Policy paper

Tackling myths factsheet: Illegal Migration Bill

Updated 20 July 2023

Myth: Rwanda has only committed to taking a few hundred migrants

This isn’t true. Our partnership is uncapped.

The Government of Rwanda will ensure that migrants are housed and integrated into local communities over the longer-term. Rwanda has the capacity to resettle many thousands of people, and can quickly provide accommodation once flights begin.

Myth: the UK hasn’t reached return agreements for migrants with any other countries

The UK Government secured returns agreements with numerous countries, most recently with Albania, Georgia, Nigeria, Pakistan, India, and Serbia.

Returns agreements can be an important tool for strengthening international co-operation to ensure the swift removal of individuals with no right to be in the UK. However, it’s important to note that we return people through a mixture of both formal and informal returns agreements.

We constantly review ways to improve our returns arrangements and continue to explore options to formalise returns relationships with our international partners as part of future migration partnerships.

The UK has also reached a ground-breaking partnership with Rwanda which will see people who come to the UK through dangerous and illegal routes relocated there. We are working with our partners in Rwanda to plan and prepare for people to be relocated to Rwanda, where they will be accommodated, have their claims processed and, should they need protection in Rwanda, supported to integrate and rebuild their lives.

Myth: there are no safe and legal routes for refugees to come to the UK

We do have safe and legal routes. Some are global and are available for people from any country in the world, and some are country specific.

Since 2015 the UK has offered sanctuary to nearly half a million people via safe and legal routes. We have issued over 150,000 visas to people from Hong Kong escaping autocracy, over 230,000 Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s war, issued nearly 45,000 family reunion grants to people from all across the world, while 25,000 Afghans have found safety escaping the Taliban.

The UK Government’s global routes include the UK Resettlement Scheme, including the Community Sponsorship Scheme, and the Mandate Resettlement Scheme and Refugee Family Reunion, and country-specific routes are available for Afghans, British Nationals (Overseas) from Hong Kong and Ukrainians.

Further details about the UK’s safe and legal routes are available.

Myth: if we had more safe and legal routes, nobody would attempt to come to the UK illegally

The UN estimates there are currently 100 million people displaced globally, many of whom would wish to come to the UK. Those who make the case that nobody would travel to the UK illegally if we had more safe and legal routes need to say how many millions of people it would be necessary to take in order to stop illegal migration.

While the UK’s compassion may be infinite, our capacity to help is not. We will play our part but the only way to stop the boats is to disrupt the business model of people smugglers by deterring people from getting in the boats in the first place. That can only be done by being clear that if you come here illegally, you are liable to be detained and will be swiftly removed.

Myth: illegal migrants don’t use modern slavery claims to avoid being removed from the UK, making the modern slavery measures in the bill unnecessary

Unfortunately, our current modern slavery laws are being abused by people with no right to be here determined to frustrate their removal from the UK.

When our Modern Slavery Act was passed, it was anticipated there would be 3,500 referrals a year. Last year, there were 17,000 referrals, which took on average 543 days to consider. The most referred nationality in 2022 were citizens of Albania, a safe European country, signatory of European Convention on Action against Trafficking, and a NATO ally.

In 2021, 73% of people arriving in the UK on small boats who were detained for removal put forward a modern slavery claim, compared to just 3% of people who were not detained for return (within 3 months of entering the UK). The proportion referred into the National Referral Mechanism has risen from just 6% in 2019 of people detained for removal to 73% in 2021. This is not sustainable.

If someone is found to be a genuine victim of modern slavery – meaning they have been trafficked to the UK against their will – we will ensure they are safely returned to their home country or another safe country like Rwanda.

In Rwanda people will have support and care, meeting their needs as their asylum claims are processed and considered. This includes safe and clean accommodation, food, healthcare, recreation and other amenities. They will not be detained.

Myth: the Illegal Migration Bill is incompatible with current modern slavery legislation

The bill reforms existing modern slavery legislation, updating it to ensure it is capable of meeting new challenges.

It is clear that our modern slavery system is not delivering what was intended when the UK introduced its world-leading Modern Slavery Act in 2015. At the time the act was passed, it was anticipated around 3,500 victims of modern slavery would be referred each year. However, the modern slavery caseload has increased from 4,000 to almost 30,000 in the last five years and in 2022 there were around 17,000 referrals into the National Referral Mechanism, the highest annual number to date and a 33% increase on 2021. The system was not designed for this volume of referrals.

It is clear the system needs reform to allow the UK to focus its efforts and resources on genuine victims.

Myth: legislating so that people who come here illegally have their asylum claims declared inadmissible in the UK is unprecedented

These provisions are not unique to this bill.

Inadmissibility and removal to a safe third country is a longstanding process in the UK asylum system, that have been applied in the UK for many years. These provisions build on the inadmissibility provisions included in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and prior to that, in the Immigration Rules.

It is also an established part of international asylum procedures, employed by other countries, including the EU where it is operated under the Dublin Regulation.

Those who fear persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and not put their lives at risk by making unnecessary and dangerous journeys to the UK.

Myth: this policy is detrimental to the wellbeing of children

This is not the case. Unaccompanied children who arrive in the UK illegally will be provided with the necessary accommodation and support, but once they become adults they will not be able to settle in the UK.

We recognise the particular vulnerability of children who may be forced into making life-threatening journeys to the UK which are being facilitated by criminal gangs who have little regard for their safety.

Taking these measures will send a clear message that children cannot be exploited and forced into crossing the Channel in small boats.

The only way to come to the UK for protection will be through safe and legal routes. This will take power out of the hands of the criminal gangs and protect vulnerable people, including children.

Myth: adults do not pretend to be children to stay in the UK

Between 2016 and September 2022, there were around 8000 asylum cases where age was disputed and an age assessment was conducted, with around half assessed to be adults.

The measures the government have brought forward through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will address the current weaknesses in the age assessment system and ensure decision making is robust.

This includes the establishment of the National Age Assessment Board, which consists of expert social workers whose task will be to conduct full age assessments, upon referral from a local authority.

Given the very difficult task of assessing someone’s age, we are introducing scientific age assessment methods to widen the evidence available to decision-makers and improve the accuracy of their decisions.

Myth: measures to accommodate unaccompanied children risks more young people ending up in hotels and ultimately going missing

We have been consistently clear that the use of hotels to accommodate unaccompanied children is not sustainable.

The bill will provide the Home Office with the power to provide or arrange accommodation and support for unaccompanied children where deemed necessary, until a local authority receives them into their care, having been directed to do so by the Home Office.

The best place for an unaccompanied child is within a local authority care placement and the bill does not change this position.

When any child goes missing, a multi-agency, missing persons protocol is activated, and many of those who have gone missing are subsequently traced and located.

Myth: the Home Office is taking powers to become the corporate parent for unaccompanied children

The Home Office is not currently in the position of corporate parent to any unaccompanied child. There is nothing in the bill which changes this position. The Home Office is not taking on corporate parent responsibilities for unaccompanied children.

The Home Office has always taken the view that these children should be in local authority care.

The Home Office does not have, and therefore cannot discharge, duties under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989. It is for the local authority where an unaccompanied child is located to consider its duties under the Children’s Act 1989.

Myth: this bill will mean that people – including children – can be detained indefinitely

This is not true.

Detention under the duty in this bill will be either pending a decision that someone meets the conditions of the scheme or that the duty applies, or for the purpose of removal.

The bill provides, in line with the current common law position, that an individual may only be detained for a period that is reasonable, with reference to the specific statutory purpose for which they are detained.

Unaccompanied children who arrive in the UK illegally will be provided with the necessary accommodation and support. Where a decision is made to remove an unaccompanied child under 18, detention will be for the shortest possible time in appropriate detention facilities with relevant support provisions in place.

Myth: the UK has no detention capacity for illegal migrants

The aim of the bill is not to detain people, the aim of the bill to remove people, and swiftly. Once we start doing so, we will have a deterrent effect.

We currently have an immigration detention estate which will be used to operationalise the scheme.

We are expanding that capacity with two new detention centres that will provide additional places.

Operational planning to implement the bill is underway across the government.

Myth: this bill is incompatible with the ECHR – it will be unravelled by the courts and never fully implemented

Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the Minister in charge of a bill to give a view on the level of legal certainty on compliance with the ECHR.

The Home Secretary has made a section 19(1)(b) statement in relation to this bill because she is unable to say decisively that this bill is compatible with the ECHR.

All that means is that while there are good arguments for compatibility, some of the bill’s measures are novel and legally untested.

Section 19(1)(b) statements have been made by different governments, including in respect of the Communications Bill in 2003 and House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012.

Parliament will have an opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise the bill and once approved the measures in the bill will have been expressly endorsed by Parliament. On that basis, the government would expect the provisions to be upheld by the courts.

Myth: the Illegal Migration Bill is inconsistent with the 1951 UN Refugee Convention

We are satisfied that the provisions in the bill comply with the Refugee Convention. It is a longstanding principle that those in need of protection should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity, in the first safe country they reach.

The Divisional Court recently upheld the lawfulness of this principle in relation to the UK’s Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda, concluding that the government can relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda for their claims to be determined there rather than by the United Kingdom.