MPs Reject Proposals for Expanded Asylum Routes and Work Rights

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill seeks to crackdown on illegal immigration and disrupt people smuggling gangs.

A group of people thought to be migrants leave Gravelines, France, aboard a small boat in an attempt to cross the English Channel on July 29, 2024. Gareth Fuller/PA Wire

MPs have voted against expanding safe routes for asylum seekers and letting them work in the UK if their claims take over three months to process.

During the debate on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill on Thursday, MPs tabled several amendments to the legislation.

The SNP MP Pete Wishart called for a government strategy allowing refugees in need of international protection to come to the UK lawfully from abroad, to be published within six months.

He argued that that without safe routes, asylum seekers would continue to rely on smugglers and undertake dangerous Channel crossings.

“We know of only five Ukrainians who have crossed the channel irregularly. That suggests to me that the Ukraine safe route scheme works.

“Safe routes undercut smuggling gangs. The more available and accessible they are, the more they will do for the effort to smash the gangs and the people involved in this vile trade,” Wishart said.

However, government ministers and Conservative MPs opposed the amendment, questioning feasibility and scale.

Labour MP Chris Murray said that safe routes alone won’t stop illegal crossings.

“Channel crossings are a new phenomenon. They were not happening five or 10 years ago, when we did not have safe routes either,” he told MPs.

Conservative MPs Matt Vickers and Katie Lam argued that expansion of safe routes will turn the UK into a “magnet” for asylum seekers and won’t solve global displacement of people.

Migration and citizenship minister Seema Malhotra reiterated the government’s position that those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach.

“That is the fastest route to safety,” she said.

Parliamentarians rejected the proposal by 14 votes to two.

Legal Immigration Routes

The UK currently offers several safe and legal routes to people seeking safety and their family members.

They include the Ukraine routes, Hong Kong BN(O) visas, resettlement and relocation schemes (including the Afghan schemes), and family reunion visas.

The Afghan resettlement programme was set up under the Conservative government in 2022 and aims to resettle up to 20,000 people over the coming years.

Vickers noted that over 8,000 Afghans arrived on small boats the same year the scheme opened and remained the top nationality arriving by small boats in 2023 and 2024.

“This shows that safe and legal routes do not necessarily lead to an end to crossings in small boats,” he said.

Advocates of the safe routes expansion, including the Refugee Council, believe that an alternative to dangerous Channel crossings must be part of the government’s strategy. However, the immigration bill in its current form focuses on deterrence and enforcement over safe routes.

It includes a new offence for endangering another life during a sea crossing to the UK, with a five-year jail term sentence. People selling and handling boat parts suspected of being used in illegal Channel crossings could face up to 14 years in prison.

Other measures include modernisation of biometric checks overseas to better identify illegal immigrants entering the UK and blocking those with criminal records.

Introduced to Parliament on Jan. 30, the legislation follows a record surge in the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats.

Home Office figures show that 36,816 people crossed the Channel in small boats last year, a 25 percent increase from 2023.

Last week, a Home Office spokesperson said the government “will stop at nothing” to dismantle people smuggling gangs.

“We all want to end dangerous small boat crossings, which threaten lives and undermine our border security,” the spokesperson added.

Right to Work

Another amendment to the bill, proposed by Liberal Democrat MP Will Forster, aimed to allow asylum seekers to work if their claims had been undecided for more than three months.

Restricting asylum seekers from working pushes up welfare costs and prevents them from contributing to economy, Forster argued, adding their contribution could generate up to £108.8 million annually.

However, Home Office minister Dame Angela Eagle said current policy already allows asylum seekers to work after 12 months and the real issue is clearing the asylum backlog.

The number of cases in the asylum system has increased over fourfold over the last decade, from 55,814 at the end of June 2014 to 224,742 at the end of June 2024.

Government data show that 40 percent of cases were still awaiting an initial decision, while the rest involve individuals awaiting an appeal outcome or facing removal from the UK.

Rejecting the amendment, Eagle added that removing restrictions to work “could increase the number of unfounded claims for asylum,” affecting genuine claims.

MPs also voted to reject amendments proposing introduction of a so-called humanitarian travel permit, which would allow people outside the UK to apply for entry clearance if they intend to claim asylum.

A three-month asylum decision target and permission to track illegal immigrants via phone data were also voted down.

MPs will further scrutinise the bill’s provisions on March 18, as it makes its way through the House of Commons.