Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Third sitting)

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Angela Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes some very good points, particularly about over-correction between Governments but also about the fact that independence is an obvious thing to have for particular posts—in inspection, for example, but not necessarily operational ones—and the need to cohere a system, to ensure that all the good work being done across different Departments can be focused strategically on one aim. That is what the clauses seek to do.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairpersonship, Dr Murrison. I want to take on a principled point that I have heard levelled by the hon. Member for Stockton West and other Conservative Members today and on Second Reading, which is that the Border Security Commander cannot command. It is really important to address that point.

From 2018 to 2023, we saw the number of small boat arrivals increase from 299 to 29,500. That is a hundredfold increase. As I understand it, some of the explanation given by the Conservatives is that the matter became very complicated, and we were seeing an increase in organised crime activity. To their credit, that was reinforced by the director general of the National Crime Agency, Rob Jones, who said

“The problem that I focus on is the organised crime element, which needs concurrent effort in a number of areas, designed to undermine the business model that supports organised immigration crime. That means tackling illicit finance; the materials that are used in smuggling attempts and the supply chain that supports them; the high-value targets based overseas who are involved in supplying materials and moving migrants”.––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 29, Q28.]

Those were just some of the things he highlighted.

If we acknowledge that the present Government face a more complicated situation, we should agree that it will involve a suite of tools. As Rob Jones said,

“There is not one thing that you can do to tackle these problems”. ––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 29, Q28.]

Sarah Dineley, the deputy chief Crown prosecutor, concurred with her colleagues and said:

“I do not believe that there is one single measure that would impact so significantly that it would reduce migrant crossings to zero.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 30, Q28.]

Jim Pearce, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for organised immigration crime, highlighted the same point.

If the situation is so complex and there is a need for the suite of tools that are being strengthened by this Bill, surely there is a need for greater co-ordination. Greater co-ordination will surely help to fix some of the strategic challenges that our immigration system and asylum system have faced in recent years. To co-ordinate is to command, and it is crucial we accept that point. If we do not, we will not be able to tackle the backlog we face, we will not be able to implement the measures in the Bill and we will not be able to secure our borders.

Amendments have been tabled in relation to aspects of the Border Security Commander role, but I am not entirely certain whether the Conservative party supports the role of Border Security Commander at all. On Second Reading, we heard colleagues asking what Martin Hewitt is doing with his time. I would welcome the hon. Member for Stockton West explaining whether the Conservative party does in fact support the role of Border Security Commander and Border Security Command. We heard clearly from those who gave oral testimony, who are operationally focused, experienced and expert in their field, about the necessity of such a command. Indeed, Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, summed it up well when he said that

“the Border Security Command is an understandable response.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 5, Q1.]

[Matt Vickers]

We will discuss when we come to the next group of amendments the aims and objectives of this role, and the fact that if we are going to have a Border Security Commander, they should have a very meaningful role that can make a real difference. I would like to press on clause 2 of the Bill, which talks about

“The terms and conditions of a designation as Commander are to be determined by the Secretary of State.”

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the Committee what those terms and conditions of designation might be? As I mentioned, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 sets out how the Met commissioner must be suitably qualified. What sort of qualifications could we expect to see in a commander and what will those terms and conditions be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

When we talk about the Border Security Commander role, if we think it is going to “smash the gangs”, sort out all these problems and play a huge part in creating a secure border for this country, it is important that we allow it some element of independence and gravitas. We have talked about the commander being tied into the strategic priorities of the Home Office, but this amendment is about empowering them to make the difference that we want them to make. We want them to succeed.

As I was saying, removing that requirement would allow the Border Security Commander to act decisively. We must avoid unnecessary bureaucratic wrangling and ensure that, in this critical matter, they have the freedom they need to deliver results.

[Tom Hayes]

I have two quick points. First, the hon. Member talked about whether the Border Security Commander could somehow command or direct the activities of our international partners. I would highlight that this Government have strengthened and created the new international arrangements that have made it possible for us to start to secure and securitise our borders. It is important not to pretend that the history of what has happened did not happen; we should realise that we need to have close international ties.

Secondly, I am listening closely to the hon. Member’s suggestions for how the role could be improved. Is he proposing these amendments because the current office holder, Martin Hewitt, is not discharging the office in the way that he would like? Could he comment on whether he thinks that Martin Hewitt is doing a good job or a less-than-good job, and whether he thinks that the Border Security Commander role, as it is currently being discharged, is satisfactory?

[Matt Vickers]

At some point, Martin Hewitt will be superseded. We want to make sure that whoever is in this role is in the best possible position to do the best possible job. I do not think that these measures are necessarily about Martin Hewitt’s effectiveness or otherwise; they are about this post and its fundamental role—well, its apparent fundamental role—in delivering border security for this country.

[Tom Hayes]

It is not about Martin Hewitt’s professional competence or his ability as a person to do the role; it is about the role itself. Based on how the role has been configured, does the hon. Member believe that the present office holder is discharging the role well, with the responsibilities given, or is he proposing these measures because he believes that somehow the role is lacking?

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

This is my third Bill Committee, and so far I am really enjoying it. In all three Bill Committees, I have sensed something interesting; my understanding of what the Conservative party has been does not quite coincide with what it is today. It feels peculiar to hear Conservative Members asking for this role to have so many teeth and being so prescriptive about writing that into primary legislation. As I understand it, Conservatives typically used to try to minimise the amount of detail in primary legislation, in order to give the arms of the state the freedom to do their duties and enact their responsibilities properly.

That is particularly important when we are living through a time of significant volatility. The complications surrounding our immigration and asylum system are manifold, so we need to give this role significant flexibility in order that the Border Security Commander can co-ordinate command. I am struck by what seems to be almost an existential challenge at the heart of modern Conservative thinking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On serious and organised crime articles, it says:

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

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

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

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

[Tom Hayes]

I am wondering about the intent behind that question. Is the hon. Member concerned about the availability of prison spaces?

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting)

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kenneth Stevenson]

Yes. I apologise—I think I have cut across the Minister, because she asked a very similar question, but, if you could give us an idea of how those three things that you spoke about before could be helped by the Bill, that would be really helpful.

Rob Jones: When we identify somebody from the UK who is involved in organising small boats crossings, for instance, we have to get very good, sophisticated surveillance control over that individual to get enough evidence to be able to produce a full file submission to the CPS for a section 25 facilitation offence. That could mean months of surveillance, or covert activity, in terms of eavesdropping and audio recordings.

In the meantime, we are seeing that individual with a public profile on social media, researching crossings, communicating with people overtly and meeting people. When you are looking at the commissioning of the offence, and you are living with somebody who is involved in serious organised crime, you are seeing that play out in front of you.

These clauses allow us to take elements of their business model—as they are meeting people, as they are researching, and as they are taking the preparatory steps to the section 25 offence—then go to the CPS and say, “We think we’ve got enough; we think we could go now.” That gives you more momentum, more speed and more agility.

It is the same mindset as trying to prevent attacks in the CT world. You would not choose to reactively investigate a terrorist attack; we would not choose to reactively investigate highly dangerous crossings in the English channel during which people get killed. We would choose to pre-emptively stop them, and that is what the new offences would introduce.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Q My question is regarding the asylum decisions backlog that the country faces, which we are now starting to move through. As a consequence, of course, some people will have their grants rejected and others will have them accepted. Where the grants are accepted, what would you say to anybody who claims that that could be a pull factor for people to try to access this country?

Then, just picking up on your point, Mr Jones, about criminal gangs starting to feel the pressure because of this new suite of tools, would you say that the tools provided for in this Bill, which will have a disruptive effect, could in consequence also have a deterrent effect on the criminal smuggler gangs?

Rob Jones: I will take the second question first. Obviously time will tell but, adding to what we are doing already, these tools will rack up the pressure, and that starts to change behaviour. It increases costs and increases friction in the business model. Those things contribute to deterring people from getting involved, and we see that with other areas of criminality. I will allow others to answer the asylum question.

Sarah Dineley: I am going to dip out, rather, and say that it is not really a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, but I can tell you that the Home Office is undertaking a piece of work looking at what the pull factors are for migrants wanting to reach the UK, and at what point they reach the firm decision that the UK is their final destination.

[Tom Hayes]

Q If I reframe the question, then, have you seen any evidence to suggest that it may be a pull factor?

Sarah Dineley: There is nothing that I have read in any interview provided by a migrant to suggest that that is a pull factor.

Jim Pearce: I have a personal view, but I am speaking on behalf of the national police chiefs, and I am not sure that I am in a position to do that. That is probably a question for either Immigration Enforcement or the Home Office.

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

Q Thank you for the really interesting testimonies that you have brought today; we really appreciate it. I have two questions. We heard from the Migration Observatory earlier that one of the challenges in this world is that demand is essentially inelastic: they could double the price of the crossings and there would still be a market of people who would pay it, even for very flimsy boats. Picking up Tom’s question, it strikes me that the Rwanda scheme, which this legislation repeals, was ostensibly focused on deterrence and therefore trying to tackle demand—but, because demand is inelastic, it was not having the effect. It sounds like you are saying that this legislation is focusing on the supply and just making it impossible for people to cross the channel, no matter how much demand there is for it. Is that right? Have I understood that correctly?

My second question is for Sarah. I should probably declare an interest because I was previously the home affairs attaché at the embassy in Paris. You talked about international co-operation and mentioned things like JITs and Eurojust and the challenges we face there. We heard from a previous witness about how the UK no longer being in Dublin is being cited by migrants as one of the reasons that they are going in. Can you say more about the challenges that the UK is facing post Brexit? How do we build relations with key allies to overcome them?

Sarah Dineley: I will start with how we rebuild relations with key allies. I have talked about our network of liaison prosecutors. We regularly engage and hold engagement events with our overseas prosecutors: this year alone, we have had engagement events in Ireland, Spain and, two weeks ago, Italy. That is about building those relationships and finding out what their challenges are, as well as finding out about their legal systems and what barriers there are to the co-operation that we are seeking. I think we do have to recognise that different countries have a different legal framework, and we cannot simply impose our framework on another country; we have to be able to work around their framework to try to get what we need from them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

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

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

[Tom Hayes]

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

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

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

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

[Tom Hayes]

I forgot the name of it. The “Here To Stay?” report?

Karl Williams: Yes, that is the one. That is purely about the fiscal impact. There is some analysis, which I can go into in a minute, on the broader economic picture in the previous report, but this report was more tightly focused.

[Tom Hayes]

But inevitably the counterfactuals would have an impact on the fiscal burden carried by the state.

Karl Williams: Indeed, yes. The counterfactuals we did think about were different levels of stay rates and different rates among different wage profiles. Migrants earning more as they go through the system clearly does happen to some extent, whether through out-migration or through career progression. In conducting that analysis, we stuck to the fiscal profiles used by the OBR, because, as you say, the data quality is fairly poor. That was the best there was, without trying to construct our own estimates for ingoings and outgoings as migrants progress over their life course in the UK. The OBR models it by age, so it captures the different wage contributions that you make at different points in your life, which will be higher in some points and lower in others. It also captures the different burdens of, for example, healthcare in old age.

I am glad that you have raised the quality of the data. We have repeatedly pointed out, as have the Governor of the Bank of England and the Office for National Statistics, that the labour force survey is very broken. In that report and in previous reports, we have always pushed the point that we need better data. Everyone needs better data. This is one area where there is broad consensus, whether you are restrictionist or want more migration or whatever else. I understand that the reference here is to Denmark and the Netherlands.

[Tom Hayes]

Q Would you feel cautious about Members of Parliament emphatically assessing that there would be a fiscal burden of £234 billion over the lifetime, as your report concludes, based on your concerns about data, but also the fact that consideration of some of the counterfactuals I listed—and there could be many more—would impact that overall figure?

Karl Williams: The report is very clear about the assumptions we have made at various points and the unknowns. With any modelling exercise, whether you are conducting a fiscal model of an effect of a tax change or whatever else, you have to make reasonable assumptions.

[The Chair]

Thank you. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses very much for their evidence.

Examination of Witness

David Coleman gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I had Tom Hayes to ask a question, but we have literally 20 seconds.

[Tom Hayes]

Q Professor Coleman, would you on a level accept the description of being a eugenicist?

David Coleman: No.

[Tom Hayes]

Q In that case, I will use the rest of my time. Are you familiar with the—

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us, unfortunately, to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness for his evidence.

Examination of Witness

Professor Brian Bell gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

Q My questions are speculative. First of all, are you familiar with a report by the Centre for Policy Studies called “Here to Stay?”

Professor Brian Bell: Yes.

[Tom Hayes]

Q Could you comment on that? There is a headline figure that says that, in its analysis, the fiscal cost of those who might be granted indefinite leave to remain in the next four or five years would amount to £234 billion.

Professor Brian Bell: That is a speculative number. It is actually extremely difficult to work out the fiscal impact of migration. We are doing it at the MAC at the moment. We can only do it because we have access to data that the CPS could not possibly have. I do not know how you do that kind of analysis without making really very brave—and some may say foolhardy—estimates of what these people are going to do when they are in the UK. To give a very simple example, we currently do not know what dependants do when they come into the country. Let us say we issue a skilled worker visa and a dependent comes in. We will know nothing about what they do because the Home Office, quite fairly, does not pursue finding out about that dependent because they are here legally, but you need to know how much they earn and if they are in a job to work out what their contribution will be over the next 50 to 60 years of their life.

I think it is very dangerous to just make broad assumptions about, “Oh, they are going to be like this and they are going to earn this”, and then you can come up with a very big number. I could choose a big group of British people who will also have very big negative effects, because if you just choose people who are low earners and perhaps people who are disabled, you automatically get those numbers because they are entitled to more benefits in the long run, and they do not pay as much tax. I am not particularly sure what that tells us.

[Tom Hayes]

Q I am going to smuggle in a very quick question. Could you comment on the validity of the comparison between the Australian offshore processing immigration approach and the Rwanda scheme? Are they actually comparable, and do you have anything to say about the efficacy of the Australian approach?

Professor Brian Bell: As I understand it, the big difference is that in the Australian system, if your asylum application was granted, you were brought to Australia; the system was just offshore processing of the application. That is very different from the Rwanda scheme, where we were essentially washing our hands of any responsibility going forward for those asylum applicants. The Australian model is worth thinking about if you could find countries that would be willing to process the applications, because we are spending—let us be honest—an absolute fortune on housing asylum seekers here while we consider their claims. If you could find a cheaper and more effective way of doing that, while still recognising that we have the responsibility to take those asylum seekers who have claimed asylum in this country, that would be worth considering.

[Tom Hayes]

Q So it is not entirely appropriate to compare the Australian offshoring approach to the Rwanda scheme?

Professor Brian Bell: I would not have thought so.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting)

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

The next question will be the last. Witnesses, if there is anything that you have not yet said but would like to say, please do so.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Q Part of the aim of the Bill is to minimise opportunities for crossings, which involves targeting the criminal smuggler gangs that are enabling small boat crossings to take place. Do you agree that enforcement activities against those smuggler gangs will have a deterrent effect—that enforcement activity has value in its own right, but minimising the number of crossings by disrupting the business model will have a deterrent effect? On Enver’s point about the asylum hotel that was at risk of burning down, would you agree that those Government policies directly and gravely put the lives of vulnerable asylum seekers at risk?

Enver Solomon: The system meltdown that came about because of the fantastical Rwanda policy and the full provisions of the Illegal Migration Act left people in a state of permanent limbo, in inappropriate accommodation, in very vulnerable situations, in communities where there were high tensions. As a consequence of that, people’s wellbeing was potentially compromised. There is no question about that. We saw that through our work. We saw the rise in stress and in suicidal ideation. There was very clear evidence from our practice about the impact of what was, as we described, a system meltdown.

On your point about enforcement, enforcement has a role to play but it has to be one strategy combined with others—one side of a multi-pronged approach. Similarly to the evidence from dismantling drug trafficking, often when you dismantle one set of smugglers or gangmasters, others will reappear and take over that part of the trade. It is very difficult to enforce and prosecute your way out of this challenge. Multiple strategies have to be adopted—

[The Chair]

Order. Sorry to interrupt, but we are in our last minute. Mubeen and Daniel, would you like to come in quickly?

Mubeen Bhutta: Thank you—my hearing aid has magically started working.

On disrupting the business model, going back to what we said at the beginning about this being the other half of the safe routes story, clause 34 is about taking biometrics and introduces flexibility so that biometrics can be taken outside visa centres. We would like to see that extended to people required to submit their biometrics for family reunion visas, because we know that people are making dangerous journeys to visa centres. Often there are multiple journeys, often in conflicts, and people often have to use smugglers to get across the border if the visa centre in their country is closed. There is a real opportunity to strengthen that existing safe route by extending the flexibility in clause 34.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have two quick questions to squeeze in.

[Tom Hayes]

Q We hear that, because the so-called Rwanda deterrent never actually happened, it is hard to assess whether or not it was a deterrent, but in a Q&A you published on 25 July, Dr Walsh, you said:

“The deterrent impact of the policy would likely have depended on the number of people sent to Rwanda.”

You estimated the probability of people crossing the channel in a small boat being sent to Rwanda to be about 1% to 2%.

You also said:

“There is no evidence that political discussions surrounding the Rwanda policy deterred small boat arrivals.”

In fact, from the day the policy was announced to the day it was scrapped, we saw 84,000 people cross the channel. Do you want to say anything about the efficacy of the so-called deterrent? Relatedly, do you agree that it is hard to make emphatic assessments of the fiscal burden of immigration owing to the quality of the available data?

Dr Peter Walsh: Yes, I would agree with that last point.

The Rwanda policy was never implemented, so it would be unfair to say that it did not have a deterrent effect. Policies of that kind typically have the bulk of their effect once they have been implemented. I cannot remember the source for the 1% to 2% figure. This is a somewhat old research paper, but at the time it was the best estimate we could point to. It was not an estimate that I or colleagues made. Can you see what the source is?

[Tom Hayes]

I can. It says:

“If only a few hundred asylum seekers were sent to Rwanda each year (as suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office’s modelling) and unauthorised arrivals had continued at rates similar to those seen in 2022 and 2023”—

the paper was published in 2024—

“then the probability of a person crossing the Channel in a small boat being sent to Rwanda would have been small—around 1-2%.”

Dr Peter Walsh: I now recall the Home Office’s modelling, and it was subject to a whole range of caveats. The Home Office was actually quite cautious about the estimates. That was the best available figure it had at the time. It was in part based on Rwanda’s capacity to process claims. The number could have gone up, but we never found out.

[The Chair]

Can I quickly get Kenneth’s question in?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White]

Q I will be quick. Thank you for the work that you do. My biggest concern is those children who come into the UK who we do not even know are coming in, because it is hidden. They are clearly victims of modern slavery or child sexual exploitation. It is important, as you said just now, that we stop the gangs that are bringing them across. How confident are you that the new Border Security Commander with his anti-terrorism powers will be able to track those gangs down and smash them?

Dame Rachel de Souza: That is the first question I asked the National Crime Agency when I came into the role. I asked, “Could you find every child in this country?” I was told that, “With enough resource, we could pretty much do it, apart from some of the Vietnamese children who are trafficked into cannabis factories and things like that.” With resource, and with this new Border Security Command, we will get a lot nearer, and we need to do that.

[Tom Hayes]

Q Thank you for all of your work. In April 2023, you wrote to the then Home Secretary requesting information about children accommodated in hotels. Seven months later, when you received the information, you then said that it was seven months past your deadline and that the quality of the information itself was deeply troubling. Can you comment on how difficult or easy it was for you to discharge your statutory duties as Children’s Commissioner when working with the last Government to safeguard children?

Dame Rachel de Souza: The Home Office was the only Department that failed to answer my data request in time and that gave me imperfect data, but I did not stop and I kept going. I have to say: it is much better now. I was able to speak to and did have access to Ministers, and I was always able to make my case. I did not get that information in a timely manner, but I did get that information in the end. I am worried about what has happened to those children.

The data we were after was safeguarding data that showed all the concerns, and the reason I asked for it was because I knew that the safeguarding in the hotels was not as it should be. We got the data on children who had been victims of attempted organ harvesting, rape and various other things, as well as the number of children who were missing. We still do not know where many of those children are, and that is not good enough. The whole tone has changed, and I hope that the Government will still want to stop the small boats, while also being much more pro-children.

[The Chair]

We will squeeze in one last question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right: I am going to say that the funding formula was introduced by the previous Government—I think in 2011. They had two goes at trying to update it, and they did not do anything about it. We have been in government for seven months now, and this is what we have inherited. In a lot of areas, we have inherited things that we would not necessarily have wanted to have inherited. As I have said before to the House, we will be looking at police reform going forward, and part of that conversation will be around financial issues.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

12. What steps she is taking to reduce the use of hotels to house asylum seekers.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

14. What steps she is taking to reduce the number of people living in asylum hotels.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

We are continuing to reduce the use of asylum hotels from the peak, which was reached under the previous Government, when more than 400 hotels were in use across the country at a cost of £9 million every day. We are determined to end the use of hotels over time as part of our wider objective to cut the costs of asylum accommodation and restore order to our immigration system.

[Tom Hayes]

Asylum seekers are forced to live in limbo. Bournemouth hotels cost the taxpayer eye-watering sums, as we just heard, and everyone is stuck in a situation that nobody wants. I have written to Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council to express opposition to additional asylum hotels in my constituency. Will the Minister outline how the Home Office has reallocated resources following the election to speed up the closure of hotels and the processing of asylum applications, to turn a page on 14 years of Conservative failure?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are determined to end hotel usage as part of our objective to cut the costs of asylum accommodation. A key element of that is clearing the asylum backlog and increasing returns, so that the system operates swiftly, firmly and fairly.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The reasoned amendment makes it very clear that we support those powers, but we do not support the totality of the Bill. In terms of tough action, the Home Secretary has yet to explain to the House why illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will make some progress.

Let me turn to the detail of the Bill. The only problem with the Border Security Commander is that he cannot actually command anything. There are no powers at all in the Bill, merely functions. They include, in clause 3, publishing a strategic priority document and, in clause 4, a duty to prepare an annual report. Preparing a strategic priority document and publishing an annual report are unlikely to smash the gangs. The Border Security Commander has no clear powers, merely an ability to publish documents and reports.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman has been extremely persistent, and that deserves its reward.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the reward, and I hope to return one. The director general of the NCA has said:

“The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill should help UK law enforcement act earlier and faster to disrupt people smuggling networks and give us additional tools to target them and their business models.”

The Conservative party is about to vote against the Bill. Why does the shadow Home Secretary think that he knows better than the director general of the National Crime Agency?

[Chris Philp]

The point of a debate is to engage rather than read out a pre-prepared question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Crime Agency has said that we need a deterrent. The Bill removes any legislative prospect of a deterrent, which is why we oppose it.

The Home Secretary talked about various new offences, including endangering life at sea and activities preparatory to supporting illegal migration. Of course, no one from any party in this House wants those things to happen, but the measures that she proposes duplicate the existing provisions in section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Facilitating illegal immigration—quite a broad term—is already a criminal offence. Unlike her offence of endangering life at sea, which carries a five-year maximum sentence, section 25 of the Immigration Act states that facilitating illegal migration carries a maximum sentence of life, recently increased from 14 years. Guess who voted against that increase in the sentence? The Home Secretary.

Although we support the thrust of the clauses in the Bill, they are already covered by the tougher existing offence of facilitating illegal immigration. Clauses 19 to 26 contain plans to seize phones, which in principle we support, but that power exists already in section 15 and schedule 2 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. There is an element of duplication.

Let me move on to the more objectionable parts of the Bill. Clause 37 repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That appears to command some rather unwise enthusiasm from the Government Benches. As I said, the first flight under the Rwanda scheme was due to leave on 24 July, following extensive legal challenge and legislation in this House. Very unwisely, the Government chose never to start that scheme, which would have had a deterrent effect, because it stands to reason that if people know that if they try to cross illegally into a country such as the UK they will be removed to Rwanda, they will not bother in the first place.

We have seen that kind of scheme work elsewhere, with Operation Sovereign Borders in Australia around 10 years ago. We have seen it work here as well, with the 2023 removals agreement with Albania. Crossings by Albanians, who were the most numerous cohort crossing the channel, went down by 93%. Again, it stands to reason that if people know that if they arrive here they will be removed, they will not bother crossing in the first place. But hon. Members should not take my word for it. The National Crime Agency says that we need a deterrent, and even the Government’s own Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt—who cannot command very much—says that we need a deterrent.

Tackling Stalking

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The thrust of the super-complaint was not dissimilar to what he suggests. He is absolutely right about the confusion between a 2A and 4A offence and the element of proof that a victim has to provide, often in front of the perpetrator, who can find it quite delicious to hear how awful things have been for the victim. We will work with all the stalking organisations and the brilliant Victims’ Commissioner in London to make sure that, when we look at the legislation, those things are all taken into account.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome these tough new measures against stalkers and the protections for victims. Before I was elected to this place, I ran domestic abuse services, so I must confess to feeling a little irked by the shadow Minister, who tried to sow seeds of doubt about the Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, particularly as this new measure is being introduced in the House. I hope that it was a throwaway comment, rather than the start of a sustained campaign against the Government. I want to ask about the importance of bringing together public bodies. We know that there must be an integration of criminal justice services, third sector organisations and support services. Will the Minister outline how, at a local level, these measures will lead to the integration of those responses?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to once again say, “I am not sure where that has come from,” but I am always happy to dispel it—I love the idea that anybody could question our commitment, or certainly my commitment. Not that I think the shadow Minister was doing that.

On the multi-agency statutory guidance, local areas will have a duty to bear it in mind. Some Members here today have visited the amazing services in Cheshire. What we need to do is to show the absolute benefits of that approach to local areas and to local health service providers specifically with regard to the psychological services that are required in the system. Properly run multi-agency services in this space always make a difference. But, as somebody who has sat on many multi-agency services over the past 14 years, as my hon. Friend has, I have seen many partners leave the table as a result of the years of austerity.

Violence against Women and Girls

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this debate.

“I’ve been told online I’m not pretty enough to be worth raping. I don’t go into some bars in Bournemouth because I don’t feel safe.”

Those were the words of a young woman I met last week at a Bournemouth University students’ union question and answer session.

“I wear headphones when I walk at night with one AirPod in so I can talk to my mum on the phone”,

in case anything happens,

“and the other out so I can hear what is going on”.

Those are the words of a young girl I met last Friday from 22nd Bournemouth Girl Guides and Rangers.

“I wear my hair in a ponytail but my hood up because I don’t want someone to grab my ponytail, pull me into a hedge, and rape me.”

Those are the words of another young woman from Charminster I spoke to recently.

Alison from Moordown feels unsafe as a woman in the town centre. Desiree from East Cliff does not go out once it gets dark because she is too vulnerable. Fifty per cent of the population of Bournemouth and Britain are being forced to change who they are and how they live their lives. The response to a new social media video by AFC Bournemouth has been striking. It shows how a walk home from the football might not be the same for everyone, because the street lighting can be so low. Enough is enough.

The latest annual figures show that 723 offences of the rape of a female took place in Dorset, yet in the year ending June 2024 there were 36 prosecutions and 14 convictions for rape. That is not acceptable in any way, shape or form, and we have to stop it. I commend the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole organisations working to support victims of domestic abuse, including the Bournemouth Churches Housing Association, the Waterlily Project, Victim Support and STARS—Sexual Trauma and Recovery Services.

The focus should always be on the victim—the survivor —and the children who live with domestic abuse every day. We who have worked in the world of domestic abuse know that if public policy continues to ignore the abusive partner, we cannot address the roots of abuse, so what will the Minister and her Department do to provide more perpetrator programmes in our country as part of her new VAWG strategy? I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to halving the incidents of violence against women and girls, but that will be the tip of the iceberg, because as more people report crimes, many more will need to support.