Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025.
(Morning)
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to please switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope we can take these matters formally, without debate. The programme motion was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Examination of Witnesses
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We are now sitting in public again, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Susan Murray (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dunbartonshire)
I want to let the Committee know that I know Daniel O’Malley from Scotland through the Liberal Democrats.
Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)
I have previously met Daniel O’Malley as well.
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
I did too.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Very popular. If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time. We will now hear oral evidence from the Refugee Council, the Scottish Refugee Council and the British Red Cross. We must stick to the timings that the Committee has agreed in the programme motion. For this panel, we have until 12.10 pm. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Yes, that is okay.
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
First, what are your views on the functions and objectives of the Border Security Command, as set out in the BillQ ?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q What provisions would you like to see in the Bill—you talked about a broader approach—that are not in there?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Before I go to the Minister, can I just check with Mubeen that you can hear us okay?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
If we speak louder, is that better?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q I will try to speak louder so that everybody can hear. I must say, I am having trouble hearing some things because of the acoustics in this room, and it is quite full. Perhaps if our witnesses could speak a bit louder as well, that might help everybody.
Enver, thank you for your evidence. You welcomed the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the majority of the Illegal Migration Act, which this Bill accomplishes. Could you talk about your experience of trying to live with those Acts on the statute book? Some argue that those bits of legislation were the only deterrent that we could have had. Can I have your thoughts on whether they worked?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q There are those—I would like the other witnesses to comment if they wish—who say that the only way of getting any coherence back into our system is to leave the European convention on human rights and disaggregate ourselves from all the human rights legislation. Do you think that that is an appropriate way forward?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Mubeen, do you have a comment?Q
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
I want to broaden this out. Enver highlighted the Refugee Council’s view on the Bill being too narrow. What is the view of the Scottish Refugee Council and the British Red Cross on that? What do you think of safe, legal routes?Q
Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)
We have met previously, Mr Solomon, and I want to declare that I have worked for the National Crime Agency in the past and in a counter-terror role. I understand the points you made on enforcement, but what are your views on the fact that the Bill also includes strong disruptive measures, which is of course pre-enforcement, such as search and seizure?Q
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Welcome; thank you for coming along and giving your evidence, and for your written evidence. I think you are absolutely right to focus on the new criminal clauses that are included in the Bill, and to comment on how invidious they may be in how they might be broadly applied to asylum seekers. Do you agree that, if we could find some provision or series of amendments that removed asylum seekers from the focus of these new criminal laws, that might be a useful development? One of the clauses I would like you to comment on is the one that introduces an offence of endangering another person during sea crossings. You are experienced in working with asylum seekers and refugees—do they have any cognisance of the hardening of immigration and asylum laws in the UK when they are trying to get their family to safety from a war-torn region?Q
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
Q I should probably declare that I used to work on refugee and asylum issues in Scotland, including with the Scottish Refugee Council. Enver, you talked a bit about the fundamental system meltdown, and the disfunction that the IMA and the Rwanda Act caused. I want to ask you a bit more about that. Would I be right in saying that those Acts basically caused a complete stop, or a complete slowdown, in any processing of asylum applications? What impact does that have on the communities where asylum seekers are placed, and on the people who serve those communities—the councils and charities? Does it make it hard for them to do their job? Does it cause local tensions? If we are repealing those components of the IMA and the Rwanda Act, would that address some of the challenges those communities are facing as a result of migration?
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
It was about the impact on local communities of the dysfunction created by the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act, and how much you attribute that dysfunction—especially the growing use of hotels for asylum seekers—to those Acts, which we are proposing to repeal.
Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)
How might the new offences impact individuals and organisations such as charities or non-governmental organisations that provide support to migrants? For example, if a Vietnamese woman who works in a nail bar comes to one of your services, what mechanisms do you have in place to investigate and report any illegal working?Q
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
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 (Labour, Bournemouth East)
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?Q
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Order. Sorry to interrupt, but we are in our last minute. Mubeen and Daniel, would you like to come in quickly?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
That brings us to the end of the time allocated. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We will now hear oral evidence from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and from Migration Observatory. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.40 pm. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Do you think the new endangerment offence will make any difference to channel crossings?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Dr Walsh, you have just argued that deterrence does not really work, yet one of the big arguments on Second Reading was that somehow by repealing the Safety of Rwanda Act and most of the Illegal Migration Act we had thrown away the only thing that would work. Would you care to comment on that?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q You said something really interesting in your first comment: that you felt some of the people arriving on small boats are doing so because we are out of the Dublin system—in other words, because of Brexit. Were you surprised, perhaps, that in the withdrawal agreement there was no provision to try to opt into Dublin III and a half or whatever it might have been called?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Zoe, what is your view on the idea that has gained traction in certain areas of this debate—that the Human Rights Act and the ECHR are effectively preventing us from having a reasonable system, and that the only way to have an asylum system that works is to pull out of those international agreements?
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
Q If I may, I will turn away from these historic strategic issues back to the wording in the Bill. I would welcome your thoughts on clauses 13, 14 and 16 about the new offences. How effective do you think they would be? Zoe, what do you think of the drafting? Dr Walsh, how commonly do you think they would be used given that so much of the preparation is done abroad?
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
Q Dr Walsh, you said something fascinating that the Minister picked up on about the Dublin system and the driver of people getting on small boats. Could you say a little bit more about that? First, what is the evidence for that? Secondly, we know that people getting on to a small boat on the French side of the channel are part of a long stream of networks, illegal organisations and people fleeing. They are travelling through multiple countries. Could you give us a bit more detail on how those networks are functioning now, how they have evolved over the last couple of years in response to various conflicts and drivers, and the routes that people are taking?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q I would like to pick up on that point, because it is very important. I think I saw somewhere that you commented that there is a lack of evidence about the long-term effects of prosecuting people smugglers, because they will just be displaced. It strikes me that given that there are no other means or safe routes to get to the UK and the people-smuggling gangs effectively have a monopoly on the irregular migration business, surely all they are going to do with all the legislation that the Government are bringing forward is adapt the models to accommodate what the Government are introducing. It always seems that they are a few steps ahead of Government.
Unless we tackle the demand, surely there will not be anything we can effectively do to tackle the illegal gangs, particularly if we are going to be cutting international aid budgets, which will exacerbate the problem and drive more people into the hands of the gangs. Ms Bantleman, you have written to the Government urging them to amend the good character guidance to ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations. Could you expand on that and elaborate on what you are intending from the Government? You are right to remind the Government of the range of their commitments and international obligations. I will come to you first, Dr Walsh.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
This may be the last question, unless anybody else has indicated that they wish to ask one.
Margaret Mullane (Labour, Dagenham and Rainham)
In his evidence, Enver Solomon spoke about the “meltdown” of the immigration system—that it is chaotic. I think we all heard that. I am on the Home Affairs Committee, and we are also looking into that. Quite a few people from different groups have given evidence, and their evidence was slightly more optimistic than what has been said today.
We are all in mass communication, so I think word will get around when this starts rolling out. If the system had been chaotic and everything had ground to a halt, the gangmasters running the boats would have got to grips with it as time went on, and that would have seeped through. It therefore would not necessarily be the case that people would want to risk the boats and the gangs.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We have two quick questions to squeeze in.
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
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?
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
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%.”
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Can I quickly get Kenneth’s question in?
Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)
Q We have heard from Dr Walsh about how the small gangs operate. They are very difficult to work against. What engagement have you had to better understand the Government’s position? Would you outline your evidence directing us to an alternative approach?
It has been very interesting to hear about what does not deter people from coming across, but it would also be very interesting to hear about anything that does deter them. Could you outline that too?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
There is less than a minute left, and I wonder whether Zoe wants to quickly come in too.
Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)
Can you answer my original question about the engagement you have had with the Government? You are saying that small gangs are very flexible, but obviously the Government are saying that they are going after those gangs—
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We will now hear oral evidence from the Children’s Commissioner for England. Once again, we must stick to the timings in the programme order. We have until 1 pm for this panel. Could the witness please introduce herself for the record?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q What is your general opinion of the changes that would be introduced to the current immigration law structures with the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act and the vast majority of the Illegal Migration Act? What is your opinion on strengthening the powers of the Border Security Command, which are a central part of the Bill?
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
Q What are the things that you would like to see the Bill go further on? We just heard from the legal director at the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association that they have some concerns at least about the Government’s rhetoric, if not some of their actions, against the international law, particularly on children. Could you comment on that as well?
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
Q We heard from the previous panels about how the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act caused wholesale dysfunction in the immigration system and especially in asylum. I want to ask you about the impact that that dysfunction had on children. As we were moving unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Kent around the rest of the UK, how dysfunctional was that system? What was it like for local authorities that were trying to support them and the local communities? They have statutory obligations about child protection.
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q I commend you for the work you do. I think what you do is amazing, and I pay tribute to that. You are absolutely right to raise some of the issues about the age assessment procedures, and their almost quasi-scientific applications. You are right to reference the debate in the House of Lords, because I think it captured that quite well. Why do you think there is an increasing trend to try to label quite obvious children or teenagers as adults?
We are keeping parts of NABA, so that will be a feature of the Bill. There are concerns about modern slavery and the impact on children with that. Are there any amendments that we could bring to the Bill that would help to deal with that and meet some of those concerns, so that we can get to a much better place with how we deal with children in our asylum system?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We have only two minutes left, and three questions to go.
Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)
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?
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
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?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We will squeeze in one last question.
Becky Gittins (Labour, Clwyd East)
We heard earlier about the Rwanda Act and the IMA, and their impact on the massive escalation in the use of asylum Q hotels. Do you believe that it was actually our children and young people who were disadvantaged the most? You have talked a lot about not wanting to see a single child come across the channel in small boats, but we also need to focus on what is happening when the asylum hotels are unsuitable. When they are unsuitable, those young people are much more vulnerable to people outside of those asylum hotels—criminals who operate in the UK and seek to do them harm.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated and allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witness for her evidence.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Before we hear from our witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with the Bill? No. In that case, we will now hear oral evidence from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the National Crime Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Examination of Witnesses
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We have until 2.40 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves briefly for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
What is the single biggest thing the Government could be doing to drive down illegal arrivals, and what could we be doing to aid your agency in doing its job?Q28
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Are there further specific measures to strengthen the hand of your agency that you would like to see in the Bill?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q What concerns, if any, do you have about the Bill as drafted?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Starting with Rob Jones, what do the witnesses think the Bill does for them operationally?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q We often hear that organised immigration crime is very lucrative, well established and transnational, and that there is therefore no point in doing a lot about it. What is your answer to that?
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
I want to look at clauses 13 to 17 and what the Crown Prosecution Service thinks of them, so this question is more directed at you, Sarah. Considering their application both inside and outside the UK, what do you think the chances of successful prosecution are? How likely do you think the CPS is to take this up? We heard earlier today that some are concerned about how wide the powers in clauses 13 to 16 could be. We were told this morning that, if I was in Calais and someone asked me, “What’s the weather like today?”, technically I would have committed a crime under these clauses. What is your view of that?Q
Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)
I should declare that I have worked for the National Crime Agency in a counter-terror roleQ .
We have talked a lot about the upstream side, which publicly people are well aware of. Is there a significant domestic angle here? Are we confident that we have a sound intelligence picture—as much as we can? Are there crossovers with other crime? Does the Bill help us to disrupt and arrest people in this country?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
I can sense your enthusiasm for the new criminal clauses in the Bill. To a certain degree, I get it, but it is going to keep you busy, is it not? There will be a lot of asylum seekers caught up in the various provisions in clauses 13 to 18. I am wondering what the proportion of ordinary asylum seekers will be compared with members of gangs and people who operate this business.Q
Mr Jones, I am struck by your confidence that you are going to end this. I think you made a comparison with illegal drugs. You are probably right to make that comparison—they are both demand-led and operated by illegal gangs—but we have not been particularly successful with illegal drugs over the course of the past decade.
Lastly, Ms Dineley, you said something about pilots of the boats. I hope your intelligence is telling you exactly the people who are piloting the boats. It is not the gang members or people associated with this crime. It is ordinary asylum seekers who cannot afford the fare or are forced into piloting these boats. I hope that when approaching the new powers in the clauses you will be proportionate, you will know what is going on and will not endlessly prosecute innocent people who are just asylum seekers fleeing oppression and warfare.
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q Would you be able to supply the Committee with evidence of that?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q You could say what proportion of asylum seekers compared with gang members you think you will secure with the new powers under the Bill?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
And were they gang members?
Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)
ThisQ might be a lag question, which is quite engineering-based, but you mentioned proactive, pre-emptive and disruptive, and those are engineering terms as well. I am really interested in how they react and would work within the Bill, how they would help the Bill and how the Bill would help them. Could you give us some idea of that?
Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)
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.
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
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?Q
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?
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
Q If I reframe the question, then, have you seen any evidence to suggest that it may be a pull factor?
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
Thank you for the really interesting testimonies that you have brought today; we really appreciate it. Q 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?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
I want to get Mike Tapp’s question in quickly so that you can summarise. We have got just two minutes left.
Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)
Q I will make it quick. I am really pleased to see the enthusiasm for the disruptive approach, by the way. How do you see the Border Security Command working strategically and operationally?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for your evidence and for your service.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We will now hear oral evidence from the former director general of UK Border Force, from Migration Watch UK and from the Centre for Policy Studies. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Could witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q A nice broad question: are there any provisions you would like to see added to this Bill to strengthen our ability to drive down illegal crossings?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We have a limited amount of time, so if you could answer the question, that would be great.
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Do you have anything to add on that, Karl?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Are there any lessons from abroad that we are failing to learn at this point?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Migration Watch’s website says that you are worried about population projections and a
“significant fall in the percentage of the indigenous (white British) population.”
Can you explain what your worry is, and could you define “indigenous white population”?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
You still have not told us what indigenous means, but thank you very much.
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
Q Karl, you talked about how the Bill does not have very much deterrence in it. What is your view on safe, legal routes? If we had safe, legal routes, would that not deter people from unsafe, illegal routes?
Tony, you talked about your perfect solution to borders. You did not mention the costs. Do you have an idea of the set-up and running costs?
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
Q Thank you for the answer, Karl. Are you suggesting that, to combat the small boats issue, we should have more schemes like the Ukrainian one?
Jade Botterill (Labour, Ossett and Denby Dale)
All three of you have expressed disappointment at our scrapping the Rwanda scheme as part of the Bill. What part of the £700 million spent by the previous Government do you think was good value for money for the taxpayer?Q
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q Does the panel agree that there will be increasing demand to come to the UK from right across the world? We are not going to deal with war-torn situations, oppression and absolute poverty, so people are going to continue to move in. The movement of peoples has never been so profound as in the last decade. I do not know exactly how you plan to stop that.
If I am unfairly characterising your view, you can correct me, but your view is that they should not get into the UK, that they should be stopped either in the sea or the minute they arrive in the UK, and that at that point they should be booted out somewhere—if not Rwanda, some other country—or just put back to country of source. Is that roughly your view? You can just shake your head or nod.
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q That is fine. I am just wondering: have you even the slightest scintilla of sympathy, compassion or concern for these poor wretched souls who end up on our shores with absolutely nothing and who have fled oppression, warfare and extreme poverty?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q That is not what I said. I was just asking for your response to the people who arrive on our shores, and whether you feel empathy, compassion and concern about them.
Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)
From the moment the Rwanda deal was signed until the moment it was scrapped, 84,000 people arrived here on boats. How can you define that as a deterrent?Q
Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)
We have heard today about clauses 13(3) and 14(4) exempting NGOs from criminal charges for helping asylum seekers to cross the channel. What do you think of those?Q
Becky Gittins (Labour, Clwyd East)
Thank you to the panel for your spirited contributions so far. We know that the processing of asylum claims ground to a halt under the previous Government, which was due in part to the Rwanda scheme and to the Illegal Migration Act 2023—that being the route through which, other than the four who went to Rwanda, people were either granted asylum or returned to the country from which they came. We also know about the impact on our communities of the asylum system grinding to a halt; about the massive influx of people being placed, for indefinite periods, in asylum hotels; and about the impact that that had on our local authorities and their ability to provide services to the rest of our communities.Q
Given that the Bill clearly provides a deterrent to smugglers, to the people-smuggling business and to the criminal gangs in the channel by disrupting their activity, and by making it a greater expense, why do you still think it is a mistake—I think two or three of you said it outright, but you all seem broadly supportive of the Rwanda scheme—to be repealing those Acts with the Bill?
Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)
Q I have a couple of questions for Mr Smith. First, in your earlier comments you spoke quite enthusiastically about biometric collection at the borders. Are you aware that we are looking at a new entry/exit system with biometric collection, to come in this year? Secondly, you spoke quite negatively about the Border Security Command. I believe that you retired in 2013. Now, 12 years on, the director general of the National Crime Agency, who we had in before you, speaks very enthusiastically about the Border Security Command and this Bill. Have you spoken to them since you retired?
Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)
Q Thank you—so obviously you differ from those who are currently serving. On the biometric checks, are you aware that we have a new system?
Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)
Does the new, Europe-wide entry/exit system, which will be implemented—
Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)
Yes, the EES. We are having it at our borders.
Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)
Yes, we are. It is coming in this year.
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
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.
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
I forgot the name of it. The “Here To Stay?” report?
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
But inevitably the counterfactuals would have an impact on the fiscal burden carried by the state.
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
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?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
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
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Good afternoon. We will now hear evidence from David Coleman, emeritus professor of demography at the University of Oxford. We have until 3.40 pm for this witness. Could you please introduce yourself briefly for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Do you have any particular concerns about the Bill as drafted, or any suggested ways in which it might be improved to achieve its ends?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Are there any lessons from abroad that we are failing to learn?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Professor Coleman, are you a member of the Galton Institute?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
But it is a eugenics organisation?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Eugenics was discredited because of the rise of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, was it not?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Do you believe in universal human rights—that all human beings are equal and deserving of universal human rights?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q You mentioned that trying to deal with the problems of illegal or irregular immigration can mean being, in some ways, “nasty to the smugglers”, which the Bill is, but also nasty to asylum seekers. Do you want to talk about what you mean by that?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q But the reality was that tens of thousands of people had arrived and could not be processed, because of the Illegal Migration Act and its flaws. They were just living in hotels forever, as they were not able to be processed and not able to be sent anywhere else. How is that a solution to the issues that we are trying to deal with?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Of course, asylum claims are up because they were not being processed, but now they are. That is dealing with the backlog that was caused by the problems with the Illegal Migration Act.
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q I was actually very excited when I found out that there was a professor of demography coming to this panel; I have a particular interest in population demography. Using your vast knowledge of the subject, could you explain what the population and demographic trends will be for practically every European nation towards the middle part of the century and the end of the century? How will these nations cope with population stagnation, population decline and the assorted problems with a smaller working-age workforce supporting an older generation, with a falling birth rate around the world? What will they do to deal with that?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q We all know. Professor, you must know.
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q You need two to one. You need two children per woman to sustain it—I am not telling a professor that.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Sorry, we have four minutes left and I have three people to get in.
Margaret Mullane (Labour, Dagenham and Rainham)
Following on from what the Minister asked you about how we have to be mean or have open borders, I looked at your written evidence, in which you have put as your ninth point, “Make Britain unattractive again”, and then you refer to the Rwanda policy. You say that you do not really know, but we had the National Crime Agency in before you and they were quite optimistic about the deterrent aspects of the Bill. Are you saying that you are not at all?
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
Q In 2018, the Government was spending £18,000 per asylum seeker, per year. Then they brought in the Illegal Migration Act, the Nationality and Borders Act, and the Safety of Rwanda Act. By 2024, they were spending £47,000 per asylum seeker, per year. If you have any respect for public money at all, is it not self-evident that this legislation has failed and that we should try a different approach on immigration?
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
But they passed the Act.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
I had Tom Hayes to ask a question, but we have literally 20 seconds.
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
Q Professor Coleman, would you on a level accept the description of being a eugenicist?
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
Q In that case, I will use the rest of my time. Are you familiar with the—
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
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.
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Brian Bell from King’s College London. We have until 4 pm for this panel. Could the witness please briefly introduce himself for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Do you think that the Bill will be effective in achieving its aims? How could it be made more effective?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Are there any lessons that we are failing to learn from abroad?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Professor Bell, do you think that in a democracy it ought to be the elected Members and the Government who decide who can come to our country, rather than criminals and people smugglers?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Therefore, do you share my view that, when we see the establishment along our borders of serious organised immigration criminals who are profiting greatly from their illicit activities and putting people’s lives at risk, we should try to do all we can to put a stop to it?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q But of course that is not a reason for not doing it, is it?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Could you therefore comment on whether the new powers in the Bill will have an effect on our ability as a society with law and order to crack down on some of that abuse?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q We are taking evidence to see whether people think these things will be effective. I am not asking you to produce a crystal ball and tell us in advance, but I am trying to get a handle on whether you think this is an effort worth making. It seems to me that you are saying that it is.
Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)
Q Is it desirable to use counter-terrorism-style powers to disrupt so that we can prevent some of these crossings from happening rather than waiting until after people have died in the channel and then trying to pick up the pieces?
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
Q How would the changes to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data sharing improve border security?
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
Q We have heard a lot today about supply and demand factors for migration, which you do understand. Data sharing is meant to be one of the examples of, “This is our way as a country of clamping down on immigration.” In your experience, does it have a de minimis impact?
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
Q Thank you for coming today. We heard some evidence this morning about the Illegal Migration and Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Acts. Witnesses have called them a disaster, a meltdown, and a fundamental system breakdown. What is your assessment of those Acts on the functioning of the Home Office systems and on the cost to the public purse? How effective have they been in reducing migrant numbers?
Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
Q Or four.
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q You are an expert in immigration and crime—you have been doing some work on that. The clauses concerning criminalisation are main features of the Bill. How many more asylum seekers do you think will be put through the criminal courts as a result of this legislation, and how many members of gangs, and those that do the people smuggling? What, roughly, will be the proportion of each of those groups?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q It is not really going to affect the gangs, and very few of them will be caught under the Bill. I had a dispute earlier with a director general of the National Crime Agency about piloting the boats, which will, as you know, be an offence under the new legislation. In the last three years, 205 people were convicted on that basis, and it is not even in the Bill. Are we likely to see more people convicted for steering a boat because they were probably forced or compelled to do so?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Not according to the current numbers: 205 is a lot of people being convicted for being compelled to drive a boat—
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Order. Sorry—we only have eight minutes.
Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)
Q Just over a week ago, the Government announced that there will be no automatic right to British citizenship for a person who comes here illegally by boat or lorry. Do you think that will act as a deterrent to people coming here?
Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)
Q Perhaps on a related note, you have talked about incentives and mentioned a couple of reasons why people do not come over from France. What is your sense of why people do? Can those incentives be disrupted?
Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)
Q So make it harder to work illegally or outside the rules?
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
Q My questions are speculative. First of all, are you familiar with a report by the Centre for Policy Studies called “Here to Stay?”
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
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.
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
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?
Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)
Q So it is not entirely appropriate to compare the Australian offshoring approach to the Rwanda scheme?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for Members to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
We will now hear evidence from Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister for Border Security and Asylum, and Seema Malhotra MP, Minister for Migration and Citizenship at the Home Office. We will have until 4.20 pm for this panel.
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Looking at the changing approach, particularly around the repeal of the Illegal Migration Act, repealing section 2 of the Act removes the obligation on the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally. What is the rationale behind that?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q On the obligation to remove people who arrive here illegally, whether it is in that Act or in the Bill being brought forward, why are we removing that as a principle?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q I understand that comment, but do you not think that, as part of that approach, it should be an obligation on the Government to remove people who come here illegally?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Further to that, the principle in the previous legislation was that if someone arrived in this country illegally, they could not become a British citizen. That was there in the legislation, but it will not be there when this Bill has gone through. What message does it send to the world if people who break into this country can then go on to gain citizenship?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q But we have taken that out.
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q The Illegal Migration Act also made provisions, in sections 57 and 58, for scientific age verification. We are removing that as well. Why would we want to remove those powers from our agencies? We have seen the consequences for safeguarding and the impact that that could have on young people. Why would we not want to give the agencies all the powers that they could have?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q I am sure that we could spend all day arguing about the pros and cons of Rwanda, but specifically, we see the effectiveness of returns agreements where those are in place. For countries where we cannot return people, if those people are not going to Rwanda, where will the Government put them?
Martin Vickers (Conservative, Brigg and Immingham)
Q What about where we do not have the ability to return—with countries where we cannot return those people? They were going to go to Rwanda; now, where are they going?
Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)
Q Since you started in your role, 19,000 people have been deported, which I believe is a 24% increase on the same period last year. How have you managed to achieve that in such a short time? Combined with the Bill, do you think that that will start acting as a deterrent?
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
Q We have heard a lot of mixed comments in the evidence sessions today, but quite a few witnesses have highlighted that the Bill only tackles half the story of border security, asylum and immigration. It tackles the supply side, not the demand. Based on today, will you consider some potential amendments, or another potential strategy, to attach to the Bill to tackle the whole picture that, as we heard today, people as a country want us to tackle?
Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)
Q If I may briefly follow up, I appreciate the Minister for Border Security and Asylum’s thoughts on safe routes. Ukraine has long been held up as a good example: we housed a lot of people safely and one Ukrainian person tried to cross the channel.
To be more specific, I have a follow-up on clause 18. We are creating a new criminal offence of endangering someone on a sea crossing—why is it an unauthorised sea crossing? Why is it not a blanket endangering of someone when crossing the sea? Should that offence not be wider or is it more like an aggravating factor?
Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)
Q Thank you, Ministers, for your evidence. In his evidence, Tony Smith, who retired 12 years ago, was very critical of the role of the Border Security Commander and defined him as a “co-ordinator”. Do you believe that the Border Security Commander’s powers need to be enhanced?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Q I know that we do not have much time, but I have two quick points following the compelling evidence we have heard today. It has been a very good session. One of the things that came across powerfully was the view that this Bill will do very little to actually tackle the gangs; we heard consistently throughout the evidence that, “They’ll just adjust their business model; they’ve got a monopoly on the irregular migration trade, so they are obviously going to do what they can to maintain it.”
The other thing is that it will have very little impact on people making the decision to come to the United Kingdom. They are fleeing oppression, poverty and war, and they do not care about the laws of the United Kingdom—what Angela Eagle is doing in a migration Bill is not going to deter them from coming here. So what are we going to do to get on top of this issue? Should we not be thinking, as we go through this Bill process, about fresh, new ideas to tackle it?
Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)
Yes, but that is gone.
Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)
Q Listening today has been very interesting; I have written down some of the points. There were the points about organised crime, and about the Border Security Commander and the border post that he—or it might be a “she”, and I am not ultra-woke—would be in charge of. There is also the point about 2 million people coming over from Gaza, and that the tagging system has not worked, although I did not hear any evidence of that—I wanted numbers; as an engineer, I wanted to hear the background to that.
I then heard that there were no magical solutions and that war was not easy to win—so we are in a “war” with migrants. We then spoke about unkindness to asylum seekers. I think that the most important words that I heard today were proactive, pre-emptive and disruptive— that is what the Government are trying to be. Do you agree that that has to start with the gangs who are starting this and are pulling—or pushing—people across?
Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent East)
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Ministers for their evidence.