My Intervention in the Illegal Migration Statement

John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative):
If we reduced the waiting time from, say, a year to three months when making a decision on an illegal migrant, would that not cut the accommodation and other public service costs by three quarters and relieve a lot of the pressure? What is a reasonable time to come to a conclusion on whether someone is illegal and should not stay, or is welcome here and can get a job?

Suella Braverman, Secretary of State for the Home Office:
That is why I am encouraged by the progress we are making on our initial decision backlog, cases preceding last summer where people have been waiting for many months and in some cases years for a decision on their asylum application. It is essential that we bear down on that backlog, shorten the time that people are waiting for a decision and fundamentally reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

69 Comments

  1. William Long
    June 6, 2023

    I notice she does not say what she is actually doing to shorten the waiting time, which at its current length is scandalous, both for the refugees and the UK Tax payer, but perhaps that came out elsewhere in the debate?

    1. David Bunney
      June 7, 2023

      Agree. It is time we stopped pussy-footing around this issue. The successive governments have been circling this issue for many years doing not addressing the fundamental issues in the legal framework allowing the world to invade us. The European framework (ECHR) and UN frameworks are broken and we should lead the charge BY LEAVING THEM and then automatically back along the path they arrived. For people on small boats I would expect most boats to be stopped mid-channel and towed back to France. Of those reaching the beach I would expect them to be intercepted, taken to the nearest police station, given some food, medical attention and within hours put on a coach on a ferry back to France. No ifs and no buts. Strip all the legal powers of the ambulance chasing rent-seeking left wing Human Rights Lawyers. Anyone arriving from a safe country should be sent back to it. Anyone arriving without paperwork and ID who has not applied for asylum in an overseas embassy should also be disqualified from remaining and expelled within hours. Now we are not in the EU I expect the government to make radical legislative reforms to get past all the rubbish that the left and sadly the right have brought onto the statutes in the last three decades. End it all.

  2. Jude
    June 6, 2023

    Totally agree but prefer 2 weeks max from arriving. Suggest the armed forces & territorials are given basic training. We could be removing these illegal criminals so fast. The boats would stop overnight!!

    1. glen cullen
      June 6, 2023

      The ‘will’ of government isn’t there

      1. Cuibono
        June 6, 2023

        Absolutely!
        And why is there a ā€œbacklogā€ anyway?

    2. Peter
      June 6, 2023

      Jude,

      Yes they could be forcibly removed quite easily but our politicians are too weak.

      Viktor Orban would quickly solve this issue.

  3. Berkshire Alan
    June 6, 2023

    John

    Why if they are known to be illegal, have no legal paperwork at all, are they not returned immediately, why give them months and months of accommodation to plead their case.
    You are just giving them hope of being rewarded for completing an illegal action, which will encourage others to do the same.
    The present set up is just daft, and completely unfit for purpose.
    Just to prove the point, they are net even held in secure accommodation, so they can just roam at will for months at a time, no wonder thousands go missing.

    1. glen cullen
      June 6, 2023

      They should be in secure accommodation until their case is settled ā€¦like every other country in the world

      1. Bloke
        June 6, 2023

        If the applicant and Home Office are unable to make a substantive case within six whole weeks of effort the answer should be NO ENTRY!

  4. Bert+Young
    June 6, 2023

    We are not tough enough in the way we treat illegal migrants . Allowing non UK bodies an influence on how we approach this problem is absolutely ridiculous . Flights should be on stand by to deport illegals within 24 hours of their arrival – no ifs or buts about it . At a time when the economy is in a mess and living costs are so high , we cannot shilly shally about this problem .

    1. Timaction
      June 6, 2023

      Indeed. We certainly shouldn’t be giving them ANY accommodation that taxpayers themselves couldn’t afford. However this Government are actively encouraging all immigration with hand outs of all descriptions at the 46% of positive taxpayer expense. Used to have 24hour expedited removals. Why not now? Because as always the Tory’s just lie about their real policy. 602000 net immigration isn’t an accident EVERY year. I wonder why we have a 7.2 million waiting list in the English NHS. A housing crisis. A welfare crisis. An education crisis. A congestion crisis. A highest taxation crisis. NO we have a mass immigration supporting lefty Tory Party crisis.

    2. Berkshire Alan
      June 6, 2023

      Bert agree entirely.
      I am informed we have a system where you can fill in paperwork to request legal entry to the UK whilst abroad, so why do we allow people to gatecrash in without such paperwork, and then reward them ?
      All we are doing is encouraging, aiding and abetting criminal gangs to earn a living, by helping them to ship more and more illegal people here, who are an immediate drain on the taxpayer.
      Good grief the Government cannot even seem to be able help millions in need already resident here, most of whom have paid into the system all their lives. !

  5. Robert Thomas
    June 6, 2023

    Delay due to Civil Service ā€œ working ā€œ from home ?

  6. THUTCH
    June 6, 2023

    The point being, who allowed the backlog to become so bad in the first place?
    Patel, May, Javid or Rudd. Or all of them?

    1. Timaction
      June 6, 2023

      It’s Tory policy to keep them. If it looks like an elephant šŸ˜ walks like an šŸ˜ sounds like an elephant, it’s an šŸ˜. They need to stop lying and seek to justify their policy or incompetence. We need pay by political delivery. So this year all politicos get…… nothing.

  7. oldwulf
    June 6, 2023

    Sir

    As I understand it, illegal immigrants intentionally ditch everything which can identify them and this
    slows down the whole process as the Home Office currently needs to identify them as part of its work ?

    1. turboterrier
      June 6, 2023

      oldwulf
      It sure as hell is not rocket science for those in charge.
      Anyone and that means everyone who arrives with no legal recognised form of identification under no circumstances will be considered suitable for the immigration application process, and as such will be deported within 24 hours. Photographed and fingerprinted or eye retina identification to ensure if they turn up again they are still refused entry. The days of playing softball are over.

      1. Wanderer
        June 6, 2023

        Tt. Cert agree with the first part of what you say. If someone arrives illegally by boat with no ID, I can’t understand why we don’t have a law to say they will not be allowed asylum. They have obviously not arrived from a war zone or a brutal dictatorship but from somewhere within the EU. What sanctions would put on us if we had such a law?

        As for deporting them, we can’t. No-one will take them or own up to being their country of origin. So we would need to risk the ire of the international “community” by locking the illegals up somewhere that is safe, sound but exceedingly boring. Then wait until they find somewhere else to go, or “remember” where they came from.

        Our real problem is that our politicians aren’t interested in solving this problem. They have private health insurance, private schools, large houses in pleasant locations, earn far more in and out of office that the median householder etc. Illegal immigration doesn’t affect them. Also they don’t feel any affinity with ordinary British people.

      2. Berkshire Alan
        June 6, 2023

        So Simple + Many

    2. Donna
      June 6, 2023

      The answer to criminal migrants coming across the channel deliberately ditching their identity documents and mobiles is to change the law so that any migrant who enters the country illegally and can’t PROVE they’re from a war-torn country then they are automatically deemed to have come from a safe one.

      And send them back to France.

      This Government has no cojones.

      1. Timaction
        June 6, 2023

        As France have let them leave their shores it must be considered a hostile act and therefore eligible for immediate return to ……..France. Any squabble means the immediate reduction in Fishing Licences or punishment on French trade. If the boot was on the other foot you’d see blockades of British goods, burning of our sheep etc etc. Get real spineless Tory’s and tell the French their lack of protection of their borders will result in these actions………………. grow some balls Tory’s.

      2. Mike Wilson
        June 7, 2023

        And send them back to France.

        How would that work? Push them back into French waters and hope the French RNLI (without, of course, the ā€˜Rā€™ in ā€˜RNLIā€™) will escort them ā€˜homeā€™ to France. Or would you have a boatload of people drown?

  8. Kenneth
    June 6, 2023

    We have heard recently from some ministers about how difficult it is for the government to control immigration.

    Do these people think we are idiots?

    Any sovereign state can control its borders. There is no magic force stopping this from happening.

    The government still has a Parliamentary majority and should be able to ensure civil service is working properly.

    Therefore, the country has all the tools it needs to put a stop to excessive immigration.

    Get on with it.

  9. Pauline
    June 6, 2023

    Many illegal immigrants who arrive by air destroy their papers on board aircraft after using them to board the flights. The airlines then get fined unless thay can prove they have seen travel documents. Surely someone arriving without documents should automatically be returned to the point of embarkation on the next flight?

  10. Peter Gardner
    June 6, 2023

    There is a fundamental problem outside the control of the UK. Verifying the back story of an asylum seeker requires the cooperation of corrupt, hostile or reluctant foreign states and, failing that, extensive enquiries with personal acquaintances, not all trustworthy, and agencies. When satisfactory replies are not forthcoming how long should the UK wait? What is the decision when enough time has been spent? As some valid grounds or reject? Assign a provisional category allowing the applicant to work and start a normal life?
    Given all these uncertainties it is even more necessary to turn the boats back. There is nothing in international law to prevent the UK doing this, as I have said many times, quoting chapter and verse.
    The problem is the weakness of the Government which in turn stems from the absence of a conservative philosophy of government in the party.
    Until the Party develops such a philosophy it is not fit to govern.

  11. Derek
    June 6, 2023

    If they have arrived here illegally why are their ‘cases’ even considered? They have broken OUR Laws so they must not be rewarded for doing so.
    To stop ALL illegals, we have to set a precedent and that is to BLOCK all persons coming here when bypassing the legally acceptable methods and routes. Why is it just the UK who is suffering from this malady? No other Nation treats their illegal immigrants as though they had a bona fide reason for being there. Why us?
    Why do we always have to demonstrate our compassionate naivety for the unscrupulous to take full advantage of? Hello! We cannot feed the world, nor house the world, nor medically treat the world or pay them for just being here. Why does this government not accept that fact and do something really positive to strictly defend our shores? Won’t a Statutory Instrument work here?

    1. Wanderer
      June 6, 2023

      Derek. I share your frustration; but it’s incorrect to think only the UK is this weak
      Look at the EU. In Italy all the new “anti immigration ” government is doing is to force NGO boats that “rescue” immigrants to dock in ports distant from the pick-up points and stay there for 20 days. Perhaps we should try that with the RNLI! EU citizens are fed up with immigration and voting for anti-immigration parties but progress is slow as the current politicians who hold power are all for immigration

      1. Derek
        June 7, 2023

        So why do they want to come here? It is much further for them to travel and then pay to risk the Channel crossing?

  12. BW
    June 6, 2023

    You will never achieve any progress whilst lawyers milk the system for all it is worth. Spurious claims everywhere. Cut the legal aid permitted per illegal migrant claim, then you may see some progress.

    1. Diane
      June 6, 2023

      BW: Legal aid – an example: The UKG’s ( MoJ) response on the UKG’s Petitions to Parliament website, under a now closed petition (closed 4/5/23) No: 627168 – with 13060 signatures titled ‘Stop Legal Aid for court appeals for people entering the UK illegally’) shows the following:
      “The Government has no current plans to change how legal aid eligibility is determined. The nationality of an individual, their immigration status, or the way in which someone entered the UK, does not have any bearing on their ability to access legal aid.
      Anyone applying for legal aid in England and Wales is subject to strict eligibility criteria, and as a result, their legal issue must be in scope, and they must satisfy means and merit tests. The criteria for granting legal aid are set out by Parliament in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and in secondary legislation made under the Act.
      Parliament agreed when debating the scope of LASPO with the principle that legal aid funding should be targeted at those most in need and in full recognition of our commitments to international law.
      The UK has specific obligations under the UN Refugee Convention, and Parliament agreed that legal aid should be available to support an individual through the asylum process”

      1. Mickey Taking
        June 6, 2023

        The last point – then REJECT IT.

      2. Timaction
        June 6, 2023

        English taxpayers cant as a matter of fact get legal aid to find redress in the civil courts against wrongdoers but our politicos think we should pay legal costs of illegal immigrants. Who stands up for the English taxpayer. NOT WESTMISTER legacies. They all have to go. Out of touch and time to be outta there.

    2. Derek
      June 6, 2023

      I have always wondered how a foreigner can gain Legal Aid in this country. Nowhere else in the world is this done, is it?
      It is cringeworthy to learn that Legal Aid is refused to taxpaying British citizens but appears feely available to some who just turn up expecting to be rewarded forevermore. It is to the benefit of those HR Lawyers and bnever to the British taxpayers and it must stop (along with a multitude of other profligacy) if we are to get our debt burdens down. Cut taxes and cut all benefits to non-British, non-taxpayers here. Why do they deserve any?

      1. hefner
        June 6, 2023

        It is. It exists in France (AJ: Aide Judiciaire), in Germany (Prozesskostenhilfe), in Spain (Asistencia Juridica Gratuita), in Italy (patrocinio a spese dello estato) ā€¦ practically a legal aid system exists in all EU countries.
        In the UK it is (also) available to British citizens (gov.uk > legal aid > eligibility)

        1. Mickey Taking
          June 6, 2023

          That is as maybe but do those systems allow a citizen of another country illegally enter theirs and request and receive the Legal Aid?

          1. hefner
            June 6, 2023

            Thousands of migrants arrive in France paperless (lemonde.fr quotes between 600k and 700k of them, bfmtv.com, 21/11/2021, justifit.fr, 12/01/2023).
            The problem in France is at least as big as in the UK. French legal aid appears slightly faster over there.

          2. Mickey Taking
            June 9, 2023

            and are there any stats to help us determine whether France returns people, accepts them in, and how many stay on benefits or actually a job? Then finally how many arrive in Calais to be ferried across the La Manche?

    3. hefner
      June 6, 2023

      BW: For work on a judicial review a legal aid lawyer was paid Ā£20.12/hour in 2021 (lawgazette.co.uk, 11/06/2021, ā€˜Legal aid lawyers paid Ā£20.12 per hour for early JR workā€™).

      Last time I had a plumbing problem the plumber living about a mile from me charged me Ā£80 just to come to my door.

      1. Mickey Taking
        June 6, 2023

        On of our commentators on here previously asserted that these illegals were probably well educated, trained, might be brain surgeons, GPs, Plumbers, Lorry drivers….why don’t we ask about skills and get them to work wearing suitable tracking devices?

      2. Martin in Bristol
        June 6, 2023

        Amazing rates Hefner.

        Have you done a typo and missed a nought off ?

        My Internet search showed much higher rates.

        1. hefner
          June 6, 2023

          And your reference is? Or are you ashamed of having to quote one of the tabloids?

          1. Martin in Bristol
            June 7, 2023

            What a strange response Hefner.
            I did an internet search and asked what hourly rates lawyers were paid.
            Try it yourself instead of making silly remarks.

          2. hefner
            June 8, 2023

            What about searching for hourly rates of lawyers involved in judicial review of status of immigrants?
            A search for lawyersā€™ hourly rates without specifying the task they are dealing with obviously gives anything from Ā£126 to Ā£512 per hour.
            (gov.uk, 01/10/2021, the new guideline hourly rates from 01/10/2021).

          3. Martin in Bristol
            June 9, 2023

            But rarely is it Ā£20 per nour is it hefner
            Even in immigration cases.
            You’ve grasped onto statistic which is is almost unique.
            Come on accept your argument is weak.

      3. mancunius
        June 7, 2023

        That figure of ‘as little as Ā£20.12’ was an unsupported guess by the ‘Public Law Project’, a quango/charity campaigning for higher fees for junior case prep solicitors. The context, which – as so frequently – you have omitted to provide states the true amount: “A fixed fee of Ā£259 for up to 14(ish) hours of work, or Ā£52.65 per hour if you do more. ”
        That is not a small fee for a junior lawyer doing prep work. But some young professionals do alas work quite slowly, so they quote low earnings ‘per hour’.

        1. Mickey Taking
          June 7, 2023

          What about run-of-the-mill house conveyancing? It always amazed me how expensive it is, considering we all know most of the work is done by the unqualified staff, and delays often appear built in in order to suggest more work required.

        2. hefner
          June 7, 2023

          M: 259/14=18.50 and 52.65 if one does more than 14 hours on the Judicial Review. The Ā£20.12 per hour on average does not look so out of kilter.

          MT: a land registry search taking all of 10 mn for someone with access to the database is Ā£150 to the customer. Any more complicated work (eg, for house buying) will cost at least Ā£500.
          Last time I had to deal with a solicitor, to witness me signing a document, I was charged Ā£25. It took 5 mn, including the solicitor signing, under a stamp for the solicitorā€™s office.

      4. Derek
        June 7, 2023

        I think you have misread the numbers. Those payments look more those made for “Travel” and “Waiting time”. ‘Advocacy’ for immigration and asylum is around double that. If the case goes to court the fee is even higher. See…..Table 7a (June 2015)
        https://fullfact.org/law/legal-aid-lawyers-arent-200-hour/

  13. agricola
    June 6, 2023

    If they, the IIs, arrive undocumented and via illegal means, the rubber boats, they are in my judgement de facto illegal. I have no idea what UK law says or the legal jurisdiction of the ECHR in such cases. As such they should be deported to destinations south of the Mediteranean. In no circumstances should they get legal aid. Just as the criminal smugglers earn vast sums from their activities, so do the dubious UK lawyer ambulance chasers. Look into the activities of various so called charity organisations with a view to ending their charity status. Without boats and engines the smugglers cannot operate. By repute these come from China. A security operation involving what ships come from where and container checks should choke off supply. Questions should be directed at GCHQ, MI6. Realise that little real assistance will come from France as it is not in their interests, we are on our own on this one.
    There is now little doubt that the scribes of the Home Office are failing to act as instructed, either because they wish to harm the conservative government or that they have their own political agenda that in their minds takes precedent over democratic government. This accounts for the backlog in dealing with legal assylum seekers. There is obviously a long term problem in the civil service’s perception of itself that merits a contractual re-think, it is all in their name and requires re-emphasis.
    It is all symptomatic of the total inability of those whk politically and practically manage the UK.

  14. Nigl
    June 6, 2023

    Useless answer meaning nothing

  15. Mick
    June 6, 2023

    We are a island for godā€™s sake whatā€™s so bloody hard about stopping these illegals from landing here, good job Hitler didnā€™t have access to hundreds of inflatable boats or weā€™d all be speaking German now, as for detention when the illegals are housed in Scampton letā€™s hope they put the runway to good use and fly them straight out with no more pussyfooting around with them and if the objectors or lawyers donā€™t like it send them with them

    1. rose
      June 6, 2023

      Saddam Hussein would have been fully entitled to turn up with his entire army and claim asylum, fleeing for their lives from UN forces. The HO would have gladly admitted them saying it could do no other.

  16. Donna
    June 6, 2023

    Perhaps Sir John could ask the Home Secretary how many in the asylum backlog they’ve cleared have been granted asylum or leave to remain in the UK. And then what that represents as a percentage of the total backlog.

    It’s very easy to clear a backlog by effectively declaring an amnesty and operating a policy of “let them all stay.”

    1. formula57
      June 6, 2023

      @ Donna – indeed. worth knowing perhaps but not so much in the context that deportations just do not happen on any scale.

  17. glen cullen
    June 6, 2023

    13 years of Tory government and 13 years of year-on-year increases of illegal immigration ā€¦.anyone else spotted the correlative trend

  18. Mark B
    June 6, 2023

    Good evening.

    I would like to ask our kind host a question.

    Q: Has anyone asked the Home Secretary why these people are leaving France and not seeking asylum there ?

    If not, Sir John then perhaps you might ?

    1. glen cullen
      June 6, 2023

      The benefits are exactly the same in both France and the UK, apart from confirming, producing & carrying I.D.
      Only criminal that donā€™t want to be I.Dā€™d come to the UK

  19. Lindsay+McDougall
    June 6, 2023

    The problem is that too many would be immigrants and their Lefty Lawyers will not take NO for an answer. We have too many non-integrating immigrants already and we don’t want ANY more of them. The NHS is taking the piss. As soon as we cut down on it hiring East Europeans, it starting hiring people from non-European countries. And the NHS is far from being the only employer that behaves like this.

  20. BMargaret
    June 6, 2023

    One can only imagine what fraud ,purchasing of illegal papers and other illegal activities goes on.

  21. Sir Joe Soap
    June 6, 2023

    It’s another one where you’re leaning in to the accepted position rather than asking why that has to be the case at all? No passport, no papers, no ID, no credible story then no entry. Go back to safe country France and have another try. It’s a kind of three minute rule, not 3 days or 3 weeks or 3 months.

  22. Norm
    June 6, 2023

    Send the whole lot to Rwanda for processing – that’s it

  23. rose
    June 6, 2023

    When is the ruling class going to be honest and admit that illegal immigrants entering the country from France or Belgium cannot be described as having a claim which should be processed? France and Belgium are not countries from which people are fleeing for their lives. Therefore anyone entering illegally this way should be prevented from doing so without being processed. The precedent has already been set by recognizing Albania is a safe country and dealing with Albanian illegal immigrants accordingly.

  24. rose
    June 6, 2023

    “When the Prime Minister talks to President Biden he should tell him why the Unionists in Northern Ireland do not like the Windsor deal which has undermined the Good Friday Agreement.”

    Hasn’t the Usurper also overridden the Acts of Union in ramming through the Windsor Framework? I suppose Biden wouldn’t care about that so perhaps best to concentrate on his beloved Belfast Agreement as you suggest.

  25. formula57
    June 6, 2023

    The material benefits of making decisions faster suggests surely that the three months you propose is far too long. Why is three months reasonable, what evidence etc. is being gathered that takes so much time?

    What is needed (and we can rely upon this government dodging its provision) is a same day service. Arrive on the beach, have your case decided in hours, and off back to France except in the rare circumstance where remaining is justified. How many hours preparation and hearing is needed anyway to make a same day service impossible?

    As for Mrs. Braverman’s efforts, she has no real interest or idea, has she? Thank goodness we have a prime minister willing to get two more barges to house another thousand. Decisive, bold, and a sham that does does not even look worthwhile.

  26. Fedupsouthener
    June 6, 2023

    Please just send these law breakers ANYWHERE but don’t make us keep them. I saw 6 of them in my local town tonight and all they were buying was booze.

  27. mancunius
    June 7, 2023

    The Minister is not addressing the obvious question: Why are the Home Office officials working so slowly – and why are they allowed to? And why do their senior managers behave as if they had nothing to do with the problem?

    1. rose
      June 7, 2023

      Because their mission is to bring down the government and they are succeeding, Brexiteer Minister by Brexiteer Minister. Same with the Lib/Lab Lords and the Unions. If they can sabotage the policy the conservatives cannot possibly win the election.

  28. Christine
    June 7, 2023

    You need to tighten the freedom of movement laws with the Republic of Ireland as thousands of asylum seekers are arriving in their country and as soon as they obtain the right to remain can legitimately move to the UK. Rather than wait for a crisis, plan for it. Change the rules so that a person must have a grandparent born in Ireland before a certain date to be eligible to freely move to the UK.

  29. Pat
    June 7, 2023

    For France to attain the population density of England would require 162,300,000 immigrants

    That is the equivalent of an extra 75 Paris’s

    Might be time to start returning some

Comments are closed.