Robert Jenrick is Minister for Immigration, and is MP for Newark.
“It is a privilege to have the opportunity to address you this morning.
Under the leadership of Lord Godson, Policy Exchange has done more than any other think tank to stimulate debate about migration in UK policymaking circles.
It has brought the concerns of ordinary people across the country to Westminster’s corridors, bridging the gulf that has too often existed between the view in the country and political and media elites in Westminster.
And through its unrivalled assembly of distinguished minds, including Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, Policy Exchange has provided intellectual leadership on this subject, from reforming legal migration around a points-based system to tackling illegal migration through third-state removals and legislation to stop the small boats.”
It is on this latter subject that I wish to focus my remarks on today.
Age of mass migration
“Because mass irregular migration will be one of the defining characteristics of the 21st century.
How to stop it, and how to maintain sovereign borders, is one of the defining policy questions of our time.
Across the Western world, governments are grappling with this great challenge.
We have collectively entered an age of mass migration.
More people are on the move – and those individuals are more mobile – than ever before.
The UNHCR estimate there are now more than one hundred million people displaced globally.
In just over two years that number has increased by twenty million people.
When the Refugee Convention was signed in 1951 there were an estimated two million people that could be recognised as refugees under its definition.
Today that number stands at an estimated forty-five million.
And whilst it is true that most of these people seek refuge in the first safe country they reach, millions do not.
The reality of this migration is far simpler than some migration experts make out – those in areas of low economic opportunity will seek out better prospects elsewhere.
This is simply human nature.
In his book, Whiteshift, senior fellow at Policy Exchange, Eric Kaufmann, shone a light on the practically limitless appetite for migration.
He cited polling in five neighbourhoods in Dakar in Senegal – a stable country, comfortably above the bottom of the income scale – which indicated that 92 per cent of those polled would consider migrating, and of these 40 per cent said they would consider migration illegally.
Faced with the prospects of higher earnings and remittances for their families, perilous journeys and the real risk of death did not deter them.
Half were still willing to risk migrating even when told the chances of dying was 25 per cent.
Similar statistics would undoubtedly be replicated elsewhere across the developing world.
And time-space convergence has meant that it is easier and cheaper than ever before for these individuals to cross continents.
Geography is simply no longer the constraint it once was.
For the first time in history, for the millions of people who have always wanted to come to developed counties like the UK, it is now within their reach.
We see the effects of this development vividly on our own borders.
The English Channel was once a barrier more impenetrable than any wall – a “silver sea” in which these islands were set.
But in the age of cheap manufactured goods, transnational smuggling gangs and instant communications it is a gateway for those in search of better economic prospects.
So, for many, the thought of reaching the UK is no longer an impossible dream, but an option.
This marks a fundamental shift in the migratory landscape.
And there are compelling reasons to expect even greater numbers of people leaving the developing world if Western governments do not re-establish the integrity of their borders.
First, as Paul Collier has argued, migration tends to be self-reinforcing.
So, the more migrants that are accepted, the more that are likely to follow as proof of concept takes hold, migration routes become established and human ties in the UK are forged.
This is accentuated by the fact that the countries we see high numbers of arrivals from are forecast to undergo significant population growth over the next few decades.
Secondly, because climate change will lead to the displacement of individuals either directly through more extreme and frequent weather events, or indirectly through ensuing instability.
Thirdly, the UK’s adversaries are weaponising the flow of people in Europe’s near abroad, as we witnessed on the border between Belarus, and Poland and Lithuania, in 2021, and exacerbating instability in the Maghreb and Sahel region through the use of proxies.
And as much as we would have liked, state failure, secessionist movements and radical terrorist groups have not been consigned to the past.
The number of conflict zones around the world is increasing and they are lasting for longer as conflict resolution becomes harder.
Whilst it is impossible to determine the exact numbers, the basic fact is undeniable: the number of people who are willing and able to reach the UK is astronomical, and vastly outnumbers what we are capable or willing to take as a country.
The consequence of this has been unprecedented amounts of illegal migration which have placed our infrastructure and public services under strain, weakened community cohesion and set back integration efforts.
In the long sweep of our nation’s history the numbers of people currently coming here illegally in recent decades is an anomaly – a fact that is felt in communities across the UK.
What once took the form of migrants cramming themselves in airless lorries now largely occurs through migrants crossing the Channel in what amounts to little more than overfilled rafts.
In the last two years there has been more than a 400 per cent increase in these small boat arrivals.
Every crossing is a potential tragedy.
Since 2014, at least 46 people are known to have died. Elsewhere on the migratory path, in the Mediterranean, that number is more than 25,000.
Europe’s seas have become a graveyard.
And in an industry controlled by people smugglers, it is the richer, young men that prevail in the chaos they preside over.
Women, children and the most vulnerable are left at risk.
On humanitarian grounds alone this suffering must be stopped.
But for Conservatives illegal migration is also an affront to our most foundational principles – and that in itself is worth reflecting upon.
Principally, the belief that the Government of the day must be able to determine who can and cannot enter the country, which is rooted in a desire to preserve and strengthen the nation state as the most successful vehicle for peace and prosperity.
Conservatives should not shy away from their belief that the nation has a right to preserve itself – and that the fundamental responsibility of the government in a democratic society is to further the interests of the inhabitants that constitute this national community over those outside it.
Moreover, Conservatives believe that elected governments should carefully control the pace of change.
Not least because a shared national identity – bound by shared memories, traditions and values – is a prerequire for generosity in society.
There is an extensive body of research that demonstrates the damaging effects on social trust and cohesion from uncontrolled migration.
I saw this for myself when I met residents of Aycliffe, an estate in Dover, whose lives had been made a misery by illegal migrants who have made clandestine landings on nearby beaches knocking on their doors entering their homes.
They felt abandoned by the authorities and estranged from their neighbourhood.
If we do not have confidence that those who live in our communities do so lawfully, individuals are less likely to trust their neighbours, or make sacrifices which sustain communities.
Put simply: excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public.
And those crossing tend to have completely different lifestyles and values to those in the UK – and tend to settle in already hyper-diverse areas, undermining the cultural cohesiveness that binds diverse groups together and makes our multi-ethnic democracy successful.
The current numbers of people arriving here illegally surpass any reasonable number the state could be expected to provide for or integrate successfully into our national community.
And it is the most disadvantaged in our society that are most acutely affected by this.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that it is the Conservative Party that is providing the answers to the illegal migration conundrum…”
The Illegal Migration Bill
In order for nation states to survive in this age of mass migration, governments must recognise the necessity of limits – and that means future-proofing their immigration systems.
And if states are to retain their sovereignty – their ability to exclude individuals from their territory – then they need to find new ways to enforce their laws.
Deterrence must be restored. Those that make illegal journeys must know that it will be a futile endeavour.
And that is why the UK Government has brought forward the Illegal Migration Bill, which, I would argue, is the most significant piece of immigration legislation of modern times.
At its heart, the Bill has a simple principle: if you arrive in the UK illegally there should be no route to a life in the UK.
You will be returned home or removed to a safe third country – and once removed, only in the most exceptional of circumstances will those that have arrived illegally be permitted leave to enter the UK.
And to make that possible we have taken new powers that go further than any prior piece of immigration legislation, whilst remaining within our treaty obligations.
Crucially the Bill places a duty on the Government to remove illegal entrants, so that removal is no longer a discretionary power, but a legal requirement.
It radically narrows the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal.
Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly or are at real risk of “serious and irreversible harm” in the country we are removing them to – which is an exceedingly high bar – will be able to delay their removal.
Any other claims will be non-suspensive and so heard remotely, after removal.
By removing the number of decision points in the process we are making it considerably harder for bureaucracy and activist lawyers to delay removal.
Because only swift and predictable removal will establish deterrence.
The case for this reform is overwhelming, and has been made most powerfully and clearly by the judiciary themselves.
As the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, said:
“Late claims, raised shortly before removal, have been endemic, many fanciful or entirely false… it is a matter of regret that a minority of lawyers have leant their professional support to vexatious representations and abusive late legal challenges.”
Such practices, if allowed to continue, to escalate, by Government and Parliament, ultimately undermines the Rule of Law…
To make this operationally possible the Bill enables the detention of illegal arrivals, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed.
We know that otherwise those who arrive illegally will abscond, making their subsequent removal incredibly challenging.
And so that the Bill restores deterrence to all of those crossing Channel – and plugs holes smugglers would otherwise exploit – we are taking a power to detain and remove unaccompanied children in very limited circumstances, for example to reunite them with their family.
We simply cannot allow the UK to be a magnet for people smugglers specialising in children.
Neither will we allow the adults to pose as children and by lies and deceit, be accommodated with actual minors, enter our schools or even the care of unsuspecting foster carers – as Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai, an illegal migrant did, before going onto murder 21-year-old Thomas Roberts in Bournemouth last year.
Fifty per cent of those illegal migrants we dispute the age of are determined to be adults.
So, the Bill confers new powers to make provisions to scientifically assess ages and in certain circumstances allows us to take an automatic assumption of adulthood from those who refuse a scientific age assessment, where justified by scientific evidence.
And the Bill addresses blockers that have previously hampered an effective regime.
As you know, the Government has in the past faced Rule 39 interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which blocked the Government from removing individuals to Rwanda in June last year.
The process by which these interim measures are issued is often opaque and untimely, with limited ability for the UK to make representations or understand the reasoning or identity of judges.
Serious questions of natural justice arise from the manner in which the Court operates – serious deficiencies in process we are seeking to change, alongside our fellow signatories of the Convention.
The amendment the Government has tabled will make clear Parliament’s intent that the Secretary of State may decide in individual cases whether, or not, to suspend the duty to remove a person where a Rule 39 interim measure has been issued.
And the amendment provides a non-exhaustive list of considerations that the Minister may have regard to when making that decision.
We will continue to comply with our international treaty obligations – and as we have constructed our new immigration system we have been at pains to remain within the boundaries of international law.
Indeed, the High Court recently found decisively in our favour regarding the compatibility of our Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda with our international obligations.
So, this amendment does not amount to a blanket rejection of all Rule 39 interim measures.
But it is right that, when the circumstances of a specific case require it ministers can, on the basis of collective agreement, determine the right approach in the national interest.
Safe and legal routes
This Bill goes further than ever before to sever the link between entering Britain illegally from a safe country like France and staying here to live and work.
But the Bill does not turn our back on those in genuine need.
Quite the opposite, the Bill provides a coherent vision for a humanitarian system fit for the 21st century in which the UK is an even greater force for good in the world – where a zero-tolerance approach to illegal migration is coupled with generous resettlement routes and grounded in control and democratic consent.
Instead of taking those that have travelled through, and left, safe European countries, we will bypass the smugglers to focus our finite resources on those coming through our dedicated sage and legal routes for those directly in conflict zones.
Already we take people from our country-specific routes with Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine.
This is in addition to the routes that we have in place with UNHCR and our family reunion route which are all global in scope.
Since 2015 we have resettled almost half a million people on these humanitarian pathways to the UK, and the fourth largest number of refugees through the United Nations compared to any other country worldwide.
In doing so, successive Conservative governments have ensured we bypassed the people smugglers to focus our efforts on women and children and delivered migration to the UK in an orderly and controlled manner which commands the consent of the British public.
This Bill enshrines this approach in law.
And as we regain our capacity by tackling illegal migration, we will have the flexibility to take more people through these routes.
But, fundamentally, the UK’s safe and legal routes have to be calibrated to the actual capacity of local authorities to bear the burden.
For too long politicians have naively glossed over the costs of resettlement and the ability of local authorities to bear them.
The most vulnerable people in the world require the full support of the British state to assist them.
Each person resettled requires housing, healthcare, welfare support and more.
This is an under-researched area, but a recent study from academics at the University of Amsterdam in March 2021 estimated that the cost to the state from the average asylum seekers from the Middle East or North Africa was roughly 650,000 euros per individual over the course of their lifetime.
That is not to say we cannot afford resettlement – we can, and as a developed country we have obligations to those to those in the world who are less fortunate.
It is simply to recognise that resettlement is a big commitment, and so we should be certain that the numbers we take are commensurate to our resources at that moment in time.
And for too long our migration debate has been dominated by humanitarian nimbyism whereby devolved administrations have rhetorically welcomed refugees, but then fail to take their fair share.
They declare themselves “Nations of Sanctuary” and then pull up the drawbridge.
These politicians grandstand and virtue-signal their supposed generosity. But there is nothing virtuous about making generous offers at the expense of others when it comes to housing supply, waiting lists and the tax burden.
Those of us privileged to be in Government and Parliament should not write cheques that cannot be drawn, or which will be paid by others.
So, the Bill introduces a consultation with local authorities to inform the conversation and restore honesty to the debate about migration.
And under the proposed amendment to the Bill, we will launch within three months of the Bill passing the first consultation with local authorities to understand their capacity…
We must restore democracy to the debate because our offer to resettle those in need must command the consent of the British public.
Throughout our modern history, refugee policy, like our approach to migration generally, has been haphazard –
rarely thought through and subject to all manner of unintended consequences, some positive, some not.
For too long this decision, and its profound consequences on the lives of the British public, lay outside the purview of their trustees in parliament.
The subject was forced underground.
But there is no more important issue in our domestic politics than the question of who gets to come to this country and in what numbers.
So, for the first time, our safe and legal routes and their capacity will be set by Parliament.
Politicians who concede there is a limit to our capacity will be forced to specify where exactly their limits lie.
And it should prompt a wider conversation about how we support those most in need.
The Left view migration to the UK as the principal solution to assisting the millions of people that are displaced globally.
But there are alternatives options that we should be willing to consider more readily.
For instance, the approach pursued by David Cameron in 2015 ensured the UK’s resources went to assist not tens of thousands but millions of people caught up in the Syrian civil war who were too frail or poor to migrate reach the safety of refugee camps.
Or take the UNHCR, who now devote nearly half of their budget on major conflict zones or refugee producing countries to tackle the problem at source…”
Non-legislative changes
“This Bill is undoubtedly the morally just thing to do, for it is only by stopping the boats that the tyranny of the people smuggling gangs will end and the UK is able to provide the greatest good to the most deserving.
But as the Prime Minister has made clear, legislation alone will not fix the problem of illegal migration.
We have to defend our sovereign borders proactively.
This means working with our European partners upstream to stem the flow of people crossing the continent irregularly before they reach anywhere near the UK.
That is why we are working to build deeper partnerships with key transit states like Turkey, Albania and Italy to respond to this joint challenge.
And it is why at the UK-French summit in March we agreed to do more upstream work with France to tackle the transnational crime gangs.
Closer to home, in northern France, we are making it harder for people smugglers to operate through more patrols on the beaches, more sophisticated technology deployed by law enforcement agencies and more detention capacity.
This represents a huge step forward, taking UK-France cooperation to unprecedented levels.
But shared problems ultimately require joint solutions.
We continue to believe that a readmissions agreement with France and the EU is firmly in our mutual interest – and we will continue to make that case.
We are ready to work constructively and creatively with them in this regard, for the benefit of all our peoples.
And we must work with likeminded international partners to refresh international frameworks, so they maintain their relevance in an age of mass migration.
Writing in the aftermath of the Second World War and motivated by its horrors, the authors of the post-war settlement would be shocked by the fact the system they founded has become mired in organised criminality and exploited by economic migrants.
Difficult though the task is, we must renew them, so their noble intent lives on, workable in an altogether different age…”
Non-legislative domestic changes
“Whilst we are redoubling our efforts abroad, at home we are suffusing our entire system with deterrence.
We have doubled the NCA’s funding for tackling organised immigration crime – and they will be assisted by new powers in the Bill to seize more phones of migrants crossing the Channel to mine them for intelligence.
We have dragged the number of returns above pre-pandemic levels, spurred by an enhanced returns agreement with the Albanian government negotiated by the Prime Minister.
And we have increased illegal working visits by more than 50 per cent.
We are returning to the compliant environment established by John Reid, and advanced by Theresa May, including by resuming data-sharing with banks to identify illegal migrants and close their accounts.
And we are shifting our asylum accommodation to basic, functional accommodation that does not act as a pull factor to migrants in France by delivering accommodation on disused military sites and barges.
Many of our European partners are struggling with the exact same accommodation issues we are: Belgium, Ireland, Germany and France are having to take similar steps.”
Conclusion
“Taken together, this is the only approach that is workable in an age of mass migration.
It is one that denies illegal migrants a life in the UK whilst generously welcoming those on our dedicated and tailored schemes.
These two elements are inextricably linked: two sides of the same coin.
Our capacity is finite so we can only help those in desperate circumstances in conflict zones if we stop illegal migration from safe countries.
And that is what we are focused on delivering on.
This will not be achieved overnight, but nor are our present challenges insoluble.
As Policy Exchange have highlighted many times, our friends in Australia faced a similar crisis and solved it – and it is on their blueprint that our plans are based.
Tweaks to our broken system will not suffice – only a significantly more robust approach will end this injustice of illegal migration and secure our borders.
And that is why the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and taking this tough action.
The British people rightly demand that we stop the boats – and that is what we intend to do.”
–
This article contains the text of a lecture delivered yesterday at Policy Exchange.
Robert Jenrick is Minister for Immigration, and is MP for Newark.
“It is a privilege to have the opportunity to address you this morning.
Under the leadership of Lord Godson, Policy Exchange has done more than any other think tank to stimulate debate about migration in UK policymaking circles.
It has brought the concerns of ordinary people across the country to Westminster’s corridors, bridging the gulf that has too often existed between the view in the country and political and media elites in Westminster.
And through its unrivalled assembly of distinguished minds, including Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, Policy Exchange has provided intellectual leadership on this subject, from reforming legal migration around a points-based system to tackling illegal migration through third-state removals and legislation to stop the small boats.”
It is on this latter subject that I wish to focus my remarks on today.
Age of mass migration
“Because mass irregular migration will be one of the defining characteristics of the 21st century.
How to stop it, and how to maintain sovereign borders, is one of the defining policy questions of our time.
Across the Western world, governments are grappling with this great challenge.
We have collectively entered an age of mass migration.
More people are on the move – and those individuals are more mobile – than ever before.
The UNHCR estimate there are now more than one hundred million people displaced globally.
In just over two years that number has increased by twenty million people.
When the Refugee Convention was signed in 1951 there were an estimated two million people that could be recognised as refugees under its definition.
Today that number stands at an estimated forty-five million.
And whilst it is true that most of these people seek refuge in the first safe country they reach, millions do not.
The reality of this migration is far simpler than some migration experts make out – those in areas of low economic opportunity will seek out better prospects elsewhere.
This is simply human nature.
In his book, Whiteshift, senior fellow at Policy Exchange, Eric Kaufmann, shone a light on the practically limitless appetite for migration.
He cited polling in five neighbourhoods in Dakar in Senegal – a stable country, comfortably above the bottom of the income scale – which indicated that 92 per cent of those polled would consider migrating, and of these 40 per cent said they would consider migration illegally.
Faced with the prospects of higher earnings and remittances for their families, perilous journeys and the real risk of death did not deter them.
Half were still willing to risk migrating even when told the chances of dying was 25 per cent.
Similar statistics would undoubtedly be replicated elsewhere across the developing world.
And time-space convergence has meant that it is easier and cheaper than ever before for these individuals to cross continents.
Geography is simply no longer the constraint it once was.
For the first time in history, for the millions of people who have always wanted to come to developed counties like the UK, it is now within their reach.
We see the effects of this development vividly on our own borders.
The English Channel was once a barrier more impenetrable than any wall – a “silver sea” in which these islands were set.
But in the age of cheap manufactured goods, transnational smuggling gangs and instant communications it is a gateway for those in search of better economic prospects.
So, for many, the thought of reaching the UK is no longer an impossible dream, but an option.
This marks a fundamental shift in the migratory landscape.
And there are compelling reasons to expect even greater numbers of people leaving the developing world if Western governments do not re-establish the integrity of their borders.
First, as Paul Collier has argued, migration tends to be self-reinforcing.
So, the more migrants that are accepted, the more that are likely to follow as proof of concept takes hold, migration routes become established and human ties in the UK are forged.
This is accentuated by the fact that the countries we see high numbers of arrivals from are forecast to undergo significant population growth over the next few decades.
Secondly, because climate change will lead to the displacement of individuals either directly through more extreme and frequent weather events, or indirectly through ensuing instability.
Thirdly, the UK’s adversaries are weaponising the flow of people in Europe’s near abroad, as we witnessed on the border between Belarus, and Poland and Lithuania, in 2021, and exacerbating instability in the Maghreb and Sahel region through the use of proxies.
And as much as we would have liked, state failure, secessionist movements and radical terrorist groups have not been consigned to the past.
The number of conflict zones around the world is increasing and they are lasting for longer as conflict resolution becomes harder.
Whilst it is impossible to determine the exact numbers, the basic fact is undeniable: the number of people who are willing and able to reach the UK is astronomical, and vastly outnumbers what we are capable or willing to take as a country.
The consequence of this has been unprecedented amounts of illegal migration which have placed our infrastructure and public services under strain, weakened community cohesion and set back integration efforts.
In the long sweep of our nation’s history the numbers of people currently coming here illegally in recent decades is an anomaly – a fact that is felt in communities across the UK.
What once took the form of migrants cramming themselves in airless lorries now largely occurs through migrants crossing the Channel in what amounts to little more than overfilled rafts.
In the last two years there has been more than a 400 per cent increase in these small boat arrivals.
Every crossing is a potential tragedy.
Since 2014, at least 46 people are known to have died. Elsewhere on the migratory path, in the Mediterranean, that number is more than 25,000.
Europe’s seas have become a graveyard.
And in an industry controlled by people smugglers, it is the richer, young men that prevail in the chaos they preside over.
Women, children and the most vulnerable are left at risk.
On humanitarian grounds alone this suffering must be stopped.
But for Conservatives illegal migration is also an affront to our most foundational principles – and that in itself is worth reflecting upon.
Principally, the belief that the Government of the day must be able to determine who can and cannot enter the country, which is rooted in a desire to preserve and strengthen the nation state as the most successful vehicle for peace and prosperity.
Conservatives should not shy away from their belief that the nation has a right to preserve itself – and that the fundamental responsibility of the government in a democratic society is to further the interests of the inhabitants that constitute this national community over those outside it.
Moreover, Conservatives believe that elected governments should carefully control the pace of change.
Not least because a shared national identity – bound by shared memories, traditions and values – is a prerequire for generosity in society.
There is an extensive body of research that demonstrates the damaging effects on social trust and cohesion from uncontrolled migration.
I saw this for myself when I met residents of Aycliffe, an estate in Dover, whose lives had been made a misery by illegal migrants who have made clandestine landings on nearby beaches knocking on their doors entering their homes.
They felt abandoned by the authorities and estranged from their neighbourhood.
If we do not have confidence that those who live in our communities do so lawfully, individuals are less likely to trust their neighbours, or make sacrifices which sustain communities.
Put simply: excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public.
And those crossing tend to have completely different lifestyles and values to those in the UK – and tend to settle in already hyper-diverse areas, undermining the cultural cohesiveness that binds diverse groups together and makes our multi-ethnic democracy successful.
The current numbers of people arriving here illegally surpass any reasonable number the state could be expected to provide for or integrate successfully into our national community.
And it is the most disadvantaged in our society that are most acutely affected by this.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that it is the Conservative Party that is providing the answers to the illegal migration conundrum…”
The Illegal Migration Bill
In order for nation states to survive in this age of mass migration, governments must recognise the necessity of limits – and that means future-proofing their immigration systems.
And if states are to retain their sovereignty – their ability to exclude individuals from their territory – then they need to find new ways to enforce their laws.
Deterrence must be restored. Those that make illegal journeys must know that it will be a futile endeavour.
And that is why the UK Government has brought forward the Illegal Migration Bill, which, I would argue, is the most significant piece of immigration legislation of modern times.
At its heart, the Bill has a simple principle: if you arrive in the UK illegally there should be no route to a life in the UK.
You will be returned home or removed to a safe third country – and once removed, only in the most exceptional of circumstances will those that have arrived illegally be permitted leave to enter the UK.
And to make that possible we have taken new powers that go further than any prior piece of immigration legislation, whilst remaining within our treaty obligations.
Crucially the Bill places a duty on the Government to remove illegal entrants, so that removal is no longer a discretionary power, but a legal requirement.
It radically narrows the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal.
Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly or are at real risk of “serious and irreversible harm” in the country we are removing them to – which is an exceedingly high bar – will be able to delay their removal.
Any other claims will be non-suspensive and so heard remotely, after removal.
By removing the number of decision points in the process we are making it considerably harder for bureaucracy and activist lawyers to delay removal.
Because only swift and predictable removal will establish deterrence.
The case for this reform is overwhelming, and has been made most powerfully and clearly by the judiciary themselves.
As the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, said:
“Late claims, raised shortly before removal, have been endemic, many fanciful or entirely false… it is a matter of regret that a minority of lawyers have leant their professional support to vexatious representations and abusive late legal challenges.”
Such practices, if allowed to continue, to escalate, by Government and Parliament, ultimately undermines the Rule of Law…
To make this operationally possible the Bill enables the detention of illegal arrivals, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed.
We know that otherwise those who arrive illegally will abscond, making their subsequent removal incredibly challenging.
And so that the Bill restores deterrence to all of those crossing Channel – and plugs holes smugglers would otherwise exploit – we are taking a power to detain and remove unaccompanied children in very limited circumstances, for example to reunite them with their family.
We simply cannot allow the UK to be a magnet for people smugglers specialising in children.
Neither will we allow the adults to pose as children and by lies and deceit, be accommodated with actual minors, enter our schools or even the care of unsuspecting foster carers – as Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai, an illegal migrant did, before going onto murder 21-year-old Thomas Roberts in Bournemouth last year.
Fifty per cent of those illegal migrants we dispute the age of are determined to be adults.
So, the Bill confers new powers to make provisions to scientifically assess ages and in certain circumstances allows us to take an automatic assumption of adulthood from those who refuse a scientific age assessment, where justified by scientific evidence.
And the Bill addresses blockers that have previously hampered an effective regime.
As you know, the Government has in the past faced Rule 39 interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which blocked the Government from removing individuals to Rwanda in June last year.
The process by which these interim measures are issued is often opaque and untimely, with limited ability for the UK to make representations or understand the reasoning or identity of judges.
Serious questions of natural justice arise from the manner in which the Court operates – serious deficiencies in process we are seeking to change, alongside our fellow signatories of the Convention.
The amendment the Government has tabled will make clear Parliament’s intent that the Secretary of State may decide in individual cases whether, or not, to suspend the duty to remove a person where a Rule 39 interim measure has been issued.
And the amendment provides a non-exhaustive list of considerations that the Minister may have regard to when making that decision.
We will continue to comply with our international treaty obligations – and as we have constructed our new immigration system we have been at pains to remain within the boundaries of international law.
Indeed, the High Court recently found decisively in our favour regarding the compatibility of our Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda with our international obligations.
So, this amendment does not amount to a blanket rejection of all Rule 39 interim measures.
But it is right that, when the circumstances of a specific case require it ministers can, on the basis of collective agreement, determine the right approach in the national interest.
Safe and legal routes
This Bill goes further than ever before to sever the link between entering Britain illegally from a safe country like France and staying here to live and work.
But the Bill does not turn our back on those in genuine need.
Quite the opposite, the Bill provides a coherent vision for a humanitarian system fit for the 21st century in which the UK is an even greater force for good in the world – where a zero-tolerance approach to illegal migration is coupled with generous resettlement routes and grounded in control and democratic consent.
Instead of taking those that have travelled through, and left, safe European countries, we will bypass the smugglers to focus our finite resources on those coming through our dedicated sage and legal routes for those directly in conflict zones.
Already we take people from our country-specific routes with Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine.
This is in addition to the routes that we have in place with UNHCR and our family reunion route which are all global in scope.
Since 2015 we have resettled almost half a million people on these humanitarian pathways to the UK, and the fourth largest number of refugees through the United Nations compared to any other country worldwide.
In doing so, successive Conservative governments have ensured we bypassed the people smugglers to focus our efforts on women and children and delivered migration to the UK in an orderly and controlled manner which commands the consent of the British public.
This Bill enshrines this approach in law.
And as we regain our capacity by tackling illegal migration, we will have the flexibility to take more people through these routes.
But, fundamentally, the UK’s safe and legal routes have to be calibrated to the actual capacity of local authorities to bear the burden.
For too long politicians have naively glossed over the costs of resettlement and the ability of local authorities to bear them.
The most vulnerable people in the world require the full support of the British state to assist them.
Each person resettled requires housing, healthcare, welfare support and more.
This is an under-researched area, but a recent study from academics at the University of Amsterdam in March 2021 estimated that the cost to the state from the average asylum seekers from the Middle East or North Africa was roughly 650,000 euros per individual over the course of their lifetime.
That is not to say we cannot afford resettlement – we can, and as a developed country we have obligations to those to those in the world who are less fortunate.
It is simply to recognise that resettlement is a big commitment, and so we should be certain that the numbers we take are commensurate to our resources at that moment in time.
And for too long our migration debate has been dominated by humanitarian nimbyism whereby devolved administrations have rhetorically welcomed refugees, but then fail to take their fair share.
They declare themselves “Nations of Sanctuary” and then pull up the drawbridge.
These politicians grandstand and virtue-signal their supposed generosity. But there is nothing virtuous about making generous offers at the expense of others when it comes to housing supply, waiting lists and the tax burden.
Those of us privileged to be in Government and Parliament should not write cheques that cannot be drawn, or which will be paid by others.
So, the Bill introduces a consultation with local authorities to inform the conversation and restore honesty to the debate about migration.
And under the proposed amendment to the Bill, we will launch within three months of the Bill passing the first consultation with local authorities to understand their capacity…
We must restore democracy to the debate because our offer to resettle those in need must command the consent of the British public.
Throughout our modern history, refugee policy, like our approach to migration generally, has been haphazard –
rarely thought through and subject to all manner of unintended consequences, some positive, some not.
For too long this decision, and its profound consequences on the lives of the British public, lay outside the purview of their trustees in parliament.
The subject was forced underground.
But there is no more important issue in our domestic politics than the question of who gets to come to this country and in what numbers.
So, for the first time, our safe and legal routes and their capacity will be set by Parliament.
Politicians who concede there is a limit to our capacity will be forced to specify where exactly their limits lie.
And it should prompt a wider conversation about how we support those most in need.
The Left view migration to the UK as the principal solution to assisting the millions of people that are displaced globally.
But there are alternatives options that we should be willing to consider more readily.
For instance, the approach pursued by David Cameron in 2015 ensured the UK’s resources went to assist not tens of thousands but millions of people caught up in the Syrian civil war who were too frail or poor to migrate reach the safety of refugee camps.
Or take the UNHCR, who now devote nearly half of their budget on major conflict zones or refugee producing countries to tackle the problem at source…”
Non-legislative changes
“This Bill is undoubtedly the morally just thing to do, for it is only by stopping the boats that the tyranny of the people smuggling gangs will end and the UK is able to provide the greatest good to the most deserving.
But as the Prime Minister has made clear, legislation alone will not fix the problem of illegal migration.
We have to defend our sovereign borders proactively.
This means working with our European partners upstream to stem the flow of people crossing the continent irregularly before they reach anywhere near the UK.
That is why we are working to build deeper partnerships with key transit states like Turkey, Albania and Italy to respond to this joint challenge.
And it is why at the UK-French summit in March we agreed to do more upstream work with France to tackle the transnational crime gangs.
Closer to home, in northern France, we are making it harder for people smugglers to operate through more patrols on the beaches, more sophisticated technology deployed by law enforcement agencies and more detention capacity.
This represents a huge step forward, taking UK-France cooperation to unprecedented levels.
But shared problems ultimately require joint solutions.
We continue to believe that a readmissions agreement with France and the EU is firmly in our mutual interest – and we will continue to make that case.
We are ready to work constructively and creatively with them in this regard, for the benefit of all our peoples.
And we must work with likeminded international partners to refresh international frameworks, so they maintain their relevance in an age of mass migration.
Writing in the aftermath of the Second World War and motivated by its horrors, the authors of the post-war settlement would be shocked by the fact the system they founded has become mired in organised criminality and exploited by economic migrants.
Difficult though the task is, we must renew them, so their noble intent lives on, workable in an altogether different age…”
Non-legislative domestic changes
“Whilst we are redoubling our efforts abroad, at home we are suffusing our entire system with deterrence.
We have doubled the NCA’s funding for tackling organised immigration crime – and they will be assisted by new powers in the Bill to seize more phones of migrants crossing the Channel to mine them for intelligence.
We have dragged the number of returns above pre-pandemic levels, spurred by an enhanced returns agreement with the Albanian government negotiated by the Prime Minister.
And we have increased illegal working visits by more than 50 per cent.
We are returning to the compliant environment established by John Reid, and advanced by Theresa May, including by resuming data-sharing with banks to identify illegal migrants and close their accounts.
And we are shifting our asylum accommodation to basic, functional accommodation that does not act as a pull factor to migrants in France by delivering accommodation on disused military sites and barges.
Many of our European partners are struggling with the exact same accommodation issues we are: Belgium, Ireland, Germany and France are having to take similar steps.”
Conclusion
“Taken together, this is the only approach that is workable in an age of mass migration.
It is one that denies illegal migrants a life in the UK whilst generously welcoming those on our dedicated and tailored schemes.
These two elements are inextricably linked: two sides of the same coin.
Our capacity is finite so we can only help those in desperate circumstances in conflict zones if we stop illegal migration from safe countries.
And that is what we are focused on delivering on.
This will not be achieved overnight, but nor are our present challenges insoluble.
As Policy Exchange have highlighted many times, our friends in Australia faced a similar crisis and solved it – and it is on their blueprint that our plans are based.
Tweaks to our broken system will not suffice – only a significantly more robust approach will end this injustice of illegal migration and secure our borders.
And that is why the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and taking this tough action.
The British people rightly demand that we stop the boats – and that is what we intend to do.”
–
This article contains the text of a lecture delivered yesterday at Policy Exchange.