Migrants continue to cross the English Channel (Image: Getty)

The Government has responded to a petition calling for the establishment of a public inquiry into illegal migration to the UK. The online document, set up by Simon Worley in July, stated: “We call on the Government to launch a full-scale public inquiry into illegal migration in the UK. The inquiry should investigate the effectiveness of UK border control, the financial cost on taxpayers, and the deportation system. Thousands of people illegally migrate to the UK each year. We believe this has negatively impacted the UK to a significant extent and resulted in some people feeling unsafe walking the streets.

“Furthermore, we believe it has brought a great burden onto taxpayers as the Government has had to pay for more support for illegal migrants.” At the time of writing, the petition has 79,269 signatures. If it gets 100,000, it will be considered for debate in Parliament.

The petition closes on January 15. The Home Office said on September 21: “The Government is subject to ongoing scrutiny here through parliament, and by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.

“The Government doesn’t consider a public inquiry necessary.” Officials added: “The Government recognises the scale of the challenges inherited across the immigration and asylum system.

“Since taking office, the Government has publicly committed to reducing illegal migration and restoring public confidence in the immigration system and has put in place a wide-ranging programme of reform to restore order and control, including strengthened border security measures, increased enforcement activity, faster decision-making and higher levels of removals. Further changes are being developed and implemented through the Government’s wider immigration and asylum reform programme. The Government is investing heavily in border security and international cooperation.

“Through the Border Security Command, law enforcement agencies are working alongside international partners to disrupt organised immigration crime, dismantle people-smuggling networks and strengthen enforcement activity across the migration route. In addition, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act has provided law enforcement with stronger powers to tackle organised immigration crime and further protect the UK’s borders.”

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, says small boat crossings are ‘down significantly’ (Image: Getty)

It comes as the Government’s “one in, one out” deal with France, aimed at curbing migrant Channel crossings, was scrapped in September. The Home Office said the pilot scheme is “no longer processing new cases”, after France reportedly demanded a Europe-wide deal instead.

UK ministers would have willingly seen it continue, it is understood. Under the scheme, people who arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel could be detained and returned to France in exchange for an equivalent number of asylum seekers who applied through a safe and legal route.

Some 1,500 asylum seekers had been deported as of October 1, while slightly fewer than that came to Britain from France, PA reported. The Home Office added in response to the petition: “We are also transforming the asylum system through the Restoring Order and Control policy statement […] and Immigration and Asylum Bill which was introduced on 30 June 2026. These reforms will create a firmer and fairer system by simplifying decision-making, reducing legal challenges, increasing removals, and reducing the incentives that drive illegal migration.

“The Government is committed to ensuring that protection is available to those who genuinely need it, while making it harder for the system to be abused and easier to remove those with no right to remain in the UK. Since July 2024, we have arrested 1,900 criminals involved in organised immigration gangs, disrupted criminal smuggling activity at record levels, and with France, prevented more than 46,000 attempted Channel crossings.

“We have removed over 78,000 people (an increase of 52%) with no right to be here and delivered returns of small boat arrivals at record levels. We are continuing to exit asylum hotels, with fewer than 160 now remaining, reduced from 400 in use at the peak of 2023.

“Record numbers of asylum decisions have been made, and the introduction of a new 24-week target for deciding asylum and immigration appeals for those in accommodation and foreign national offenders will cut delays further from the current average wait of 67 weeks. Overall, asylum costs have fallen by £1 billion since the 2024 general election.

“The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) is a government appointed official responsible for providing independent scrutiny of the UK’s border and immigration functions […] The Government is regularly publicly scrutinised through several channels to monitor the effectiveness of its policies.

“The Home Affairs Committee is a cross-party committee of MPs responsible for scrutinising the work of the Home Office and its associated bodies. It examines government policy, spending and the law, in areas including immigration […] The Home Office recognises the public interest in illegal migration and, as such, regularly provides policy updates including consultation papers […]

“Furthermore, the National Audit Office (NAO) is the UK’s independent public spending watchdog. They are responsible for supporting Parliament in holding the Government to account by providing high-quality audits […] Recent reports in 2025 include an analysis of the asylum system, and a report on the Home Office’s asylum accommodation contracts to support the Home Affairs Committee inquiry.

“Therefore, the Government is already subject to extensive public and parliamentary scrutiny to monitor the effectiveness of such policies and delivery. This, combined with the substantial package of work already underway and existing oversight mechanisms, the Government does not consider that a public inquiry is necessary to identify these challenges or determine how they should be addressed.”

Government Responds to Huge Petition Demanding Inquiry into UK Illegal Migration

The UK government is facing renewed questions about immigration policy after a petition demanding an inquiry into illegal migration attracted widespread public attention. The issue has become a major point of debate, touching on border security, the asylum system, the cost of accommodation, the enforcement of immigration law and public confidence in the government’s ability to manage arrivals.

For campaigners behind the petition, the demand for an inquiry reflects frustration with the continued arrival of people through unauthorised routes, particularly small boats crossing the English Channel. They want the government to explain what has gone wrong, how public money is being spent and what further measures could be taken to prevent dangerous journeys.

The government’s response is therefore important. But a petition, regardless of how many signatures it attracts, does not automatically compel ministers to establish a public inquiry. The precise wording of the petition and the official response determine what has actually been promised.

Why is the petition attracting attention?

Immigration has remained one of Britain’s most contested political issues. Concerns range from the management of the Channel border to the time taken to process asylum claims, the use of hotels to accommodate some asylum seekers and the removal of people who have no legal right to remain in the country.

For people supporting the petition, these issues are connected. They argue that an effective immigration system should be able to identify who has entered the country, process claims promptly, enforce decisions and explain the financial consequences to taxpayers.

Others emphasise that the asylum system must also meet Britain’s legal obligations to people seeking protection from persecution. They argue that people arriving without prior authorisation may still have a valid claim to asylum and that each application must be assessed according to the relevant law.

These positions reflect a central distinction in the debate: entering the UK without authorisation is not the same legal question as whether someone qualifies for international protection. The circumstances of arrival, the person’s immigration status and the merits of an asylum claim must be considered separately.

A serious inquiry would need to examine these different aspects rather than treating everyone who arrives through an irregular route as having the same legal status.

The government’s official response

The petition, titled “Launch a public inquiry into illegal migration in the UK”, was created by Simon Worley and published on the official UK Parliament petitions website on 15 July 2026. By 14 October, it had attracted more than 83,000 signatures, putting it within reach of the 100,000-signature threshold at which a petition is considered for debate in Parliament. <Cite refs={[“turn500924search0″,”turn500924search15”]}/>

The government responded on 21 September 2026, but it rejected the central demand for a public inquiry.

Its response stated that immigration policy was already subject to scrutiny through Parliament and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. It also pointed to the role of the National Audit Office in examining public spending and referred to existing parliamentary work on the asylum system and accommodation contracts. <Cite refs={[“turn500924search0″,”turn500924search1”]}/>

Ministers argued that existing oversight, combined with reforms already under way, made a separate public inquiry unnecessary.

That is the key development behind the headline. The government has acknowledged the challenges facing the immigration and asylum system, but it has not agreed to establish the independent, full-scale inquiry requested by the petition.

The response is unlikely to end the debate. Supporters of an inquiry may argue that existing investigations examine individual aspects of the system without providing a comprehensive account of its overall performance. Ministers, by contrast, maintain that existing institutions can scrutinise the government’s actions while reforms are implemented.

The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether immigration presents challenges. It is also about whether a new inquiry would provide meaningful additional scrutiny or duplicate work already being carried out.

What would a public inquiry investigate?

The petition specifically calls for an examination of border-control effectiveness, the cost to taxpayers and the deportation system. <Cite refs={[“turn500924search0”]}/>

Those areas involve several different questions.

First, border security requires an assessment of how effectively authorities detect unauthorised arrivals, identify people entering the country and disrupt the criminal networks that facilitate dangerous journeys. Such an investigation could examine intelligence-sharing, cooperation with France and the resources available to enforcement agencies.

Second, the financial question goes beyond the cost of hotel accommodation. A comprehensive assessment would need to distinguish spending on asylum accommodation, processing applications, legal appeals, detention, removals and other immigration-related services. It would also need to explain the period covered by the figures and avoid treating different categories of spending as interchangeable.

Third, the deportation system involves identifying people who have no legal right to remain, resolving relevant legal barriers and securing the cooperation of countries of return. Some cases can be completed relatively quickly; others may be delayed by appeals, difficulties establishing identity or a lack of travel documentation.

An inquiry could examine where delays occur, whether current processes are effective and which changes would improve performance. It could also consider whether existing data are sufficiently clear to allow Parliament and the public to evaluate progress.

However, a public inquiry is not automatically the only way to investigate these questions. Parliamentary committees, independent inspectors and auditors can examine particular aspects of policy and make recommendations. The question is whether their existing work provides enough comprehensive and independent scrutiny.

What action does the government say it is taking?

In its response, the government said it was pursuing a broader programme of immigration and asylum reforms, including stronger border security, increased enforcement, faster decision-making and higher levels of removals. It also highlighted international cooperation aimed at disrupting organised criminal networks. <Cite refs={[“turn500924search0″,”turn500924search13”]}/>

The Home Office has separately reported that more than 80,000 people with no right to remain in the UK had been returned or removed since the 2024 general election, according to a parliamentary answer published in September 2026. The figure includes both enforced and voluntary returns and is not limited to people who arrived by small boat. <Cite refs={[“turn500924search12″,”turn500924search14”]}/>

These figures are relevant to evaluating the government’s approach, but they do not by themselves settle whether the immigration system is working effectively. A meaningful assessment would also examine how many cases remain outstanding, how long decisions take, whether removals are sustainable and how the system’s costs change over time.

The government will need to show that its stated reforms translate into measurable results. Critics, meanwhile, can use parliamentary scrutiny and published data to test whether those results are sufficient.

What happens if the petition reaches 100,000 signatures?

Reaching 100,000 signatures would mean that the petition is considered for a parliamentary debate. It would not automatically trigger a public inquiry or require the government to adopt the petition’s demands. Parliament’s petitions process provides an opportunity for MPs to discuss an issue and for ministers to respond; it does not itself determine government policy. <Cite refs={[“turn500924search0″,”turn500924search8”]}/>

That distinction matters because petitions can attract substantial public support without producing the specific policy change requested. The government may maintain its existing position, announce further measures or face pressure to explain its reasoning in greater detail.

The petition remains open until 15 January 2027, giving supporters additional time to collect signatures. <Cite refs={[“turn500924search0”]}/>

Conclusion: the inquiry has been rejected, but the debate continues

The government’s response to the petition is clear: it does not consider a new public inquiry into illegal migration necessary, arguing that existing parliamentary, inspection and audit mechanisms already provide oversight. At the same time, ministers say they are pursuing reforms intended to strengthen border security, speed up decisions and increase the removal of people who have no legal right to remain in Britain. <Cite refs={[“turn500924search0″,”turn500924search1”]}/>

For the petition’s supporters, the unanswered question is whether those mechanisms provide a sufficiently complete picture of the system’s effectiveness and cost. For the government, the priority is to implement its reforms and demonstrate progress without establishing another inquiry.

Both the petition and the official response raise questions that can be tested against evidence: how well the border is controlled, how much the system costs, how quickly claims are decided and whether removal decisions are carried out effectively.

With the petition still open, public interest in the issue may continue to grow. But even if it passes 100,000 signatures, a debate will not guarantee that an inquiry is established.

The next test will be whether the government can demonstrate measurable improvements and provide enough transparent information for Parliament and the public to judge its performance.