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.”

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 has responded to a major public petition demanding a full-scale inquiry into illegal migration, rejecting calls for a separate public investigation and arguing that existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient to scrutinise the country’s immigration system.

The petition, titled Launch a public inquiry into illegal migration in the UK, was created by Simon Worley and calls for an investigation into the effectiveness of border controls, the financial burden on taxpayers and the operation of the deportation system.

By September 2026, the campaign had attracted tens of thousands of signatures, reflecting continuing public concern about irregular Channel crossings, asylum accommodation and the speed at which people without a legal right to remain in Britain are removed.

The Government’s response, issued in September, acknowledged the challenges facing the immigration and asylum system but concluded that a separate public inquiry was unnecessary. The petition remains open until 15 January 2027, and reaching 100,000 signatures would make it eligible for consideration for a parliamentary debate.

Government Rejects Calls for a Separate Public Inquiry

In its official response, the Government said immigration policy was already subject to scrutiny by Parliament and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.

Ministers argued that these existing mechanisms, alongside audits and parliamentary investigations, provided opportunities to examine the Home Office’s performance and assess whether immigration policies were working effectively.

The response also pointed to a programme of reforms intended to strengthen border security, increase enforcement activity, speed up decisions on asylum applications and raise the number of removals.

The Government maintained that this work, combined with the oversight already in place, meant a separate public inquiry was not necessary to identify the problems or determine how they should be addressed.

The decision is likely to disappoint campaigners who believe that a wider investigation would provide a more comprehensive account of how irregular migration has developed, what it costs and why successive governments have struggled to establish a system that commands public confidence.

However, rejecting a new inquiry does not mean that every aspect of the immigration system has been declared effective. It means the Government believes existing scrutiny arrangements are sufficient and that its priority should be implementing reforms.

What Does the Petition Want Investigated?

The petition calls for a full-scale public inquiry into illegal migration, focusing on three central areas.

The first is border control. Campaigners want an examination of how people enter the country without permission, whether existing enforcement measures are effective and what more could be done to prevent dangerous crossings.

The second is the financial cost to taxpayers. This includes concerns about accommodation, asylum processing, enforcement, legal proceedings and the administrative burden associated with cases that remain unresolved for extended periods.

The third is deportation. Supporters want greater scrutiny of why some people who have no legal right to remain in the UK cannot be removed quickly and what obstacles prevent the authorities from completing removal procedures.

These questions are closely connected, but they are not identical. Preventing irregular entry requires different measures from deciding asylum claims, while removing someone from the country can involve legal and practical difficulties that arise after an initial decision has been made.

A comprehensive inquiry could examine how these parts of the system interact. The Government, however, argues that existing institutions already have the means to investigate performance and hold officials accountable.

Why Immigration Costs Remain a Major Concern

The financial implications of asylum accommodation have become a prominent issue in British politics.

When accommodation capacity is insufficient or asylum decisions take longer than expected, the Government may need to rely on temporary arrangements. These can include hotels and other contracted accommodation, which have generated repeated debate over value for money and the length of time people remain in the system.

Critics argue that prolonged processing times create avoidable expenditure and leave local communities uncertain about how accommodation decisions will affect them.

They also question whether taxpayers receive sufficient information about the contracts used to provide accommodation, the performance of private providers and the steps being taken to reduce costs.

These are legitimate questions for public spending scrutiny. However, the total cost of the asylum system should not be confused with the cost of illegal entry alone. Government expenditure can include processing claims, supporting eligible applicants, enforcing immigration rules, providing accommodation and meeting legal obligations.

Understanding which expenses are avoidable requires detailed evidence about individual programmes, contract terms and the reasons cases remain unresolved.

The petition’s demand for an inquiry reflects a desire for a clearer overall picture of these costs. The Government’s response instead points to existing audits and parliamentary scrutiny, including work examining asylum accommodation contracts.

The Channel Crossings Debate

Small-boat crossings across the English Channel remain a central part of the wider immigration debate.

The journeys are dangerous, and people-smuggling networks can exploit vulnerable individuals who are desperate to reach Britain. Preventing deaths at sea and disrupting criminal networks are therefore important parts of any border strategy.

For critics of the current system, the continued use of small boats demonstrates the need for stronger deterrents, faster decisions and more effective arrangements for returning people who have no legal right to remain.

The Government says it is investing in border security and international cooperation through the Border Security Command. Its stated objectives include disrupting organised immigration crime, dismantling smuggling networks and strengthening enforcement along migration routes.

But the effectiveness of these measures cannot be judged solely by the number of operations announced. Relevant indicators include whether crossings are prevented, whether smuggling networks are disrupted, how quickly claims are decided and whether lawful returns can be completed.

International cooperation also matters. The UK cannot independently determine every practical aspect of returning people to another country, particularly where the destination country’s cooperation is required.

This is one reason immigration policy often involves lengthy negotiations as well as domestic enforcement decisions.

Why the Government Says Existing Oversight Is Enough

The Government’s argument rests on the idea that several institutions already examine different aspects of the immigration system.

Parliament can question ministers, hold debates and conduct investigations through select committees. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration examines aspects of the Home Office’s work. The National Audit Office can scrutinise public spending and government contracts, while courts can consider the legality of individual decisions.

These mechanisms have different responsibilities. A spending audit, for example, is not the same as an inquiry into the overall effectiveness of border policy. Parliamentary scrutiny may examine political decisions, while an inspector’s investigation can focus on specific operational failures.

The existence of several oversight bodies does not automatically establish that every issue has been examined adequately. Equally, creating a new public inquiry does not guarantee that problems will be resolved more quickly.

A new inquiry would need a defined remit, access to relevant evidence and a clear plan for turning its findings into action. It could also require considerable time and public expenditure.

The central disagreement is therefore whether existing mechanisms can provide the depth and coordination campaigners want, or whether a separate investigation would offer additional value.

What Would a Public Inquiry Actually Achieve?

A public inquiry could potentially bring together evidence about border enforcement, asylum accommodation, deportation procedures and government decision-making.

It could examine whether policies have achieved their stated objectives, identify recurring administrative problems and assess whether public money has been spent effectively. Depending on its terms of reference, it could also consider how responsibilities are divided between government departments and external contractors.

However, an inquiry would not automatically change immigration law, prevent future crossings or authorise deportations. Its recommendations would need to be considered and implemented through the appropriate political and administrative processes.

There would also be a question of timing. If the Government believes that reforms are already under way, ministers may argue that resources should be concentrated on delivering them rather than establishing another review.

Campaigners may counter that without an independent examination of past decisions and persistent weaknesses, the same problems could continue under a new programme.

The disagreement is ultimately about accountability and effectiveness: whether existing scrutiny is enough to identify what has gone wrong and whether a separate investigation could make a meaningful difference.

What Happens Next With the Petition?

The petition remains open until 15 January 2027. Under the UK Parliament’s e-petition rules, petitions that receive 10,000 signatures receive a government response, while those reaching 100,000 signatures are considered for a possible parliamentary debate.

Reaching the higher threshold does not guarantee a debate, and a debate does not automatically result in a vote to implement the petition’s request.

Nevertheless, the campaign provides a formal way for the public to register concerns and place the issue before Parliament. If it reaches the required level, MPs could discuss the case for a public inquiry and question the Government about its approach to border control, public spending and removals.

Ministers would still be able to defend their position that existing mechanisms provide sufficient scrutiny.

A Continuing Test for the Immigration System

The Government’s rejection of a separate public inquiry has not ended the debate over illegal migration. Instead, it has shifted attention towards whether the reforms already promised will produce measurable results.

For campaigners, the key questions remain whether border controls are effective, whether public money is being spent responsibly and whether people who have no legal right to remain can be removed without unnecessary delays.

For the Government, the challenge is to demonstrate that its existing programme and oversight arrangements can address those concerns without the need for another major investigation.

A credible assessment will require more than political assurances. It will depend on transparent information about spending, clear measures of performance, timely asylum decisions and evidence that enforcement and removal procedures are operating lawfully and effectively.

The petition has given those seeking a wider investigation a platform to make their case. Whether it leads to a parliamentary debate or a change in the Government’s position will depend on the campaign’s progress and the continuing scrutiny of Britain’s immigration policies.

For now, ministers have made their position clear: they acknowledge the scale of the challenge but do not believe a separate public inquiry is necessary. The next test will be whether the existing system can deliver the improvements the Government says are already under way.