Immigration

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is important that all of us acknowledge the humanity of people who come to our country to work, and the contribution that they make. But we also have to have rules: we have to decide who comes to our country and why, and we have to explain those rules to the electorate. That is what I shall go on to try and do.

We inherited a system in total chaos. The Conservatives allowed criminal gangs to take hold across the channel, which saw the numbers arriving rocket from 300 in 2018 to more 30,000 in a few years. They crashed the asylum system, with a 70% drop in monthly decision making and an 80% drop in asylum interviews in the run-up to the election. There was a 34% drop in returns compared with the last Labour Government, and they spent £700 million sending four volunteers to Rwanda. Their handling of legal immigration was no better. Net migration quadrupled in the space of just four years to nearly a million—that is their record.

Those numbers tell a wretched story of a system spiralling out of control; an entire criminal industry building up along our borders with terrible consequences; ruthless smugglers sending desperate people on dangerous, sometimes deadly, journeys and making a fortune in the process; basic rules not being enforced; and a collapse of trust and confidence in the state’s ability to perform one of its most fundamental functions: keeping our borders safe and secure.

So bad was the Conservatives’ record that the public simply stopped believing anything they said—and who can blame them? For all the talk about stopping the boats and stopping this crisis, the crisis carried on. Unsurprisingly, strong words and grotesquely expensive gimmicks make little impact against sophisticated smuggling networks. The task of ending this chaos falls to this Government.

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

The Minister knows that I have long believed that this Government are harbouring their own ambitions for a Rwanda scheme. It started with the idea of a returns hub in Albania, but that seems to have been rejected by the Albanian Government. Does the Minister have any further plans to introduce some sort of son of Rwanda on behalf of her Government?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

When we came into office, we ended the Rwanda scheme. The scheme was about deporting people, processing their asylum in another country and never letting them back here. [Interruption.] But it did not work—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have to say that I was amazed to see a Conservative motion on immigration on today’s Order Paper. I think all that most of us in the House require from the Conservatives is a full and sincere apology for the mess and chaos that they left behind, and then for them to go away for a long period of self-ordained silence. They thought that they were reducing immigration, but what they did was quadruple it. They did not even understand their own immigration policy. They were letting hundreds of thousands of people come into this country. So please, do not get to your feet and have the temerity to lecture this House about immigration after the mess that you made.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman did rather incite me to get to my feet, and I am somewhat stunned at his allegation that I have played any part in this.

[Pete Wishart]

That was not like me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was very lax, and I apologise.

The Conservatives are currently languishing in fourth place in the opinion polls, and it is a well-deserved position.

[Cameron Thomas]

I am making this intervention from the Reform Bench, in the absence, apparently, of their own interest in immigration.

Another thing that I think the Conservative party might answer for is the fact that Vladimir Putin weaponised immigration in 2015 through his terrorist tactics in Syria. I wonder whether the Conservatives have given much thought to how the Conservative Friends of Russia group continued to operate for nearly a decade thereafter.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think the Conservatives give much thought to anything in this particular field, so I would not even venture to give an opinion on that.

As I was saying, the Conservatives are in fourth place in the polls, and their entire vote has practically gone wholesale to Reform. This scrappy, desperate motion represents a vain attempt to stop that leakage and get some of their vote back. Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that it does not matter how hard they try—and they are trying—because they will never outperform Reform, who are the masters of nasty rhetoric. The Conservatives are mere amateurs compared with the hon. Gentlemen of Reform who just so happen not to be in their places again.

The whole debate about immigration is descending into an ugly place which seems to fire the obnoxious and the unpleasant. I am talking not only about those two parties but about the Government too, and I am now going to direct my blame at some of the things they are doing. A new consensus is emerging in the House. For all the faux arguments and fabricated disagreements, the three parties are now more or less united in a new anti-immigrant landscape in the House. The only thing that seems to separate them is the question of who can be the hardest and the toughest in this grotesque race to the bottom on asylum, refugees and immigration.

The fear of Reform percolates through every sinew in this House. It dominates every single debate, and everything that is going on. Reform is killing the Conservatives, but Labour seems to want a bit of the self-destruction action too. Everything the Government do on immigration is now looked at through the prism of Reform, and they have even started to get the Prime Minister to use Reform’s language. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) could not have been more generous in his tribute to the Prime Minister for his contribution to nasty rhetoric. The thing is, the “island of strangers” speech could have been made by any one of these three parties.

[Sir John Hayes]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have not changed my mind about this; I have believed it forever. I only change my mind about anything about once a decade. The truth of the matter is that he must know that, according to the ONS, the scale of population growth will be equivalent to the population of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Peterborough, Belfast, Cardiff, Manchester, Ipswich, Norwich, Luton and Bradford added together. That cannot be reconciled with the quality of life and standard of living that his constituents and mine expect.

[Pete Wishart]

I know the right hon. Gentleman does not change his mind, and it is something that we all love him for in this place. Maybe we should look forward to what is on its way in a couple of decades. I think he knows that a spectacular population decline will start to kick in around the mid-part of this century. Spain and Italy are already doing something about it. All we are doing in this place is stifling population growth through the two-child benefit cap—something that works contrary to what we require.

All Labour is doing is climbing on the anti-immigrant bandwagon, and that is alienating its supporters. I am sure that everybody saw the Sky News report this morning on the intention of former Labour voters. Sky News found that only 6% of lost Labour voters have gone to Reform. Labour has mainly lost votes to the Liberal Democrats and the parties of the left. In fact, Labour has lost three times as many voters to the Liberal Democrats and the left as it has to Reform, and 70% of Labour voters are considering abandoning the Labour party to support the parties of the left.

[Cameron Thomas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I cannot give way any more.

In chasing Reform voters by using its language and appeasing Reform, Labour is only further alienating its supporters. One can only wonder at the political genius that is Morgan McSweeney, who has managed to chase voters away in a search for voters who do not exist.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

rose—

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I cannot give way—I have no time.

Ordinary Labour voters have good, liberal values, but just now they have a party that is not representing their views. That is why they are moving on.

In Scotland, we take on Reform. We are one of the few parties across the United Kingdom that has steadied its own position, and we have even improved it slightly. There is a big gap between us and Reform. That is because we take on Reform’s arguments and we do not appease the party or go on to its agenda. I encourage Labour colleagues to think about that.

We now have an immigration policy that is the exact opposite of what we need in Scotland, and it is contrary to our national interest. Scotland is in the early stages of the population and demography crisis, and it will only get worse because of what this Government are going to impose on us. We will soon have too few working-age people available to look after an ever-increasing older population.

For all three parties—Labour, the Conservatives and Reform—immigration is a burden and is out of control. For us in Scotland, it is essential to the health of our workforce and our economy. That is why we will never stop calling for a separate Scottish visa. We need the tools in our country to face up to our crisis. I will leave the Government to get on with their grotesque race to the bottom and to pander to Reform in a vain attempt to get some votes, but Scotland does not need their new “island of strangers” policy. It is contrary to what we want, so please leave us right out of it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We will now have an immediate four-minute time limit.

Immigration System

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The point that the Prime Minister has repeatedly made is that people need to be able to integrate, to become part of our communities and to share with our neighbours, and that means being able to speak English. That is very important, and it is why we are increasing the English language standards, not just for main visa applicants but for partners, spouses and adult dependants, because too often people unable to speak English have been isolated in communities, and that can also lead to greater exploitation.

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

Today’s announcement, with all that appalling, dehumanising language from the Prime Minister, could not be more contrary to Scotland’s national interest. We have a population and demography crisis just now. We cannot get an adequate working-age population to look after our older cohort. Why is the Home Secretary introducing an immigration system that is contrary to everything that we need in Scotland? Why does she not give us the powers to grow our economy and public services, and why does she not give a jot about Scotland?

[Yvette Cooper]

I gently say to the hon. Member that a series of labour market issues needs to be addressed. As he will know, Scotland’s labour market faced challenges when net migration was at 900,000—that level of net migration did not solve the issues across Scotland’s labour market. There is a serious issue about what should happen about skills, training and different workforce strategies across Scotland. We have been clear that the skills’ bodies and the devolved Governments from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland need to be part of the labour market evidence group, so that we can have a broad strategy that will properly deal with the labour market challenges that we face.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I want to speak in

support of new clause 37, which stands in my name, but I will begin by addressing the political theatre that often surrounds immigration. Politicians constantly speak about immigration, spinning fear and suspicion, and then conveniently report back that immigration is a top concern for voters, when it is not. Recent polls show clearly that immigration does not feature in the top concerns among those who were considering voting Labour but did not. Instead, people are talking about tangible issues, such as the winter fuel allowance, the rising cost of living and the desperate need to fund our public services. Rather than dealing with those issues, we choose to stoke division with sentiments about “strangers”.

I want to be crystal clear: immigration is not the crisis. What we are facing is the crisis in how we treat people, value rights and understand our responsibilities to one another. The focus seems always to be on small boat crossings, but irregular migration—people arriving by boats—accounts for just a fraction of the nearly 1 million people who came to this country last year. I do not call then “illegal migrants” as that term is morally degrading and asylum seekers have the right under international law to seek refuge. If we want to resolve these issues, we need to start with safe and legal routes.

Regular migration has soared since 2021, under the Tories and post Brexit, because the Government’s own policies created this situation. The points-based immigration system was always designed to encourage people to come here—and they have. So the issue is not migration itself, but the exploitative business model behind it. Policies around immigration are never about fairness but always seem to come back to profit. That same logic—profits over people—governs our asylum system. The companies contracted to run immigration detention—household names such as Serco, Mitie and Mears—are all profiteering and make millions off the backs of vulnerable people. We have seen reports of detainees being abused and being kept in unsanitary conditions, yet those companies continue to get millions of pounds in contracts.

Speaking of protection, let me turn to children, specifically children born here in the UK or who have lived here since they were young, who have called no other place home, yet are still denied British citizenship. I have tabled new clause 37 to address that. These children are not migrants, but they are treated like second-class citizens, often not knowing they are not officially citizens until they apply to university or for a job. Does that sound familiar? They suddenly find themselves locked out of everything through no fault of their own. It is a quiet scandal, just like the Windrush scandal—they have lived here their whole lives, only to be told that they have no right to be here.

We promised “Never again” and said that we would learn lessons, but in 2025 we are charging British-born children £1,214 to register as citizens, when we know the administrative cost is only £372. We are charging those children for something that is their right. Up to 215,000 children are legally entitled to citizenship but they are undocumented because of the exploitative fee. The fee waiver is not working, so we are calling for fairness. At the very least, if a child is entitled to citizenship, they should be able to claim it without being priced out. No child should be punished for where their parents were born or how much money they have.

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

I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name.

I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on her maiden speech, but she seems to have joined her colleagues in the bar. I was going to tell her that she had achieved something quite notable: she has been able to force this Government to bring forward this immigration White Paper, as both the main parties try to outdo and triangulate the hon. Members from Reform, who are no longer in their places. May I just say to hon. Members on the Conservative and Labour Benches that they are more or less wasting my time: why would voters go for one of the diet versions when they could have the full-fat version in the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?

I have spoken at every stage of this Bill, including four interminable weeks and countless hours on the Public Bill Committee—[Interruption.] I wish I could say otherwise. Of course, for the Minister it was a positive experience, but for me it was nothing other than thoroughly frustrating, depressing and dispiriting. I have been appalled at the emerging casual and callous way that the most wretched people in the world are now portrayed and demonised, and I fear what this House now has in store for them. I despair at the lack of empathy and humanity that has been shown to some of the most desperate people in the world. I abhor the perception that essential human rights are considered a hinderance, to be dispensed with in the pursuit of even more cruelty and disregard. I think the House forgets that these are real people fleeing conflict, oppression and unimaginable horror.

I rise to speak in support of my new clause 3, on safe routes, because I believe that is the only way we should deal with those people. What we have done just now is create a monopoly and exclusive rights for the gangs that operate the Channel crossings. There is no other way for asylum seekers to assert their asylum rights. When they have the opportunity to assert those rights, most of them have them granted, which makes a nonsense of the fact that asylum seekers are being termed “illegal immigrants.” Instead of smashing the gangs, the Government are actually giving them new opportunities and making their business model even more lucrative.

I pay tribute to all the agencies and support organisations that helped me with these amendments and the amendments I tabled in Committee. Those groups are now in some sort of legal jeopardy because of some of the clauses in the Bill. Their opportunities to support the most desperate people in the world through advocacy and looking after their rights are now at risk because of some of the measures in the Bill. We are heading towards a particularly dark place in some of the considerations on these issues.

I am impressed by some of the Labour speakers when they talk about immigration and say that we have to be very careful how we handle this debate as we go forward, but I am really feart just now. I listened to what the Prime Minister said this morning and was horrified by some of the language he conjured up, which we thought we had lost decades ago. This is the type of territory that we venture into with very great sensitively, and I am afraid that the Prime Minister lost that this afternoon. I hope that we have the opportunity to press these new clauses and amendments, secure the safe routes and ensure that we do everything we can for asylum seekers.

[Jo White]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“People started dying. People were screaming. It is very painful when someone is dying inside the water. The way they die—they cannot breathe...it is very difficult. I never thought I would experience such a thing… It is a harrowing experience I do not want to remember. I was holding on to what remained of the boat and people were screaming. It is something I will not forget.”

This is the witness testimony of Mohammed Omar when he spoke at the Cranston inquiry, which is investigating the UK’s worst small boat disaster. On 27 November 2021, it is believed that 31 people lost their lives. Mohammed said that he was told that 33 people would be aboard the dinghy, but more were added, including children.

Those gang members whose sole focus is on the billions of pounds that their horrific trade generates, who overload boats that are not fit to go into the ocean, who treat human life as having no value, willing to put lives at risk for huge profits must experience the full force of the law. This Bill gives Border Command the powers to pursue, arrest and prosecute those people. Breaking and destroying the gangs is critical to bringing an end to the small boat crossings. Mohammed’s witness evidence underlines how important it is to achieve that.

The Bill not only gives the power and authority to work with our international partners to track down and break up the gangs, with the powers to seize and interrogate mobile phones and laptops to collect data and evidence, but the new amendment will introduce enhanced illegal working checks, putting a stop to those delivery drivers bringing meals or parcels to our doorsteps who cannot speak a word of English, potentially using IDs that have been borrowed or purchased from legitimate employees.

I welcome the raids on the businesses, such as the nail bars, barbers and restaurants employing illegal workers, potentially in slave labour conditions. In January there were 131 raids in my area of the midlands, with 106 arrests. The amendment will mean that those arrested will now face fines of up to £60,000 per worker and prison sentences of up to five years. The French have said that people want to come to the UK because it is all too easy to be swept into the black economy and work illegally. The heavy disincentives of fines and prison sentences have the power to put a brake on the demand for the illegal trafficking of people.

I welcome this Bill. As I said in February,

“crack on with the job, give us a running commentary of every success, publicise the return flights and the jailing of criminals, clear up the Conservatives’ mess, secure our borders, close down the use of hotels and stop the small boats.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 124.]

Today is the next step forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have committed to neighbourhood policing and 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs on all our high streets and in communities up and down the land.

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

11. Whether she has received legal advice on the compatibility of recent changes to her Department’s guidance entitled “Good character: caseworker guidance”, updated on 10 February 2025, with the 1951 refugee convention.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

The hon. Member will know that we take our international obligations very seriously. We are satisfied that the good character policy is compliant with those obligations. We have strengthened our policy to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, will normally be refused British citizenship. The good character assessment has been a feature of UK immigration law since 1981 and there has never been any suggestion, either now or in the past, that it is inconsistent with our obligations under the refugee convention or any other treaty.

[Pete Wishart]

One of the most shocking and egregious things this Government have done is impose a blanket ban on British citizenship for all individuals who have entered the UK irregularly, without any parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation, effectively disenfranchising all asylum seekers and refugees, including those who have made this country their home for years. The Refugee Council estimates that up to 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum could now be blocked from securing naturalisation. The Minister knows that there are no safe routes to get to the UK, so nearly all asylum seekers have to arrive irregularly. Surely the policy clearly breaches article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which prohibits penalising those seeking protection for their mode of entry? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. All Members should be respectful and mindful of their language at all times. Now we need to hear the Minister respond.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes. Of course, we have to crack down on abuse of our asylum system, but also on the exploitation of vulnerable and desperate people by vicious criminal gangs.

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

During Committee proceedings on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I said to the Minister that it would only be a matter of time before the Government concocted some sort of Rwanda-style deportation scheme. Even I did not think that it would come so quickly, if weekend press reports are to be believed. Can the Minister say that those reports are totally not true, and will she now rule out ever implementing a third country deportation scheme like the one introduced by the Conservatives?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am not going to comment on leaks.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have spoken already about indefinite leave to remain, which is also referred to as settlement. We have discussed the most basic requirement for eligibility, which is time, and our suggestion that the timeframe be extended from five years to 10. The new clause covers revocation, or the circumstances in which we believe that indefinite leave to remain status should be removed from an individual to whom it has been granted.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West set out, the first of these conditions is whether a person has engaged in criminality. Our definition for criminality is based on that used in section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, under which a person is a “foreign criminal” if they are neither a British nor an Irish citizen; if they have been convicted of an offence, where that conviction takes place in the United Kingdom; and if the period of imprisonment to which they are sentenced is at least 12 months. It also applies to a person who is a “serious criminal”, as defined in section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

It is already the case that individuals with settled status can be deported from the UK by having ILR status revoked at the discretion of the Home Secretary. This new clause makes that process automatic. We can see no reason why a person who has committed a crime—particularly based on the current legislation—that is so serious that they are sentenced to a year in prison should be able to continue to be in this country at all, let alone to retain ILR status and with it all the generosity and safety net of the British welfare state, including social housing, benefits and free healthcare.

Secondly, we have included in this new clause a condition that is effectively a knock-on effect from our earlier new clause 25, which would revoke ILR status conferred after this Act comes into force, where that status would not have been conferred under these new conditions.

Thirdly, the new clause applies to those who have been in receipt of social protection, as defined by the Treasury’s “Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses”, which includes personal social services in various different categories, as well as incapacity, disability and injury benefits, pensions, family benefits, income support and tax credits, unemployment benefits, universal credit and social housing. Social protection is a fundamental part of modern British society, but we should be honest that it is also incredibly expensive. Such generous provision should be available only to citizens. It must be a fundamental principle of our system that those who come to this country contribute fiscally more than they cost. What they pay in tax should more than cover the cost of the public services that they use. That is the opposite of the situation that we have now; only a small proportion of those who have come to this country over the past few years are likely to be net lifetime contributors. That is unaffordable.

That reality also underpins our final condition of income falling below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate. That figure of £38,700 was chosen to sit alongside the general skilled worker threshold, the minimum earnings threshold for skilled worker visas, and the minimum income requirement for a family visa sponsor proposed by the last Government. It was chosen as it represents the 50th percentile, or the median, of earnings for jobs at the skill level of RQF3—level 3 of the regulated qualifications framework—which is perhaps more easily recognisable as the equivalent of A-levels and BTECs.

We believe that the new clause will go some way to addressing the problems that we have set out of very high volumes of people coming to this country in recent years who are not set to be net fiscal contributors to the public purse over the course of their lifetimes. We hope that the Government will consider adding it to the Bill.

We also welcome the comments from the Minister on the fact that she is looking at this issue. Could she tell us specifically whether she is looking at any of these conditions, and, if so, which? How are her discussions coming along, and when does she hope to report back to the House on her plans?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

In November 2024, a Congolese paedophile who sexually assaulted his own stepdaughter was allowed to remain in the UK despite the Government’s attempts to deport him, out of concern that forcing him to leave the country would interfere with his right to a family life. In December 2024, a Turkish heroin peddler was allowed to stay in the UK because it was ruled that deporting him would interfere unduly with his family life, despite the fact that he had returned to Turkey eight times since coming to Britain.

In February of this year, a Nigerian woman who was refused asylum eight times was allowed to remain in the UK because it was decided that her membership of a terrorist organisation might make her subject to persecution in her home country. Earlier this month, a Nigerian drug dealer escaped deportation because he believed that he was suffering from “demonic forces”. Meanwhile, Samuel Frimpong, a Ghanaian fraudster, has been allowed to return to the UK, having being deported 12 years ago, after claiming that he is depressed in his home country.

The list goes on and on. Absurd asylum rulings from our tribunal system seem to emerge on an almost daily basis. What do these cases have in common? In each one, a potentially dangerous person was spared deportation because of our membership of the European convention on human rights, and, crucially, the domestic legislation that enshrines the convention in British law—the Human Rights Act. This legislation is clearly not fit for purpose when it comes to managing and securing the border. It is enabling dangerous foreign criminals to remain in the UK, and putting the British public at risk.

It is time we recognised that decisions about asylum and immigration should be made by politically accountable Ministers, rather than by unaccountable judges and tribunals. That is the purpose of our new clause, which seeks to disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the Bill and other legislation about borders, asylum and immigration.

[Pete Wishart]

Just to clarify, I think the hon. Lady is saying clearly that what she intends to do is to take decisions about immigration out of the hands of judges, and leave them in the hands of politicians. Is that her intention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

New clause 34 prevents any foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK. It should be a fundamental principle of our system that immigration never makes the British public any less safe. Unfortunately, however, many of those who have come to the UK in recent years have broken our laws. According to Ministry of Justice figures, a staggering 23% of sexual crimes in the UK—almost one in four—are committed by foreign nationals.

The overall imprisonment rate for foreign nationals is 20% higher than that for British citizens. Of course, the trend is not uniform: some nationalities are more heavily represented than others. Albanian migrants are nearly 17 times more likely to be imprisoned than average; those from Algeria are nearly nine times more likely and those from Jamaica nearly eight times more likely to be imprisoned than average.

Those who seek to harm this country, to break its laws and to undermine what we hold to be fair and right should not be allowed to remain here. As the Government are well aware, our prisons are already overcrowded. We must not allow foreign criminals to continue exacerbating this problem and we must not endanger the British public by allowing foreign criminals to stay in this country.

Under our current system, too many of those who break our laws are being allowed to remain in the UK. Often, Home Office attempts to deport foreign criminals are blocked because of absurd and ever expanding human rights rules. In the interests of public safety, we must not allow foreign criminals to remain in Britain; that includes by making sure that the Human Rights Act cannot be used to prevent us from deporting those who break our laws.

How, specifically, does new clause 34 do that? It amends section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, which we have already mentioned today. Section 32 would be amended from its current form, which defines a foreign criminal as a person who is neither a British nor an Irish citizen, who is convicted of an offence that takes place in the United Kingdom and who is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of least 12 months, or is a serious criminal as defined in section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. What would replace section 32 would be much simpler; it would instead say that a foreign criminal was anyone who is neither a British nor an Irish citizen who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom, and explicitly include within that anybody who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, which sets out the situations in which a person can be considered to have entered this country illegally. That includes if they do so in breach of a deportation order; if they required leave to enter the United Kingdom and knowingly came here without that leave; or if they required leave to enter the United Kingdom and knowingly stayed here beyond the time conferred by that leave, among other specific conditions.

New clause 34 also seeks to ensure that the rules will be upheld in all circumstances and asserts therefore that the principle of removing criminals from this country is of utmost importance and must be prioritised above other legislation. That includes human rights legislation, for the reasons we have already set out.

I turn to new clause 42, which requires the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country proves to be unco-operative in the process of removing any of its nationals or citizens from the UK. Such a lack of co-operation may arise in verifying their identity or status or it may pertain to the process of removing people whose identity and status has not been established. New clause 42 seeks to do that by amending section 70 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. That Act set out the idea of a visa penalty provision, effectively allowing the Home Secretary to suspend visa applications from countries that do not co-operate with the activity that the Government are trying to take to secure and protect the border. The new clause would strengthen that Act by changing that from an option for the Home Secretary to a duty and by adding explicitly the point about countries that are not co-operating with the process of verifying the identity or status of individuals whom we consider likely to be nationals or citizens of the countries in question.

[Pete Wishart]

I am struggling to understand this new clause. There are a number of reasons why other countries may not be able co-operate with the UK on immigration and visa cases—it could be political instability, or there could be a right-wing despot in charge—but that impacts on ordinary asylum seekers. Does the hon. Lady not accept that there are a number of political or even administrative reasons why they are not always able to co-operate?

[Katie Lam]

The new clause maintains the Home Secretary’s ability to judge whether or not a country is being unco-operative. If it is unable to help, that is different from being unco-operative in the way that we would define it here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

[Katie Lam]

New clause 36 would give access to asylum accommodation centres to our immigration enforcement officers. Members of the public may be surprised to learn that this power does not already exist. It seems to me common sense that when a person has come here illegally and is being housed by the state, immigration enforcement—an arm of that state—should be able to enter that accommodation to carry out their work.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West rightly set out, these accommodation centres exist because the volume of those coming here illegally is such that it is not possible to hold everyone in immigration detention. There are therefore substantial numbers of people on immigration bail, and a reasonable number of those are held in accommodation centres. Immigration decisions are made elsewhere, but this is the criterion set out in current legislation. In our view, this is a quirk of the current system, and not how one would design it if starting from a blank page. These sorts of accommodation centres did not exist when our rules were written, and we think that this corrects that quirk.

I echo the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West: does the Minister think that this would be of operational benefit to immigration enforcement officers? If so, will she include it, and if not, why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I want to put something on the record before we vote. There is a specific meaning in law for the phrase “accommodation centres” under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Since that law was passed, no Government have actually stood up accommodation centres under that specific meaning. Therefore, the shadow Minister in his new clause 36 is asking for powers to enter something that does not exist.

[Pete Wishart]

While the Minister is on her feet, could she perhaps ask the Opposition spokesperson whether he actually means hotels?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was trying to help the shadow Minister, because I thought he might be trying to talk about accommodation generally. If that is the case, we already have the powers we need to enter when and where we wish. This power is much broader, and we would not like to see it put into effect, which is why I hope the Committee will vote against the new clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Pete Wishart]

It is not a holiday; it is a funeral.

[Matt Vickers]

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

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

He doesn’t know!

[Matt Vickers]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

[Jo White]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. We should never be surprised by the audacity of the Conservative party, which now exists in a state of amnesia following the previous 14 years of failure, collapse and chaos. Let me take a moment to remind Opposition Members of their failed promises.

A good place to start is the general election campaign of 2010, when David Cameron said that his Government would reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. At that point, net migration stood at 252,000. In 2011, he went further, saying that his target would be achieved by the 2015 general election—“No ifs. No buts.” But when the ballot boxes were opened in that election, numbers had risen to 379,000. Then along came Theresa May. At the snap 2017 general election, net migration stood at 270,000, and she had an election pledge to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, but by 2019 the number had risen to 275,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Seventh sitting)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to examine the failed Rwanda scheme. The Israeli scheme, which was set up more than a decade ago, provides stark evidence that the previous Government should have considered before recycling an idea that has cost taxpayers £700 million. In Israel, asylum seekers were given a stark choice: be sent home, go to a migrant detention facility or take $3,500 on a one-way flight to Rwanda. One such asylum seeker quickly found that he was not welcome on arrival. No sooner had he landed in Kigali than he was told he had to leave again for Uganda, and for a fee. He said that he quickly left for Greece on a small boat and then travelled over land to Switzerland, where he is now settled. Another used a $5,000 payment that he received to catch a flight to Amsterdam, where he then claimed asylum status.

The previous Conservative Government entered into the agreement with Rwanda with full knowledge of the previous failings there and offered individuals a personal payment of £3,000 to resettle their lives. Figures have been bandied about on how many asylum seekers Rwanda was willing to take, with the previous Government saying 1,000, and Rwanda saying between 100 and 200. It is not clear who was right, but a question that has often been repeated to me is: how can that be regarded as a deterrent? Indeed, our witnesses from the refugee support organisations made the point that people will continue to come and try their luck, and 84,000 took that risk. I welcome the fact that we have our common sense back and we are repealing the Act, but I despair at the waste of taxpayers’ money on pursuing a fantasy that had already failed elsewhere.

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

Good morning to you, Mr Stuart, for week two of our fascinating journey into the depths of the Bill. There will be absolutely no argument from me about this one, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Bill must go through. When we look back at the whole sorry Rwanda debacle, we will wonder how on earth such a crackpot scheme was not only conceived, but actually constructed and delivered. A few words will be forever on the gravestone of the last Conservative Government: “stop the boats” and “Rwanda”. It was the first time, in my experience, that an Act decreed a new reality. Through sheer willpower alone, the Conservatives declared that Rwanda was a safe place, and in true Orwellian style, they even called the legislation the Safety of Rwanda Act. It was the most blatant political attempt ever to try to convince us that black was white.

Rwanda is so safe that it is currently accused of supporting the M23 militia, which is claimed to be recruiting child soldiers and carrying out killings and rapes of civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Saying all that, Rwanda played an utter blinder. It milked this for all it was worth. It saw these mugs coming. So far, Rwanda has made £240 million—money that will not have to be paid back. The Bill was described by the Law Society as “defective” and “constitutionally improper”, and it was declared unlawful in the Supreme Court. All those rebukes did nothing for the Conservatives other than to encourage them to ensure that the idea became a reality.

We just have to look at the sheer waste and the sheer stupidity that was the very essence of the Rwanda policy. The headline was that it cost taxpayers £750 million and failed to deport a single asylum seeker against their will. There was £270 million to support economic development in Rwanda, £95 million for detention and reception centres and £280 million for other fixed costs. Fifty million pounds was spent preparing for flights that never took off.

Then there is the farce of the Kigali four—the four volunteers sent to Rwanda, who were the only people who actually made it through the whole scheme. Tortoise did us a favour by unearthing the script that was used when the Home Office tried to persuade people to take up a “generous one-time offer” of a relocation package to Rwanda. One source said that demonstrated an

“insane level of resource that went into just proving the concept”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

First things first: the hon. Gentleman was not going to send to Rwanda only those whom we could not return to their own country; in theory, he was going to deport to Rwanda absolutely everybody who arrived to claim asylum after March 2023—that was what we were told. In reality, those people all ended up in hotels, unable to be processed and growing in number, while the Conservative party indulged in its expensive gimmicks and fantasies of how the world should be.

As many Committee members have pointed out, the day job was not being done while that parallel universe policy was being developed. It took all the attention away from running what is a complex enough system as it is. Many resources were diverted to try to create that new reality, resulting in the neglect of the system, and huge backlogs were built into the system because of how the Illegal Migration Act interacted with the Safety of Rwanda Act. That made it impossible to run the current system or to move to a new system that was remotely workable, thereby landing this country with a huge, dysfunctional series of backlogs, and a system that we have had to literally start up again from scratch to try to get working coherently.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister may have been coming on to the second part of the question asked by the hon. Member for Stockton West, but will she be brave enough to tell the Committee that this Labour Government will never consider sending asylum seekers and refugees to a third country?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The Home Secretary has said that she does not rule out third country processing; that is not the same as the Rwanda scheme, which was deportation to a third country permanently. I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about third country returns, such as reviving the Dublin system. When the previous Government negotiated the EU withdrawal agreement, they perhaps should have included something about returns to Europe. Had they done so, perhaps we would be in a different situation, but those would also have been third country returns. He asked a wide-ranging question, and I have been as honest as I can in answering it at this point.

We could spend all day, and probably many more days, talking about the failure encompassed in the interaction of the Safety of Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. Our job today, though, is to tidy it up. Clause 37 will take the Safety of Rwanda Act off the statute book and put it in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

Section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman will have noted on the front of the Bill that we are debating the statement from the Home Secretary on the European convention on human rights:

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Work is going on in the Department to assess the accuracy of the various methods of age assessment, which ministerial predecessors from the hon. Gentleman’s party commenced, but which has not yet been finished. As soon as we have more idea about how reliable scientific age assessment can be, how expensive it is and all those things, I will either come to Parliament or make a statement about how we intend to proceed. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that because these sections have been repealed we are not interested in scientific age assessments and their potential per se. They were simply unworkable because they were attached to the duty to remove, which was such a feature of the Illegal Migration Act.

The six measures that the Government intend to retain, including where provisions are in force, have been identified as having operational utility and benefit. These powers are all ones that the Government see as important tools to allow for the proper operation of the immigration system and to achieve wider priorities alongside the powerful measures set out in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire talked about section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act. The public order disqualification under the Nationality and Borders Act is currently in operation. It enables decisions to disqualify certain individuals from support and protections afforded by the national referral mechanisms on grounds of public order and bad faith. Public order grounds include serious criminality and threats to national security. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, considering the individual’s vulnerabilities. That is the sole modern slavery measure in the Illegal Migration Act that is being retained. It would, if commenced, amend the public order disqualification to allow more foreign national offenders to be considered for disqualification from modern slavery protections on public order grounds. Disqualification will continue to be assessed on an individual basis.

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad that the Minister got to that last sentence, because it is quite clear from section 29 that victims of modern slavery only have to be considered a threat to public order. It is quite likely that many victims of modern slavery will get caught up in this; in fact, they already have. Is the Minister happy that those who were probably coerced into criminal activity will now almost be blanket-banned from any opportunity to go through the asylum process in the United Kingdom?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There will not be a blanket ban. Individuals who have been subject to public order disqualification will have been disqualified for things such as multiple drug offences, possessing a firearm and ammunition, multiple counts of sexual assault and assault by beating, grooming and engaging in sexual communication with a child. Those are the kind of things that currently lead to public order disqualifications. Nothing in the retention of section 29 will mean that individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis cannot be taken into account. It is important to understand that that will still happen. If it were commenced—it has not yet been—section 29 would introduce a duty to apply the public order disqualification, unless there are compelling circumstances that the disqualification should not apply. That still ensures case-by-case consideration.

The citizenship ban is removed from the Bill because it was unworkable and unenforced; that is, again, attached to the duties to remove. We have updated the good character guidance to prevent people from gaining citizenship if they arrived illegally by dangerous journeys. The idea is to emphasise that citizenship is not a right, but a privilege. We will continue to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis.

The other sections that we have retained are thought to be useful. The six measures in section 12 emphasise the right of the Secretary of State to determine what constitutes a reasonable time period to detain a person for the specific statutory purpose of effecting removal from the UK. Section 52 allows flexibility in our judiciary by making first-tier tribunal judges eligible to sit in the upper-tier tribunal. I cannot imagine anyone in the Committee would worry about that.

Section 59, if commenced, would extend the inadmissibility provisions to asylum and human rights claims from nationals in a list of generally safe states. Section 60 requires an annual cap to be set on the number of individuals admitted to the UK by safe and legal routes. Section 62 adds failing to provide information, such as a passcode to an electronic device, to the behaviours that could be considered damaging to the credibility of an asylum and human rights claim. All those issues are thought to provide utility, but outside the context of the duty to remove.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eighth sitting)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Katie Lam]

As the Minister has outlined, clause 40 inserts schedule 1 into the Bill. That provides that the Immigration Services Commissioner is not to hold office for a term exceeding five years. The current regime is based on there being a commissioner and deputy, so schedule 1 sets out that the commissioner may appoint a deputy. There is also a provision to enable a member of the commissioner’s staff to act in the commissioner’s place in certain circumstances, such as the roles of commissioner and deputy both being vacant. That effectively allows for the appointment of an interim commissioner.

As was said in evidence to the Committee, these amendments do not seem to us to have operational consequence. We will not oppose them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 41

Detention and exercise of functions pending deportation

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

I beg to move amendment 7, clause 41, page 35, line 32, leave out subsection (17).

This amendment would leave out the subsection of this clause that applies subsections (1) to (13) (relating to detention and exercise of functions pending deportation) retrospectively, i.e. as if they have always had effect.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Pete Wishart]

It is great to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain; it makes a pleasant change from what we have had in the past couple of weeks. I say that in the nicest way to Mr Stuart.

[The Chair]

I will have to find out more!

[Pete Wishart]

Clause 41 introduces a significant expansion of detention powers, allowing individuals to be detained from the moment a deportation is considered rather than waiting for a formal order. However, my main concern with the clause is that it is to apply retrospectively, meaning it would legally validate past detentions that were previously unlawful. As would be expected, the provision has sparked serious concerns among legal experts, human rights organisations and advocacy groups, raising critical questions about the rule of law, human rights and judicial oversight.

We had the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association with us as part of an evidence session. They have expressed great concern with this provision, saying:

“We are concerned with the dangerous precedent which would be set if unlawful deprivation of liberty were to be treated as lawful—such retrospectivity undermines the rule of law and remains wholly unjustified in the materials accompanying the Bill.”

I have looked at this issue and there does not seem to be any sufficient justification for this exceptional measure. The ILPA warns us that it could rewrite history, denying justice to individuals who could have sought remedies for unlawful detention.

Amnesty International, which again gave very good evidence to the Committee, has also voiced strong objections. It has highlighted how detention powers have expanded significantly while judicial oversight has weakened, leading to risks of serious injustice.

Bail for Immigration Detainees has stressed that clause 41 risks

“further criminalising migrants and refugees”.

It urges instead for a system that upholds human rights and dignity.

Combined with the Illegal Migration Act, the clause could lead to longer, more expensive and potentially unlawful detentions in breach of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. The Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that clause 41 effectively makes lawful past detentions that were not compliant with due process at the time, yet the European convention on human rights memorandum does not properly address whether that retrospective validation aligns with the fundamental legal safeguards of article 5. I would particularly like the Minister to address those concerns.

Clause 41 therefore undermines accountability, weakens judicial scrutiny and risks setting a dangerous precedent through which the Government can retroactively legitimise actions that would otherwise have been unlawful. Given the weight of these concerns, there is a strong case for leaving out the retrospective provisions from clause 41, and that is what my amendment 7 seeks to do. Upholding the rule of law means ensuring that detention powers are subject to proper legal safeguards and that individuals are not denied their fundamental rights through legislative backtracking.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The purpose of clause 41 is to clarify the existing powers of detention pending deportation set out in schedule 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. The clause ensures that the Secretary of State can detain individuals once they have been notified that deportation is being considered. It also aligns the power to detain with the power to take biometrics and to search for nationality documents. That is because the taking of biometric information and any other searches will ordinarily take place at the point that somebody is detained. The effect of clause 41 is to make clear that a person subject to deportation may be detained at any stage of the deportation process. It strengthens an existing power; it does not create a new power. It clarifies a power that has always existed and been used for this purpose.

Another effect of the clause is to confirm that the Secretary of State may take biometrics and search for those documents. Since clause 41 clarifies existing powers, the detention provisions it contains are regarded as always having had effect. It is extremely important for Members to understand what the clarification of the powers of detention means. If a person is subject to deportation on the basis that the deportation is conducive to the public good, they may be detained at any stage of the deportation process. It is extremely important that the Home Office should be able to detain those it is seeking to deport on that basis. Some of these foreign national offenders pose a high risk of harm to the public. Therefore, inability to detain them could have a direct impact on public safety.

The clause makes it clear that it is lawful to detain a person once they are notified that the Home Office is considering whether to make a deportation order against them, but that is not a new detention power; it has been misunderstood in some of the commentary from outside of this place. The clause clarifies an existing power to ensure there is no ambiguity about when someone subject to a conducive deportation can be detained. The accurate identification of such people is very important.

The clause also makes consequential amendments to existing powers to search detained persons—potential deportees—for documents that prove their identity or nationality, and to take their biometrics upon their being detained. Clause 41 sets out the power to detain pending deportation, as the Home Office has always understood it to operate. It is therefore right that the provision applies retrospectively. That deals with amendment 7, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and seeks to remove the retrospective element of the clause.

Clause 41 clarifies the existing statutory powers of detention. There are important public safety reasons why these powers need to be put beyond doubt. Clause 41 clarifies the powers as the Home Office has always understood them to operate. There will be no operational impact that we can assess, or increased use of the power, and no effect on people in relation to whom this power has been exercised. It is entirely right that these provisions should apply retrospectively in these circumstances.

[Pete Wishart]

I hear the Minister’s justification for the powers and why she feels they are necessary, but I do not hear any compelling reason for why they have to be introduced retrospectively. What on earth is that supposed to help with? She knows the range of concerns raised by a number of legal organisations. I wish she would address their concerns about the consequences of the clause.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The clause seeks to put beyond any doubt that the Home Office has the power to detain, in conducive deportation cases, at the earliest point. It has been doing that for many years. The clarification in the clause applies retrospectively to ensure that those who have been detained in the past have not been detained unlawfully. We do not believe they have, but this puts it beyond doubt. To clarify, this is not an extension of deportation powers; it is putting beyond doubt in the Bill the understanding of how and when these powers can be used—at the earliest opportunity, if it is a conducive deportation. The powers, including to detain at the earliest opportunity, have always existed.

If the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire were agreed to, it would cast doubt on many of the arrests and detentions ahead of deportations that have happened in the past, which I do not think the hon. Gentleman would want to do. To reassure the hon. Gentleman one final time, this is not an extension of deportation powers; it is a clarification of the way that they have always been understood to work. The clause puts beyond legal doubt that if somebody is being detained pending deportation, they can be detained lawfully at the earliest opportunity. That understanding has always been the case, but the clause puts it beyond any legal doubt.

[Katie Lam]

Clause 41 confirms that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves the notification that deportation is being considered, when that deportation is conducive to the public good. We support this provision to allow for detention before a deportation order is signed, but that only applies if the Secretary of State has notified the person in writing. Can I seek reassurance from the Minister that the requirement for a written notice will not build any delay into the process? We also support the provision in clause 42 to allow the Home Office to capture biometrics at the new, earlier point of detention.

[Pete Wishart]

I will not detain the Committee for long. I do not like clause 41 anyway—I think the extension of deportation powers is overwhelming and I do not believe they are required—but I do not like this retrospection one bit. I have not secured an adequate explanation from the Minister about why that is necessary. I would therefore like to put my amendment to a vote, Dame Siobhain.

[The Chair]

Thank you for clarifying, as that was going to be my next question. Does anybody else wish to contribute?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fifth sitting)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I will make a couple of points about the amendments to the clause, and the clause overall.

I have always been frustrated that people from both left and right make the same mistake on immigration policy—we forget that immigrants and asylum seekers are people. That means that, just like any group of people, they vary: some are entirely innocent and exploited, and some seek to exploit others and are criminals. We need to make the distinction between those groups.

Amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, makes some important points, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East is right about the passion and compassion that drive the amendment. I absolutely recognise, support and understand that passion and compassion, but we must be clear-eyed about the reality of what is happening in the channel.

Yes, people are in great danger, and they are the most exploited, most vulnerable people, but they are not there by accident. They are not panicking because they have stumbled by accident into the boat. There is a large, extremely organised, extremely well-financed criminal enterprise putting them in that position and it does not care one bit whether they live or die. We need to be able to draw a distinction between the vulnerable people who are in that situation and the people who are putting them there.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to make that distinction between those who have organised, orchestrated and profited from such activities and those at the sharp end of it: the asylum seekers and immigrants themselves. We need to be laser-focused on the gangs, the people who put together and design this vile trade, not on the ordinary asylum seekers, whom these criminalisation clauses exclusively focus on.

[Chris Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am afraid I completely disagree with him on what this Bill is doing. Being an asylum seeker is a self-declaration. It is anticipatory. Someone just declares themselves as one; the system later ascertains whether that is correct and whether they are a refugee. He mentioned earlier that the refugee convention does not penalise people for the mechanism by which they enter; he is quite correct, but that is not a blanket immunity from any criminal act committed in the process.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 5 would exclude asylum seekers from the scope of these offences. Again, I understand why the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire tabled the amendment. In his own analysis, everybody aboard these boats is an innocent asylum seeker. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh put it best: some of the people who come across on these boats are innocent asylum seekers, but others are certainly not. We do not have trained people in Dover looking for coercive control because we do not think that some of those coming across are wholly innocent asylum seekers.

[Pete Wishart]

I am sorry to see that the Minister is still bravely struggling with a cold—the Committee has noticed. A variety of offences are available to the courts to make sure that anybody who endangers people at sea can be prosecuted. There is illegal arrival, there is facilitating the illegal entry of others, and there is what Ibrahima Bah was convicted of—gross negligence manslaughter. These offences are all currently available to the prosecutorial authorities. I do not know why the Minister feels she needs this new offence. It can only be because she has a particular target in mind against whom she wants to apply these rules. Can she confirm that?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I will try to give the hon. Gentleman some insight. I was going to come on to this when addressing the clause itself, but it is in the Bill because we have perceived a change in behaviour in some areas.

There has been an increase in physical aggression towards other people, including migrants and third parties. There is a lot more violence on the beaches against French police. There is intimidating and controlling behaviour on the boats. People are preventing others from disembarking or calling for help when the boat gets into difficulty. There are physical acts that result in harm being caused to another person either while boarding a boat or while on a boat. People are being pushed off boats, including in shallow French territorial waters. The pilots sometimes decide to continue on to the UK even when there have been fatalities or serious harm on the boat. We are now seeing a range of behaviours that clause 18 will allow us to address.

I will address amendment 5, but the view of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is that no asylum seeker should be charged with this new criminal offence, which would render clause 18 unworkable and pointless, as 95% of people who come across on small boats claim asylum. How one behaved on the boat across will be in the purview of clause 18, whether it is dangling children over the side or forcing women and children to sit in the middle—often the middle of the boats come free and collapse, so the women and children are the first to die. Where women and children are forced to sit in the middle, they sometimes arrive in the UK with horrific burns because of the combination of fuel and seawater, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said.

I simply do not agree with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire that, just because someone will claim asylum when they get to the UK, none of their behaviour on the way over should have any bearing on what happens when they get here. Clause 18, which creates a new criminal offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act, will not criminalise everyone who makes these crossings. It would be pointless and completely unworkable if we sought to do that, as the Opposition amendments do. It is about addressing, discouraging and deterring the acts that cause or create a risk of serious injury or death to others, which we are now seeing from individuals travelling to the UK by small boats.

There have to be consequences for anyone who further jeopardises the safety and lives of others during these dangerous crossings. There are those who insist on continuing their journey when assistance is at hand, who refuse assistance, and often, when there have been fatalities, try to prevent others from being rescued. Clause 18 addresses specific acts that create or cause a risk of serious injury or death to others during a journey. We heard in oral evidence how these journeys are being made more dangerous by such acts, and clause 18 is a response to the increasing propensity of this kind of behaviour.

There have been shocking and tragic cases of women and children being forced and intimidated into life-threatening positions during journeys that are already dangerous enough, which is exactly the type of offending that clause 18 aims to target. The approach cannot simply be to say that whatever happens on the boat, stays on the boat. The new offence is another tool designed to curb the endangerment of life. It sits alongside other activity against gangs that intentionally place people in danger by selling these crossings as a viable route to the UK. This Government take fatalities and injuries at sea extremely seriously, and we are going further than ever to try to bring an end to them.

[Pete Wishart]

I thank the Minister for her full response to the amendments before the Committee. I totally agree with her on amendment 17, and I hope the Committee rejects it. It is a ridiculous and unworkable proposition that everybody who comes to our shores should be criminalised almost immediately upon arrival.

A couple of things have been said in this debate that I want to challenge and take head on, including the idea that everything is black and white, that people are either the exploited or the exploiters. Everybody accepts that there is a grey area. I think every member of this Committee believes that those who behave in a reprehensible, appalling and awful way, whether on the small boats or in getting people on to the small boats, should rightly face the full force of the law.

The Minister is right to highlight all those examples of the dangerous behaviour that happens during some of these journeys. None of us would want people to get away with that behaviour, but the Bill does not refer to such activity, and there is nothing in the guidance or the explanatory notes. Nothing in the Bill specifies this type of behaviour. As the Bill progresses, the Minister will have to make sure it mentions such behaviour.

The other challenge with the type of activity the Minister describes is how to get the evidence. This activity is happening in the most chaotic circumstances, on small boats coming across the channel. We know these things are reported, and we know that people are arrested and face the full force of the law, but the Minister still has to convince the Committee that a new offence is needed, and that certain categories of migrant will not be caught up.

[Chris Murray]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if his amendment 5 were accepted, someone could orchestrate a boat crossing the channel, throw a child off—which this measure is trying to prevent—and then, when they arrive on the shores of the UK, just say, “I am an asylum seeker”? That would be an obstacle to any prosecution.

The only way we could get over that obstacle—even if the person were French—would be for them to go through the entire asylum process. They would be placed in a hotel in one of our constituencies and, given the huge backlog we have, it would be almost two years before we are able to prosecute them.

[Pete Wishart]

It must be how I am presenting this but, again, I am not being understood. I am sorry that I have not explained the intention clearly enough, but I have no intention of that scenario happening. [Interruption.] Can I say to the hon. Gentleman—and to the Whip, the hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, who is trying to intervene from a sedentary position—that existing offences are in place to deal with the activity being described. I have cited the example of Ibrahima Bah, who was done for gross negligence manslaughter. Where that happens, of course people should face the full force of the law. And that happens, because we have existing laws in place.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s description of the new types of activity that she feels clause 18 is necessary to address, but those activities have to be specified and defined. If she moved new clauses to address such activity, I am sure she would get a fair hearing—she would get a fair hearing from me—but, because clause 18 is so broad, other behaviour and activity will inadvertently be drawn into these offences. People who are possibly acting in self-protection, or who are trying to save people but inadvertently put others at risk, will be caught by this clause.

We need to apply common sense to what the Minister is trying to do, and we need to make sure common sense is reflected in the Bill because, at this stage, it is not.

[Becky Gittins]

I just want to tease out what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he accept that, if this amendment passed, gang members facilitating crossings on small boats would escape prosecution?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely not. Again, I must be having great difficulty getting through, and I accept that that is my responsibility, but that is not what is intended in the least. A variety of laws deal with the activity that the Minister mentioned. We know that because 244 people were charged in the course of 2023, and since the Labour Government came to power, something like 86 people have been charged with offences. People are being charged and prosecuted for serious offences.

The Minister has identified new dangerous activity, and she is right to do so, but if we want legislation to deal with it, bring that legislation before the House. Do not bring in this broad-sweep legislation, under which natural, normal activity that may be designed to help and protect people could be caught up. The difficulty with this legislation is that it inadvertently draws in people who do not deserve to be. I know it is about targeting the pilots in the boats, but there has to be some recognition of what forces and coerces people into piloting the boats. There needs to be an understanding of their situation and why they are doing that, but the clause fails to take account of any of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I can assure him that no one has higher respect than I do for the organisations that have supplied such evidence. I have been in conversations with them myself. The issue at hand here, however—I know this from having worked in the sector—is that they are not set up to stop the gangs or take through criminal prosecutions. That is not their objective. Their job is purely, and properly, to protect migrants. They will lean towards a broad definition, and that is why I think he has inadvertently fallen into a trap. In excluding everyone from the provisions, we avoid the traffickers, but it is not the job of those organisations to target them.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The job of those organisations is to be concerned for the welfare and conditions of people who come to our shores, and to ensure that they are supported on their journey through the asylum process. The organisations have identified that the Bill does little to target the gangs that the hon. Gentleman is referring to; in fact, they do little at all. They are all about ordinary asylum seekers. The new criminalisation clauses that we have debated over the past couple of days are all exclusively devoted to the activity of asylum seekers coming here, and none more so than this clause.

I hope that, as the Bill proceeds through its remaining stages—particularly when it goes through the other place, although that greatly concerns me for a number of reasons—we will be able to improve it, and get to a place where it reflects what the Minister said in her fine contribution.

[Sarah Bool]

I did not hear from the Minister a response on the Law Society’s concern about parents and guardians being criminalised, and I wonder whether I could hear some thoughts on that.