. We believe it is important to have transparency about the role of the Border Security Commander in facilitating removals. If they are charged with minimising threats to the border, removing those who enter this country illegally with no reason to remain is a big part of successfully achieving that objective.

[Mike Tapp]

It is important to note that measures of success can change. Legislating for that might mean that, in a decade, we are wasting the time of the Border Security Command and its commander. My understanding of statistics and their collection is that that is for the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics. Of course, as those who are prosecuted go through the courts, we will all be able to see that.

There may also be a slight misunderstanding about what a prevention order is and what it aims to do. It is a disruptive measure that can be used before charge to stop the vile smuggling criminals from operating. If and when they go to prison, that means that they have breached that order. The fact that the estimate is low means that there is confidence in the prevention orders succeeding.

[Sarah Bool]

To follow up on the points of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, the duty to prepare annual reports feels like a self-appraisal. Essentially, all the commander has to do in those annual reports is state how they have carried out their role and set out their view on the performance. We need some more evidence. In appraisals in any work context, it is always necessary to have the opposite feedback, but I feel that is missing here. It is not clear that there will be an opportunity to challenge the information that comes in front of the House. We really need the detail.

I worry that the fact that the Government are not prepared to require the Border Security Commander to include these details of their work in their annual report is a sign that they do not have confidence in what the commander can do, so our amendment is very important. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal said that he is worried that it will be burdensome, but I think that the information it would require is the minimum that should be provided to us. That information should be happily supplied to the House in the interest of transparency, and I am sure the Minister is keen to do that. That needs to be considered, and perhaps she will address that.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting)

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Q I want to look at clauses 13 to 17 and what the Crown Prosecution Service thinks of them, so this question is more directed at you, Sarah. Considering their application both inside and outside the UK, what do you think the chances of successful prosecution are? How likely do you think the CPS is to take this up? We heard earlier today that some are concerned about how wide the powers in clauses 13 to 16 could be. We were told this morning that, if I was in Calais and someone asked me, “What’s the weather like today?”, technically I would have committed a crime under these clauses. What is your view of that?

Sarah Dineley: I will deal with the second point first, as it is probably the easiest and it flows into the first. In relation to clauses 13 to 16, with any new legislation, the Crown Prosecution Service always publishes guidance on how it is to be interpreted. Certainly, the example that you gave about asking what the weather is like in Dover when you are stood in Calais would not fall within the guidance as meeting the evidential test. Of course, it is not just about an evidential test being met, but a public interest test as well. Our guidance always deals with that specific question of whether it is in the public interest, so that prosecutors can do that balancing exercise and ask, “Are there factors that weigh in favour of prosecution? Are there factors that tend away from prosecution?” They want to come to a decision that is compliant with our code for Crown prosecutors, so it is a mixture of guidance and application of the code that hopefully gets us to the right conclusion.

Going back to your first point, I mentioned that we have mutual legal assistance and that we can issue what are called international letters of request. They require the recipient country to execute the action, or to provide the information that we have asked for. One of the problems is that there has to be something called dual criminality—there has to be the equivalent offence in the country that we are making the request to, and there are some gaps across Europe in establishing dual criminality for all the immigration offences that we currently have on our books. However, we are confident that there are reciprocal laws in the major OIC countries in Europe to allow us to make those requests for information under mutual legal assistance. We are aided by the network of prosecutors based abroad, which I mentioned. We also have Eurojust and the joint investigation teams run out of Eurojust. We are well versed in working internationally and with the measures that we can deploy to make sure that we build a strong evidential case.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

Q I should declare that I have worked for the National Crime Agency in a counter-terror role.

We have talked a lot about the upstream side, which publicly people are well aware of. Is there a significant domestic angle here? Are we confident that we have a sound intelligence picture—as much as we can? Are there crossovers with other crime? Does the Bill help us to disrupt and arrest people in this country?

Rob Jones: I will come back on that first. There is a footprint in the UK for organised immigration crime. The footprint for the small boats crossings has typically been driven by Belgium, Germany, Turkey and further afield, with Iraqi Kurdish and Afghan groups. As more and more people have successfully exploited that route, however, they put down ties, they get involved in criminality and they know it has worked for them, so that drives the problem. There are organised crime groups in the UK that we are targeting. Some of our most significant cases to date have involved a footprint in the UK.

When we look at those groups and what it took to bring them to justice, we have either had to extradite them to another country following a judicial investigation, or we have done very complex covert investigations for many months. This helps with that issue, because when we have got good evidence from covert tactics—this was my earlier point—we are able to go earlier with it. The majority of the criminality that drives the small boats element, however, is based overseas. We have a good intelligence picture through OIC, which has improved dramatically since 2015 when we started targeting this, when the crisis first started.

Jim Pearce: I have a follow-on from policing. I probably have two points to make. First, tomorrow you will start hearing national media on interventions across the country, which are termed Operation or Op Mille—police interventions to do with cannabis farms. A lot of the intelligence linked to that particular operation involves workers who have been brought in illegally from abroad, and all those disruptions will be from across the whole country. That might just bring this to life.

The second point I want to make is on legislation changes, which you just asked about. The two changes—well, there are more than two, but the ones I particularly want to focus on—relate to serious crime prevention orders and the ability of law enforcement, which is the police, the NCA and of course the CPS, to apply for interim orders, especially those on acquittal. Serious crime prevention orders are probably a tool that is underused at the moment. We are keen to push into that space moving forward.

Sarah Dineley: To put that into context, at the moment there are effectively two types of serious crime prevention order: one is imposed on conviction, and between 2011 and 2022, we had 1,057; the other is what we call the stand-alone serious crime prevention orders. Those are made before any charges are brought and they are heard in the High Court. To date, there have only been two applications, one of which was successful. The introduction of this new serious crime prevention order does fill a massive gap in that restrictive order.

Rob Jones: I agree with that, and I welcome those measures. There is a similar regime for sexual offences, which allows control measures for people who are suspected of offences. That has been very successful. We welcome that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I want to get Mike Tapp’s question in quickly so that you can summarise. We have got just two minutes left.

[Mike Tapp]

Q I will make it quick. I am really pleased to see the enthusiasm for the disruptive approach, by the way. How do you see the Border Security Command working strategically and operationally?

Rob Jones: For me, I have worked really closely with Martin Hewitt already, and it works well. It allows me to focus on the operational leadership of tackling the organised crime threat and Martin to have the convening power and to work across Whitehall on a range of issues. It provides clarity, and we have more than enough to get on with in the NCA in tackling the organised crime element.

Jim Pearce: I sit on Martin’s board, so strategically I am heavily involved, and members of my team sit within the operational delivery groups. Speaking from a personal point of view, his strategic plans over the next few years make absolute sense in terms of what he is seeking to achieve for the Border Security Command. Exactly as Rob just said, it feels as though the co-ordination is there and it is driving a system response across law enforcement and more widely.

Sarah Dineley: Although we contribute to the Border Security Command, as an independent prosecuting authority we cannot be tasked or directed. However, we do value the collaborative work that we can do within that sphere.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for your evidence and for your service.

Examination of Witnesses

Tony Smith, Alp Mehmet and Karl Williams gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

Q I have a couple of questions for Mr Smith. First, in your earlier comments you spoke quite enthusiastically about biometric collection at the borders. Are you aware that we are looking at a new entry/exit system with biometric collection, to come in this year? Secondly, you spoke quite negatively about the Border Security Command. I believe that you retired in 2013. Now, 12 years on, the director general of the National Crime Agency, who we had in before you, speaks very enthusiastically about the Border Security Command and this Bill. Have you spoken to them since you retired?

Tony Smith: No, I have not spoken to the DG of the National Crime Agency. I am retired, so there are probably different constraints on what I can say versus what you can say when you are still working for the Government. But I am very close to Border Force immigration enforcement and a lot of my former colleagues who are still working. I went out on the boats with them last year and am very much in touch with what is going on there.

I worked under the UK Border Agency. We had agency status, and we were at arm’s length from Government. I had specific removal targets that I had to deliver. I had end-to-end teams: I had front-end teams, asylum teams and immigration enforcement teams in a region, working a case from start to finish, with rigorous case conclusion targets. I liked that system, because I thought it worked, but it got broken up into silos—we now have directors general for Border Force, immigration enforcement, migration and borders, and homeland security, and now we are putting another one in for Border Security Command. That is quite a jumbled mirage of civil servants. If you then have crime agencies—NCA, the police, and the security services—it gets really complicated, so I can see why you want a co-ordinator. But that is what it is: a co-ordinator, not a commander.

I was Gold commander for the UKBA at the London 2012 Olympics. I was in charge, basically; obviously I was answering to the Home Secretary on decision making, but it came to me because I had command over all those units. Now, you do not have that, because the Home Office is very gradeist. You have all these directors general for a whole bunch of silos, so it is going to be a heck of a job for the new security commander to actually direct activities to those agencies that have other priorities and other responsibilities. That is why I would like to see them have agency powers—arrest powers, enforcement powers—and to have a look at that whole structure of Border Force enforcement and migration enforcement, and ask, “Is this too unwieldy? Can we have a more streamlined process whereby we have somebody calling the shots?”

[Mike Tapp]

Q Thank you—so obviously you differ from those who are currently serving. On the biometric checks, are you aware that we have a new system?

Tony Smith: I know you have an order coming in next week that will allow biometrics to be captured, but I do not think it goes far enough.

[Mike Tapp]

Does the new, Europe-wide entry/exit system, which will be implemented—

Tony Smith: Yes, the EU EES; that is what I mean.

[Mike Tapp]

Yes, the EES. We are having it at our borders.

Tony Smith: No, we are not.

[Mike Tapp]

Yes, we are. It is coming in this year.

Tony Smith: We do not have a biometric entry/exit system. The EU is bringing in EES, which means Brits will have to give their biometrics on entry and exit. We are bringing in the electronic travel authorisation—the ETA—but that is different from an entry/exit system.

[Tom Hayes]

Q My question is for Mr Williams. In a previous panel, I asked Dr Walsh whether he thought it was difficult to make emphatic assessments of the fiscal burden of migration, given the quality of the data available. You authored a February 2025 report that makes broadly the same points about some of the quality gaps. I would welcome you talking about the gaps in that data, which obviously affects the ability to make emphatic assessments.

I also want to ask you about that report. In a previous answer, you raised the importance of counterfactuals. In reaching the overall recommendations and assessments in your report, did you consider counterfactuals such as the fact that migrants might move up the wage and skills distribution and might not always remain on low pay? In the absence of migrant workers, for instance in health and care settings, there would need to be other people who could do their work. Did you consider the economic impact of having nobody in those roles to do that health and care work, and whether that would affect the worklessness in our country? Did you consider whether there could be a reallocation of British workers into higher-skilled and higher-wage jobs as a consequence of those migrant workers? Did you think about the economic impact of potentially more people doing unpaid care because of a lack of paid carers?

I ask those questions not because I feel we should rely on migrant workers—I do not—but because your report has been lauded by the shadow Home Secretary and other Conservative Members of Parliament. I want to make sure that if it is being used as a point of reference, the data and the assessments have integrity. If you were to consider those counterfactuals, I wonder whether that would affect your report.

Karl Williams: To clarify, we are talking about the report on indefinite leave to remain that came out recently, not the report from last year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

Q What about where we do not have the ability to return—with countries where we cannot return those people? They were going to go to Rwanda; now, where are they going?

Dame Angela Eagle: With all due respect, I do not think they were ever going to go to Rwanda.

[Mike Tapp]

Q Since you started in your role, 19,000 people have been deported, which I believe is a 24% increase on the same period last year. How have you managed to achieve that in such a short time? Combined with the Bill, do you think that that will start acting as a deterrent?

Dame Angela Eagle: One of the important things for the integrity of any asylum system is that if people fail it, there are consequences that are different from those if they do not. It is the hard and nastier end of any asylum system: if you have no right to be here, we will want you to leave—voluntarily, if at all possible. Sometimes we will even facilitate that, but we will return you by force if we have to. The 19,000 returns that we have achieved since 4 July are an indication that we want to ensure that enforcement of the rules is being put into effect more than it was. There had been very big falls in returns, and very big falls in enforcement, and we want to put that right.

[Mr Forster]

Q We have heard a lot of mixed comments in the evidence sessions today, but quite a few witnesses have highlighted that the Bill only tackles half the story of border security, asylum and immigration. It tackles the supply side, not the demand. Based on today, will you consider some potential amendments, or another potential strategy, to attach to the Bill to tackle the whole picture that, as we heard today, people as a country want us to tackle?

Dame Angela Eagle: Clearly, it is important that we try to deal with the development of organised immigration crime on our borders. Colleagues will have heard the comments from the NCA and the National Police Chiefs’ Council about how important it is to assert the rule of law in such areas. It is very important. That is the main aim of the Bill.

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about safe routes, we heard some evidence today about safe routes. I am personally sceptical that those would stop people wanting to come across in boats. If one takes the example of our Afghan scheme—a safe route for particular people from Afghanistan who have been put in danger by supporting UK forces—that is a legal route that is safe. At the same time, last year the largest nationality represented among small boat arrivals was Afghans.

We have people arriving on small boats who come from countries where we have visa regimes, so I am not convinced that we could provide enough places on safe routes to prevent people smugglers benefiting from that kind of demand. That is my opinion from having looked at what goes on and I accept the hon. Gentleman might have a different one.

Seema Malhotra: If I may add to that, we also heard in the evidence about the scale of the challenge that we face and how small boat crossings are a relatively new phenomenon, in that we had around 300 in 2018, but the number is now 36,000. In a very targeted way, this Bill is looking at what more tools we can bring in along with the Border Security Command to tackle the criminal gangs that are literally making millions—if not more—out of people who are very vulnerable.

The fact that there were more deaths in the channel in 2024 than in previous years shows that the situation is becoming even more dangerous, so we absolutely have to do everything we can to disrupt those criminal gangs. Therefore, I want to focus on that for this Bill, because we cannot do everything in one piece of legislation.

It is important, however, to correct, from my understanding, a bit of evidence that was given earlier by Tony Smith that the UK resettlement scheme was closed—it is actually still open. We have had over 3,000 refugees resettled via that scheme since its launch four years ago. The number of refugees arriving on that depends on a range of factors, and that includes recommendations from the UNHCR as well as how many offers of accommodation we have from local authorities; that is an ongoing system. This is legislation around tackling the small boats and the criminal gangs that are enabling that as a new trade.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting)

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Q I want to broaden this out. Enver highlighted the Refugee Council’s view on the Bill being too narrow. What is the view of the Scottish Refugee Council and the British Red Cross on that? What do you think of safe, legal routes?

Mubeen Bhutta: I did not quite catch the first bit of your question, but I think you are asking about safe and legal routes. I endorse some of the comments that my colleague Enver has already made. We welcome the Bill. We welcome the intention of the Bill around reducing the loss of life in the channel, but that is only half of the story.

It is really important that we look at the reasons why people are putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers in the first place. It is often because there is no other choice—there is no route that they can take. We would like to see more safe and legal routes, whether that is new routes, such as enabling people to apply for a humanitarian visa in the country that they are in to come directly to the UK and then be able to claim asylum, or expanding existing routes such as family reunion, so that there is more eligibility for people to use those routes.

It is really important to look at both sides of the coin. In a way, you could consider this Bill to be looking at the supply of this sort of activity, but it does not do anything about the demand. People will still need to make those journeys if no other routes are available.

Daniel O’Malley: For us, this is another migration Bill on top of many migration Bills. The system that people seeking asylum currently face is convoluted and arbitrary, and it is founded on hostility. As Mubeen rightly said, it is about the enforcement and stopping people crossing, rather than creating a more efficient asylum system. For us at the Scottish Refugee Council, that is what we are concerned about in the Bill. You talked about the Bill being quite narrow, but there are aspects of it that are far too broad and that can be applied in too broad a manner.

For the Scottish Refugee Council, the asylum aspects of the Bill do not address an updating of the asylum system. There are points on integration that should be considered as well. Nothing in the Bill talks about the integration of people seeking asylum while they are in the system. We commend the Government for speeding up the clearing of the backlog, which is great, but work needs to be done to help people who are in the system to integrate into the country. About 75% of people in the system will typically be granted refugee status, so work needs to be done to help them to integrate into communities, rather than having them in asylum accommodation or hostile environments.

The Government are rightly looking at asylum accommodation and the Home Affairs Committee is also doing an inquiry into it, so we know the work is being done. We would have liked to see the Bill contain a point about integration. The work in Scotland on this is the “New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy”, with an approach to integration from day one of arrival. We would like to see that extended to the UK level as well, mirroring what has also been done in Wales.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

Q We have met previously, Mr Solomon, and I want to declare that I have worked for the National Crime Agency in the past and in a counter-terror role. I understand the points you made on enforcement, but what are your views on the fact that the Bill also includes strong disruptive measures, which is of course pre-enforcement, such as search and seizure?

Enver Solomon: I think those measures are legitimate. As I said, it is important to take steps to disrupt the activity of gangs that are causing huge harms to the lives of individual men, women and children, who are often extremely vulnerable. Attempts such as the powers you referred to are important and have a role to play—I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that they need to be used proportionately and to be clearly targeted at the individuals behind the criminal gangs and the trade of the criminal gangs.

Our concern is that, by broadening criminal powers in the Bill and specifically by introducing new offences, individuals will be caught up in that process. People who are coming across in very flimsy and dangerous vessels will end up being criminalised through no fault of their own. We are also concerned that using further laws—as has been seen across a whole range of different areas of public policy—is a blunt instrument to try to change the behaviour of people.

People will not stop getting into flimsy dinghies and coming across the channel or the Mediterranean because of new offences that they might face. They will probably know very little about the nature of those offences. They will know very little about the new rules that mean, if you get refugee protection, you will no longer be able to go on and gain British citizenship. We know that from our experience: they will know nothing about that, so it will not change behaviour or provide the deterrence that I think it is hoped it will provide.

That is why you need to use these powers in a very targeted, proportionate way that deals with the prosecution of the criminal behaviour but does not result in, in effect, punching down on those vulnerable people who are getting into the boats because they want to seek safety. It will not change their behaviour. That is our experience from having worked with refugees and people seeking asylum over many decades.

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

Q Welcome; thank you for coming along and giving your evidence, and for your written evidence. I think you are absolutely right to focus on the new criminal clauses that are included in the Bill, and to comment on how invidious they may be in how they might be broadly applied to asylum seekers. Do you agree that, if we could find some provision or series of amendments that removed asylum seekers from the focus of these new criminal laws, that might be a useful development? One of the clauses I would like you to comment on is the one that introduces an offence of endangering another person during sea crossings. You are experienced in working with asylum seekers and refugees—do they have any cognisance of the hardening of immigration and asylum laws in the UK when they are trying to get their family to safety from a war-torn region?

Enver Solomon: I would say not. I will come to clause 18 in a second, but I encourage the Committee to look at clauses 13 and 14. In our submission, we proposed that they should be amended to ensure the focus of the new offence is on people smugglers and not on those seeking protection in the UK. We also said that clause 15 should be amended to include other items that are important for reducing the risk that people face when attempting to cross the channel, and that the Government should consult widely to ensure the list is as extensive as is necessary.

On endangering others, given that, as Committee members will know, many of the boats now used are barely seaworthy and overcrowded, and that the numbers crammed into them are increasing, clause 18 could cover many more people than those whom the offence is apparently targeted at—that is, the people smugglers. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary gave some useful examples of the types of behaviour that could result in people being prosecuted, including physical aggression, intimidation, the rejection of rescue attempts and so on. We think the wording should be amended to reflect specific actions to ensure that the offence is very clearly focused.

We argue overall that these new offences are an extremely blunt instrument to change behaviours, and they will not have the desired effect of changing behaviours and stopping people getting into very dangerous, flimsy vessels.

Daniel O'Malley: To add to what Enver says, yes, it is a blunt instrument. We operate a refugee support service across the whole of Scotland, and when people come to our services they do not talk about the deterrence or anything like that; they talk about what they see once they get here. The environment that is created around people seeking asylum and refugees does not deter them from coming here, but once they are here, they feel that there is a threat to their protection and that their status here is under threat.

The language in these deterrents does not deter anybody from coming here; it just causes a hostile environment. That was the situation created by the previous Bills under the previous Government. We hope that will not be continued with the new Bill and other changes the Home Office is making. At the end of the day, when people come to our services and talk about stuff like this, they talk about how it makes them feel when they are in the country, not about how it deters them from coming here.

Prevent: Learning Review

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

It may be hard for newer Members to understand how difficult this is for more experienced Members, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who spent so many years on these green Benches, working so closely with a much beloved colleague. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is sitting below another shield. Members across the House understand the pain experienced with the loss of our colleagues, and our shared determination to work together and with others to do everything we can to ensure that those who serve in this House have the support and the protections that they need and deserve.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly took the opportunity to reference one of Sir David’s many achievements: the city status of Southend. That certainly would not have happened without Sir David’s campaigning over many years. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the work that will take place with Essex police. I understand the important concerns that he has raised about Prevent. The terms of reference of the Southport inquiry rightly are still a matter of discussion between the Home Secretary, the Home Office and the families in that particular case, so I am unable to make a judgment about that at this point. What I can do is not only reiterate the point that I have already made, but offer a further commitment from the Home Secretary and me to look very carefully at this, to continue the conversation with the late Sir David’s family and other Members, and to work out the best mechanism to provide them and all Members of this House with the answers that they both want and deserve.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

The murder of Sir David Amess cut to the very heart of democracy. Clearly, he was the very best of British. The Minister talked about parliamentary security in his considered statement. I have spoken to many colleagues across the House who have said that they feel that abuse and harassment are peaking, and many feel unsafe. Of course, it is unwise to go into details of specific measures, but is the Minister confident that these measures will make us feel safer in this House?

[Dan Jarvis]

As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution. “Best of British” is precisely the right phraseology to apply to Sir David. My hon. Friend asked an important question about how we defend our democracy. He asked about my confidence in the work that we are doing to ensure that Members of this House and elected representatives elsewhere can perform their duties with the confidence that they are safe. I must be honest with him and say that that is an ongoing process. All of us in this place will have experienced threats, harassment and intimidation. That is worse particularly for women Members. It is a stain on our society that there are those out there who feel that they can abuse female elected representatives.

What I can give my hon. Friend is an absolute assurance that we are organising and marshalling the resources that we have across Government, working with law enforcement and operational partners, and co-operating very closely with you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities, to ensure that those who step forward to serve can do so with the security and comfort of knowing they are properly protected. I will leave no stone unturned in my work with colleagues across Government to ensure that is the case. Where individuals have concerns, wherever they may be, I will always make myself available to discuss those concerns with them.