Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Written evidence submitted by Migrant Help (BSAIB38)

About Migrant Help

Migrant Help is dedicated charity headquartered in Dover providing support to those who have been affected by displacement and exploitation.

We are one of the leading providers of specialist support and accommodation services for adult survivors of modern slavery in the UK. We have dedicated casework teams assisting survivors in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. In England, we provide this service as a subcontractor to The Salvation Army under the Modern Slavery Victim Care contract.

Migrant Help has also provided asylum support services since 2014 and currently does so under the Advice, Issue Reporting and Eligibility (AIRE) contract which has been in place since 2019

Our aim is to support those most in need and least likely to find support elsewhere, whilst aiming to bridge community gaps and bring services and support together.

Executive summary

While we are encouraged to see that the Safety of Rwanda Act and many sections of the Illegal Migration Act would be repealed, we identify a number of concerns regarding this Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill and have developed recommendations in response:

· Introduction of new criminal offences

o Concerns about the clause

· The Bill as it relates to the Illegal Migration Act 2024

o Section 29

o Section 59

· Recommendations

The introduction of new criminal offences

· Clause 18 (endangering another during sea crossing to the United Kingdom)

During the Committee debate (second sitting, held 27th February 2025), several witnesses inferred that the intent behind this clause is one of deterrence. [1] However a 2020 Home Office report on the drivers of migration journeys states that the assumption that migrants operate in an environment where information is easily accessible is an erroneous one and that, "in practice, migrants are required to make cost/benefit decisions relating to migration journeys with very limited information." [2] Put simply, it is unlikely those making difficult journeys (to flee armed conflict, political instability, human rights abuses, etc.) which include considering a perilous sea crossing will have the resources or capacity to keep abreast of new legislation let alone factor it into their decision-making.

And while this clause may not have its desired deterrent effect, it may have other unintended consequences. There has already been concern from the sector in the last few years regarding prosecutions of those who have been found steering boats across the Channel with smuggling-related offences.

Article 3 of the Smuggling of Migrants Protocol of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (of which the UK is a signatory) defines the crime of smuggling of migrants as "the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State Party of which the person is not a national." [3] Piloting a boat under duress to reach safety does not meet the Convention’s definition of smuggling.

Our concern is that many of those seeking asylum themselves could be prosecuted with the introduction of this clause, particularly those most vulnerable groups who are "often coerced or compelled to steer due to not being able to afford the crossing otherwise." [4] This penalisation would potentially be in breach of the Palermo Protocol on Smuggling and Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. [5]

Powers to seize and retail relevant articles

· Clause 21 (powers to seize and retain relevant articles)

This clause, allowing law enforcement to seize relevant articles, is likely to lead to the seizure of electronic devices such as mobile phones. As discussed in the previous section, those piloting a boat may be subject to investigation and prosecution of organised immigration crime, potentially including those seeking asylum. For those who have been forcibly displaced, mobile phones are more than a luxury. Rather they are often,

"a place of comfort and connection, solace and sociality – a ‘mobile home’ where they could escape to listen to music, watch films, and nurture social and kinship networks . . . At the same time, smartphones provide access to the communicative channels which provide sustenance – from daily conversations with loved ones to share images or even participating in wedding ceremonies digitally." [6]

The loss of this crucial connection to social networks for an indeterminate period of time, particularly following what are often times traumatic journeys, give us cause for concern for the mental well-being of those seeking asylum.

The Bill as it relates to the Illegal Migration Act 2024

We welcome a number of changes to past legislation including the repeal of Safety of Rwanda Act in its entirety and the repeal of portions of the Illegal Migration Act 2024 (IMA) which are still yet to be enacted.

However, there are portions of the IMA which the Bill would not repeal and may be cause for concern:

· Section 29 of the IMA (disapplication of modern slavery provisions)

excludes those who have been convicted of an offence from trafficking protections and makes them liable to deportation.

Retains the provisions that permit the exclusion of victims of modern slavery or human trafficking from safeguards intended to ensure their safety and recovery.

House of Commons Library Research Briefing identifies the victims most immediately at risk from this are those convicted of a criminal offence.

Any non-British citizen sentenced to any period of imprisonment will not be granted limited leave to remain as a victim of trafficking and can be removed even when they had a pending conclusive grounds decision, irrespective of their personal circumstances. Section 45 of Modern Slavery Act 2015 is limited in its capacity as a defence for those who are forced to commit crimes as part of their exploitation, particularly for adults .

· Section 59 of the IMA (Inadmissibility of certain asylum and human rights claims)

Section 59, amending Part 4A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to extend inadmissibility rules beyond European Union nationals to include individuals from countries such as Albania and Georgia is one we urge the Government to repeal along with other sections of the Illegal Migration Act. A blanket decision based on geography fails to account for the dangers faced by more vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, survivors of gender-based violence, and victims of human trafficking. Automatically deeming claims from these nationals as inadmissible could expose them to significant harm and would also be "in direct violation of the UK’s commitments under the Refugee Convention." [7]

Recommendations

Combatting the smuggling of migrants has become an increasingly important global priority, and it’s something we see reflected here in the UK through the Government’s aim to ‘smash the gangs’.

In a report from the Working Group on the Smuggling of Migrants as part of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, it was determined that,

"the demand for migrant smuggling arises from people’s strong motivations to migrate, combined with a lack of access to legal pathways for regular migration and the difficulty of migrating independently. Obstacles to exercising free movement rights, corruption and safety concerns also contribute to the demand for smuggling in certain regions." [8]

For those who have been forcibly displaced, there are only a limited number of regular pathways to seek protection in the UK – the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS), the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS), the Mandate Resettlement Scheme and Community Sponsorships. However, even with these pathways, only 23 people were resettled under the oldest Mandate Resettlement Scheme and 678 under the UKRS in the year ending December 2024. For comparison, there were just over 84,000 asylum claims made in the UK in the same year. [9] As long as people continue to flee their homes in search of safety and are faced with limited means to do so, they will also continue to make perilous journeys. So, in its effort to "smash the gangs" and decrease the number of dangerous sea crossings, we urge the Government to instead consider increasing access to safe routes for those seeking safety and sanctuary.

We note that the language used when discussing vulnerable populations, like those seeking asylum, is important when drafting legislation and policy, to further prevent the development of a hostile environment and criminalisation of people seeking asylum. Measured language is appropriate in debates and discussions within Parliament with factual information used as basis for discussions not spurious claims and derogatory terminology for reference to irregular migrants.

March 2025