Dear constituent,
Thank you for contacting me about the Illegal Migration Bill which has now passed through both Houses and received Royal Assent as the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
This legislation forms an important part of the Prime Minister’s plan to stop the boats that people smugglers are using to evade our immigration rules, and which cause so much risk to those involved.
This is an important piece of legislation and I know from my emails and conversations with constituents that securing our borders forms an important part of how people judge the overall performance of the Government. The Bill was contentious, and I have received emails from constituents suggesting that the Bill was too harsh, and I have received emails from constituents expressing concerns that the Bill did not far enough to deal with the issue.
The United Kingdom has a proud history of supporting those in need of protection; resettlement programmes have provided safe and legal routes to better futures for hundreds of thousands of people from across the globe. This includes people from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine.
Since 2015, the UK has resettled over 27,000 refugees through safe and legal routes directly from areas of conflict and instability and has issued over 40,000 family reunion visas through its family reunion policy. The family reunion policy allows a spouse or partner and children under 18 of those granted protection in the UK to join them here, if they formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country.
Since Putin’s barbarous invasion of Ukraine, the UK has granted over 237,000 visas as at 10th August to enable Ukrainians to come to the UK- Ukraine Family Scheme, Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme (Homes for Ukraine) and Ukraine Extension Scheme visa data - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) and in addition, over 150,000 Hong Kong British nationals overseas made use of the routes to life or time in the UK.
During the debate on the Bill, I listened to the bulk of the contributions from MPs during the first debate and indeed had hoped to speak myself. I was unsuccessful in that endeavour as I was not called by the Speaker, but I thought I would share some of the points which I had wished to make during that debate.
There is a paradox, or perhaps more accurately a dilemma, within the Bill. On the one hand, the Bill is trying to limit the scope for access to legal procedures for those who arrive through “irregular” routes in order to control misuse of our immigration systems. On the other hand, in seeking to do this, the Bill as drafted had the potential to limit rights of access for people who might reasonably be deemed to be vulnerable such as children and victims of human trafficking.
Over the past decade I have campaigned successfully to stop the detention of children and to stop the detention of pregnant women and campaigned (with less success) to ban indefinite detention for immigration cases. This Bill should not roll back the progress that has been made on these fronts since 2010. Further information about my work on this is available here: immigration-detention-inquiry-report.pdf (wordpress.com) and specifically in relation to human trafficking, I set out my views in a debate which I called in 2021, the details of which are here: Richard leads debate on immigration detention | Richard Fuller
My biggest concerns with the Bill were with the clauses that related to people trafficking and modern-day slavery. These people are much more likely than others to come through “irregular” routes precisely because they are being trafficked. I had three key questions that I wanted to raise with the minister:
- Having only last year passed the Nationality and Borders Bill which raised the threshold for a “reasonable grounds” decision to prevent specious human trafficking claims, what assessment has yet been done to measure the effectiveness of the measures in that Bill?
- If, as has been the case since 2018, just 7% of all arrivals by small boats were referred to the National Referral Mechanism (the evaluation process we have for modern day slavery cases), why is it necessary to include this highly sensitive issue within the scope of the legislation?
- How effective in practice will be the exemption for trafficked people who have started an investigation with the police? In my experience, there seem to be many barriers for police effectively to identify and investigate such cases.
This legislation has its place but in addition to these questions about the legislation, there are other steps the Government is taking, and needs to take, if it is to make effective progress:
- There needs to be greater accountability within the Home Office for the poor performance in the time for processing immigration claims and for deporting those who have no right to remain. This is an issue that I raised with the Prime Minister at the end of last year when he announced the agreement with the Albanian Government for the return of Albanians arriving by small boats - Tackling illegal migration: Richard welcomes the Prime Minister's announcement and asks about Home Office accountability | Richard Fuller
- Securing our borders will likely require more, not less, international cooperation, so the Prime Minister should be congratulated for his recent progress with President Macron but needs to build further on this start.
- We have welcomed hundreds of thousands of people from Hong Kong and Ukraine, but the government should bring forward its plans for expanding what are termed “safe and legal” routes to include other countries but importantly within an overall cap as the Bill proposes.
- The 1951 Refugee Convention may well not be suited to the migration patterns of this century so we should have the courage to lead international efforts to see if it needs updating.
I have raised the following issues with the Home Secretary - Question to Home Secretary on Immigration - YouTube
At a meeting with constituents in Sharnbrook earlier this year, I mentioned that I supported the Illegal Migration Bill but would be looking for some targeted amendments. I recently spoke to raise my point in the House that although there was a need for change to address the issue of people smuggling across the channel, these issues need to be dealt with using compassion, Richard thanks Sharnbrook community for providing a welcoming environment to those in asylum hotel | Richard Fuller
Earlier this year, I joined with Tim Loughton and other Conservative MPs to persuade the Home Secretary to make changes that will bring forward plans to the scope of "safe and legal" routes, and more protection from detention for children who enter the country through irregular routes. New clause 8 adopted by the Government was originally in the name of Tim Loughton and supported by me. It requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill’s enactment, to prepare and publish a report on safe and legal routes of entry to the UK. The Government has also adopted amendment 11, also originally proposed by Tim Loughton and supported by me, which would require consultation with local authorities on the cap on the number of people who may enter the UK through specified safe and legal routes to begin within three months of the Bill’s passing.
Following these discussions, I am pleased the Government has made amendments to ensure that pregnant women are not detained for longer than necessary and has made considerable steps to address the difficult issue of unaccompanied children and how their legitimate rights can be manipulated by criminal gangs. There is an unpalatable tension between the desire to maintain the highest standards and sensitivity toward migrants, however they arrive in this country, on the one hand and on the other demonstrating to the public that our borders are secure and finally breaking a highly lucrative trade in people smuggling. Unaccompanied children are caught in this and are being exploited routinely for financial gain. If the Government’s measures can limit that exploitation, the world would be a better place but personally I could not support the measures they were proposing. Therefore, I abstained from amendments 107B and 107C, 102B, 56B, 33B, 36B, 36D and 23B as I felt that, despite the progress referred to above, there were elements of the Bill that I could not fully support.
It seems sensible and increasingly valuable for countries to look again at the arrangements for the management of refugees from the 1951 Refugee Convention because it was set up in different times. Such a review is best done by a group of countries rather than individual countries seeking to unilaterally address the issue. A multilateral solution would have benefits over unilateral processes and as the UK has played a significant role in the original drafting of these rules and has a global reputation for its legal skills, I think it makes a lot of sense to lead those efforts.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s amendment to require a ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking is pointed in the right direction but I do not believe it is essential that it was included in this piece of legislation. I understand that the archbishop withdrew the amendment, but I hope that he will continue in his efforts with the Government and politicians of all parties to support the progression of this.
The legislation remains contentious, but I believe many of its provisions are needed as part of a comprehensive plan to tackle people smugglers and 'stop the boats'.
Sincerely,
