Migrants continue to cross the English Channel (Image: Getty)
The Government has rejected calls for a full-scale public inquiry into illegal migration after a major petition demanding an investigation into Britain’s border controls, taxpayer costs and deportation system attracted more than 80,000 signatures.
The petition, created by Simon Worley, calls for an independent examination of the UK’s approach to illegal migration, arguing that the Government should investigate how effectively the country’s borders are being controlled, how much the asylum system costs taxpayers and whether the deportation system is working effectively.
The petition has now passed 80,000 signatures, taking it significantly closer to the 100,000 threshold at which it can be considered for debate in Parliament. It remains open until January 15, 2027.
However, ministers have made their position clear.
In its official response, the Government said it does not consider a public inquiry necessary, arguing that immigration policy is already subject to extensive scrutiny from Parliament, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the National Audit Office and parliamentary committees.
The response comes at a politically sensitive moment, with small boat arrivals continuing, pressure on the asylum accommodation system and disagreements over Britain’s migration arrangements with France.
Government rejects demand for a public inquiry
The petition argues that illegal migration has placed significant pressure on public finances and has contributed to concerns about safety and the effectiveness of Britain’s border controls.
Its supporters want a public inquiry to examine three central issues: border security, the cost to taxpayers and the effectiveness of removals.
The Government has rejected the proposal.
Ministers argue that the immigration system is already subject to several forms of independent and parliamentary scrutiny.
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, known as ICIBI, examines the efficiency and effectiveness of the UK’s border and immigration functions. Parliament also has the Home Affairs Committee, while the National Audit Office scrutinises public spending.
The Government therefore argues that establishing another inquiry would duplicate mechanisms that already exist.
Its response states that ministers recognise the “scale of the challenges” inherited across the immigration and asylum system, but says a wide-ranging programme of reforms is already under way.
Those reforms include increased border security, greater enforcement activity, changes to asylum processing and an attempt to increase removals of people who have no legal right to remain in Britain.
The response means the petition has achieved one of its immediate objectives — forcing ministers to formally address the issue — but it has not persuaded the Government to establish the independent inquiry its supporters requested.
The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, says small boat crossings are ‘down significantly’ (Image: Getty)
The petition is now approaching the crucial 100,000 mark
The 100,000-signature threshold is politically important.
Under the UK Parliament petitions system, a petition receiving 10,000 signatures triggers a Government response.
If it reaches 100,000, it becomes eligible to be considered for debate in Parliament.
The petition has already comfortably passed the first threshold and is now within striking distance of the second.
However, reaching 100,000 signatures would not mean MPs were obliged to approve an inquiry.
It would mean the petition would be considered for debate, giving MPs an opportunity to discuss the issue publicly.
That could prove significant because immigration remains one of the most contentious areas of domestic policy.
The debate would also take place against a background of conflicting pressures.
Ministers want to demonstrate that illegal migration is being reduced, while maintaining legal routes for refugees and ensuring that people with no right to remain can be removed.
Opposition parties and campaign groups have different views about how those objectives should be achieved.
Small boats remain at the heart of the debate
The most visible part of the illegal migration debate continues to be crossings of the English Channel in small boats.
The latest Home Office figures show that hundreds of people continued to arrive on several days at the beginning of October.
Provisional figures recorded 91 arrivals on October 2, 164 on October 3, 418 on October 4, 609 on October 5 and 338 on October 6.
The figures are operational data and can be revised.
Nevertheless, the continued arrival of small boats means the issue remains highly visible to voters and communities along the south coast.
The Government has repeatedly argued that tackling the gangs organising dangerous Channel crossings is essential.
Rather than treating the issue solely as an immigration problem, ministers have increasingly framed it as a form of organised crime.
The Border Security Command works with UK law enforcement agencies and international partners to target people-smuggling networks.
The Government says strengthening cooperation with France and other European countries is central to its strategy.
Britain and France’s migration deal has hit problems
The petition’s timing is particularly notable because the UK’s migration cooperation with France has recently faced a major setback.
The “one in, one out” arrangement, agreed between London and Paris in 2025, was intended to create a mechanism for returning some Channel arrivals to France while allowing an equivalent number of asylum seekers to come to Britain through a legal route.
However, the pilot has now ended after operating for just over a year.
Reports said France wanted a wider European arrangement rather than continuing with the bilateral mechanism. The agreement had been expected to expire at the beginning of October after 423 days.
The end of the scheme creates another challenge for ministers attempting to demonstrate that illegal Channel crossings will have consequences.
At the same time, the Government has continued to emphasise legal routes.
In September, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced that the UK Resettlement Scheme would reopen for new referrals, including refugees identified through established arrangements involving the UN Refugee Agency.
The Government said the policy was intended to provide a safe and legal alternative while maintaining a tougher approach towards irregular migration.
Government points to record levels of removals
One of the strongest arguments made in the Government’s response is that ministers are already increasing removals.
Home Office data shows that between July 1, 2024 and July 31, 2026, there were 80,286 recorded returns from the UK, including enforced and voluntary returns.
That figure included 19,622 enforced returns of people with no legal right to remain and 24,471 asylum-related returns.
There were also 6,103 returns involving people who had arrived via small boats.
The Government has highlighted the figures as evidence that its approach is producing a greater number of removals.
But the numbers also underline the scale of the challenge.
Even with tens of thousands of returns, thousands of people remain in the asylum and immigration system while their claims, appeals or removal arrangements are processed.
That makes the speed of decision-making a critical part of the Government’s strategy.
Ministers are attempting to reform the appeals system
A major part of the Government’s immigration programme involves reforming the appeals process.
Ministers argue that repeated or lengthy appeals can delay the removal of failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders.
In June, the Government announced plans for an Independent Immigration Appeals Authority.
The Government said the existing system had an average clearance time of 61 weeks and that more than 150,000 immigration and asylum appeals were waiting to be heard.
The proposed body is intended to create a single route for immigration and asylum appeals and give greater ability to prioritise cases involving high-harm foreign offenders and claims considered clearly without merit.
The issue is politically important because faster decisions could potentially reduce both the backlog and the length of time people spend receiving accommodation and support.
But speeding up the system also raises questions about ensuring that genuine protection claims receive proper consideration.
The Government therefore faces a dual challenge: making the system faster without undermining the legal safeguards attached to asylum and human rights claims.
The taxpayer argument remains central
The petition’s focus on taxpayer costs reflects one of the strongest public criticisms of the current system.
Accommodation and support for asylum seekers have cost the Government billions of pounds.
Ministers have been trying to reduce those costs by moving people out of hotels, changing accommodation arrangements and recovering some costs from people who have sufficient financial resources.
In June, the Government announced legislation allowing the Home Office to recover accommodation and support costs from certain asylum seekers who have access to sufficient funds.
Under the proposed system, eligible adults would contribute through a flat-rate charge above a specified financial threshold.
The Government has also been reducing reliance on asylum hotels.
The policy objective is to move towards alternative forms of accommodation while reducing the cost of providing emergency hotel rooms.
The financial argument is therefore becoming increasingly intertwined with the broader question of how quickly asylum claims can be resolved.
Every delay can potentially create additional accommodation and support costs.
Government says border security has been strengthened
Ministers have also pointed to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act as evidence that Parliament has already provided stronger powers to tackle organised immigration crime.
The legislation created a framework intended to strengthen border enforcement and increase powers against organised crime linked to illegal migration.
The Government has argued that people-smuggling gangs are a major driver of Channel crossings.
That is why ministers have placed greater emphasis on intelligence-sharing, international cooperation and disruption of criminal networks.
The National Crime Agency continues to target organised criminal groups involved in facilitating illegal migration.
Recent enforcement activity has included the seizure of boats and equipment believed to be connected with people-smuggling networks, highlighting the increasingly criminal-investigation-focused approach to the Channel problem.
Critics still question whether the measures are enough
Despite the Government’s response, the petition demonstrates that a substantial number of people believe existing scrutiny is insufficient.
Supporters of an inquiry argue that the scale and complexity of the migration system justify a single independent investigation capable of examining the entire chain — from Channel crossings and people-smuggling networks through to asylum accommodation, appeals, removals and taxpayer costs.
They also argue that individual government departments and parliamentary committees can examine particular elements without necessarily producing one comprehensive assessment of the system as a whole.
The Government takes the opposite view.
Its position is that existing scrutiny is extensive and that ministers should concentrate on implementing reforms rather than commissioning another inquiry.
That disagreement goes to the heart of the political argument.
An inquiry would primarily examine what has gone wrong and why.
The Government says it already understands the main problems and is focused on changing the system.
The figures provide arguments for both sides
The latest statistics illustrate why the issue remains politically difficult.
On one side, the Government can point to substantial numbers of returns, increased enforcement and a reduction in the use of asylum hotels.
The Home Office has also reported that small boat arrivals have fallen significantly compared with previous periods, while the Government says cooperation with France has helped prevent attempted crossings.
On the other side, hundreds of people can still arrive in small boats on individual days.
The existence of tens of thousands of people within the wider asylum system means the Government still faces a substantial administrative challenge.
The figures do not provide a simple political answer.
They show progress in some areas while demonstrating that the underlying problem has not disappeared.
A debate over accountability
The petition’s most important question may ultimately be about accountability rather than immigration policy itself.
Who should determine whether the Government’s border policy is working?
Ministers argue that Parliament, ICIBI, the National Audit Office and parliamentary committees already provide multiple layers of oversight.
Campaigners supporting an inquiry argue that the scale of the problem requires something more comprehensive.
That disagreement is unlikely to disappear simply because the Government has issued its response.
If the petition reaches 100,000 signatures, MPs could be given the opportunity to debate the demand in Parliament.
The Government would then face another public examination of its approach.
The next test is the 100,000-signature threshold
For now, the petition remains open until January 15, 2027.
With more than 80,000 signatures already recorded, it needs fewer than 20,000 additional signatures to reach the threshold for consideration of a parliamentary debate.
Whether it reaches that figure will determine whether the issue receives a dedicated debate through the petitions process.
But even if it does, a parliamentary debate would not automatically result in the creation of a public inquiry.
The Government has already stated its position: existing scrutiny mechanisms are sufficient and a separate inquiry is unnecessary.
The political pressure, however, is unlikely to fade.
Small boat crossings remain visible, the cost of asylum accommodation remains politically sensitive, the appeals backlog remains significant and the UK’s relationship with France over Channel migration continues to evolve.
At the same time, ministers are attempting to create more legal routes for refugees while making irregular routes less attractive and increasing removals of people who have no right to remain.
The result is a migration policy being pulled in several directions at once.
The petition has therefore become more than a request for an inquiry.
It is a measure of public concern over whether Britain’s immigration system is under control, how much it costs and whether government promises are being delivered.
For the Government, the answer is already clear: Britain does not need another inquiry because the mechanisms for scrutiny are already in place and a major programme of reform is under way.
For the petition’s supporters, however, the fact that more than 80,000 people have signed shows that questions about illegal migration, border control and taxpayer costs remain unresolved.
The next milestone will be 100,000 signatures.
If that number is reached before the petition closes, the issue could move from an online campaign into a formal parliamentary debate — ensuring that the Government’s rejection of a public inquiry receives another test on the floor of Parliament.