The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel) With
permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the United
Kingdom’s approach to the global migration challenge. The United
Kingdom has a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to
refugees. In recent years alone, we have welcomed more than 185,000
people through safe and legal routes, including from Syria, Hong
Kong, Afghanistan and, more recently, Ukraine. In addition, we have
welcomed more than...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for the Home Department ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the
United Kingdom’s approach to the global migration challenge.
The United Kingdom has a long and proud history of offering
sanctuary to refugees. In recent years alone, we have welcomed
more than 185,000 people through safe and legal routes, including
from Syria, Hong Kong, Afghanistan and, more recently, Ukraine.
In addition, we have welcomed more than 40,000 people in recent
years through our refugee family reunion routes. This Government
have done more than any other in recent history to support those
fleeing persecution, conflict or instability.
But we cannot focus our support on those who need it most or
effectively control our borders without tackling illegal
migration, which is facilitated by people smugglers—serious
organised criminals who profit from human misery, who do not care
about people drowning in the channel or suffocating in the back
of containers. We must break their lethal and evil business model
by removing the demand for their repugnant activities. This type
of illegal migration puts unsustainable pressures on our public
services and local communities. Every day, the broken asylum
system costs the taxpayer almost £5 million in hotel
accommodation alone. The cost of the asylum system is the highest
in over two decades at over £1.5 billion.
As the Prime Minister said last week:
“We cannot sustain a parallel illegal system. Our compassion may
be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.”
That is why the new plan for immigration and its legislative
vehicle—the Nationality and Borders Bill—are so vital. Once
again, I urge hon. Members and Members in the other place to
follow this elected House in backing the Bill.
At the heart of this Government’s approach is a simple principle:
fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on
need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. More than 80
million people around the world are displaced. Others are on the
move because they want a better life. There is a global migration
crisis that demands innovative and international solutions, and
this Government are taking firm action.
When we published the new plan for immigration back in March last
year, we set out three very clear objectives: to increase the
fairness and efficacy of our system so that we can better protect
and support those in genuine need of asylum; to deter illegal and
dangerous routes of entry to the UK, thereby breaking the
business model of criminal smuggling networks and protecting the
lives of those they endanger; and to remove more easily from the
UK those with no right to be here.
The Ministry of Defence has taken command of small boat
operations in the channel. Every small boat incident will be
investigated to determine who piloted the boat and could
therefore be liable for prosecution. These reforms are a truly
cross-government effort, including the Home Office, the Ministry
of Defence, the Crown Prosecution Service, Border Force and the
Ministry of Justice.
A nationwide dispersal system will be introduced so that asylum
pressures are more equally spread across local authorities.
Currently, 53% of local authorities in England, Scotland and
Wales do not accommodate asylum seekers under the dispersal
system. It is simply unfair that a national burden should be felt
disproportionately by certain areas of the country.
For the first time, the Government are building asylum reception
centres to end the practice of housing asylum seekers in
expensive hotels. A new reception centre in Linton-on-Ouse in
North Yorkshire will open shortly. Far from being outlandish, as
some in the Opposition have commented, asylum reception centres
are already operational in safe EU countries such as Greece and
they are funded by the EU.
Just last week, I signed a new world-leading migration and
economic development partnership with Rwanda. Under this
partnership, those who travel to the UK by illegal and dangerous
routes, including by small boats across the channel, may be
relocated to Rwanda, where they will have their asylum claims
considered. Those in need of protection will be given up to five
years of support, including education and employment training and
help with integration, accommodation and healthcare, so that they
can thrive there. The UK is supporting this investment in Rwanda
over five years, boosting the Rwandan economy and increasing
opportunities for people living there, further cementing the
trading and diplomatic relationship between our countries.
This is a bespoke international agreement reached last week with
Rwanda; I came to Parliament as soon as was reasonably
practicable following the conclusion of that agreement. The
agreement is compatible with all our domestic and international
legal obligations. Rwanda is a state party to the 1951 United
Nations refugee convention and the seven core United Nations
human rights conventions, and has a strong system for refugee
resettlement. The United Nations has used Rwanda for several
years to relocate refugees, and of course it was the European
Union that first funded that.
This agreement deals a major blow to the people smugglers and
their evil trade in human cargo. Everyone who is considered for
relocation will be screened and interviewed—that will include an
age assessment—and will have access to legal services. In
relation to accounting officer advice, contrary to reports in the
newspapers, the permanent secretary did not oppose this
agreement; nor did he assert that it is poor value for money.
Rather, he stated in his role as accounting officer that the
policy is regular, proper and feasible, but that there is not
currently sufficient evidence to demonstrate value for money.
It is the job of Ministers to take decisions—more often than not,
tough decisions—in the interests of our country. Existing
approaches have failed, and there is no single solution to these
problems—something that I think Opposition Members may have
encountered in the past as well. Change is needed, because people
are dying attempting to come to the UK by illegal and dangerous
routes. This partnership is the type of international
co-operation needed to make the global immigration system fairer,
keep people safe and give them opportunities to flourish. This
will help to break the people smugglers’ business model and
prevent loss of life, while ensuring protection for those who are
genuinely vulnerable.
This Government are delivering the first comprehensive overhaul
of the asylum system and of this type of illegal migration in
decades. At the heart of this approach is fairness. Access to the
UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to
pay people smugglers. The demands on the current system, the cost
to British taxpayers and the scandalous abuses are increasing.
The British public have rightly had enough. Our new plan for
immigration will improve support for those directly fleeing
oppression, persecution and tyranny through safe and legal
routes. It will deter illegal and dangerous routes of entry to
the UK, make it easier to remove those with no right to be in the
UK and provide a common-sense approach to controlling
immigration, both legal and illegal. I commend this statement to
the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
3.47pm
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
We have seen, over the past week, this unworkable, shameful and
desperate attempt to distract from the Prime Minister’s
lawbreaking. The Home Secretary should not go along with it,
because she is undermining not just respect for the rule of law,
but her office, by providing cover for him. The policies that she
has announced today are unworkable, unethical and extortionate in
their cost to the British taxpayer.
There was no information from the Home Secretary about the costs
today. Will she admit that the £120 million that she has
announced does not pay for a single person to be transferred? She
has not actually got an agreement on the price for each person;
in fact, £120 million is the eye-watering price that the Home
Office is paying just for a press release. What is the rest of
the cost? What is this year’s budget? How many people will it
cover? The Home Office has briefed that it might be £30,000 per
person to cover up to three months’ accommodation, but that is
already three times more than the ordinary cost of dealing with
an asylum case in the UK.
The Home Secretary said in her statement that she would provide
five years of costs. In Australia, offshoring costs £1.7 million
per person, which is over 100 times more than the ordinary asylum
cost here. Where will all the money come from to fund the plan?
She says that she will save money on hotels, but the only reason
why we are paying a fortune in hotel costs is that Home Office
decision making has totally collapsed. On the Home Secretary’s
watch, the Home Office is taking only 14,000 initial asylum
decisions a year, half as many as it was taking five years ago.
It is taking fewer decisions than Belgium, the Netherlands and
Austria, never mind France and Germany. The costs to the UK
taxpayer have soared by hundreds of millions of pounds because
the Home Secretary is not capable of taking basic asylum
decisions—and because she is not capable of taking those
decisions, she is trying to pay Rwanda to take them instead.
Whether or not people are refugees, whether or not they are
victims of modern slavery, whether or not they have family
members in the UK and whether or not they have come from
Afghanistan, Syria or even Ukraine, the Home Secretary is asking
Rwanda to do the job that she is not capable of doing.
The Home Secretary says that this policy will deter boats and
traffickers, but the permanent secretary says otherwise: he says
that there is no evidence of a deterrent effect, and that there
has been a total failure to crack down on the criminal gangs that
are at the heart of this problem. The number of prosecutions for
human trafficking and non-sexual exploitation has fallen from 59
in 2015 to just two in 2020. The criminals will not be deterred
because someone whom they exploited was sent to Rwanda. They do
not give money-back guarantees under which they lose money if
their victims end up somewhere else instead. They will just spin
more lies. The Home Secretary is totally failing to crack down on
criminal gangs. Why does she not get on with her basic job, crack
down on human traffickers, do the serious work with France and
Belgium to prevent the boats from setting out in the first
place—which she did not even mention in her statement—and make
decisions fast?
The Home Secretary is using this policy to distract people from
years of failure. She promised three years ago to halve the
number of crossings, but it has increased tenfold, and this will
make trafficking worse. The top police chief and anti-slavery
commissioner has said that the Home Secretary’s legislation will
make it harder to prosecute traffickers. When Israel tried paying
Rwanda to take refugees and asylum seekers a few years ago,
independent reports showed that that increased people-smuggling
and increased the action of the criminal gangs. This is the
damage that the Home Secretary is doing. She is making things
easier for the criminal gangs and harder for those who need
support, at a time when people across our country have come
forward to help those who are fleeing Ukraine—to help desperate
refugees. Instead of working properly with other countries, the
Home Secretary is doing the opposite. All she is doing is making
things easier for the criminal gangs.
Will the Home Secretary tell us the facts? Will she tell us about
the real costs of this policy, and the real damage that it will
do in respect of human trafficking and people- smuggling? Will
she come clean to the public, and come clean to the House?
That response to my statement was, if I may say so, wholly
predictable. It is important to say to everyone in the House that
we cannot put a price on saving human lives, and I think everyone
will respect that completely.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford
() was a Minister in the Blair
Government when the powers that give this Government the legal
basis for this policy were introduced. When she occupied a seat
in the Blair Government, I do not remember her exploding in
synthetic rage when all those policies were implemented, after
Acts were passed in 1999, 2002 and 2004 to bring about similar
partnerships —the same partnerships, by the way, that were used
to establish the Dublin regulations to return inadmissible asylum
seekers to EU member states. The right hon. Lady has gone on
record multiple times attacking the Government for abandoning
those regulations, and at the same time calling for a
replacement. Now she is attacking the Government for using the
very powers that only a few weeks ago she said we could still be
using if we had not left the EU.
What we have heard today from the right hon. Lady and the
Opposition demonstrates their absolute inability to understand
this issue—the differentiation between legal and illegal
migration. They should be honest about their policies. They stand
for open borders and uncontrolled immigration. I will, if I may,
go even further: the right hon. Lady described the policy as
unworkable and extortionate. If it is unworkable, it cannot be
extortionate. We will make payments based on delivery. That is
the point of our scheme. Nowhere in her response to the statement
did the right hon. Lady put forward an alternative that would
actually seek to deal with people-trafficking and deaths in the
channel. Importantly, the Labour party is being exposed today as
having no policy, and no idea how to stop people-smuggling.
(Maidenhead) (Con)
With respect to my right hon. Friend, from what I have heard and
seen so far of the removal to Rwanda policy, I do not support it
on the grounds of legality, practicality or efficacy. I want to
ask her about one specific issue. I understand that only young
men, and not families, will be removed. The Home Secretary is
shaking her head, so I have obviously misunderstood the policy in
that sense. If it is the case that families will not be broken
up—the Home Secretary is nodding—where is her evidence that this
will not simply lead to an increase in the trafficking of women
and children?
I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss this further,
and to give her further information —[Interruption.] Calm down
and listen. First and foremost, the policy is legal and a
memorandum of understanding has been published that states very
clearly—[Interruption.] Members are not even listening, so there
is no point. The MOU states clearly in terms of the
legal—[Interruption.] If Members are interested in listening to
the responses, please do. The MOU that has been published spells
out in full detail the legalities and the nature of the
agreement. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead
(Mrs May) would respect the fact that I am not going to speak
about the eligibility criteria on the Floor of the House. [Hon.
Members: “Why not?”] Because, as my right hon. Friend will know
very well, those types of criteria are used by the smuggling
gangs to exploit various loopholes in our laws to do with, for
example, legal action to prevent removals. Opposition Members
write to me frequently asking me not to remove some of the failed
asylum seekers and foreign national offenders who have no legal
basis for remaining in our country. I will be happy to meet my
right hon. Friend to discuss this further.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesman, .
(Cumbernauld, Kilsyth
and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
This is a cruel and catastrophic policy. It will not hurt
smugglers, but it will further seriously harm people who have
fled persecution. It will do untold damage to the international
system of refugee protection, and to what little remains of the
UK’s reputation for upholding international law. This is worse
than temporary offshoring; it is offloading responsibility
altogether. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
has said, people fleeing persecution should not be “traded like
commodities”, and in words of the Refugee Council, this is
nothing short of cash for deportations. We know that 85% of
refugees are in the developing or least developed countries, yet
here is the wealthy UK offering them cash to take some more. So
much for global Britain.
The only thing that is transparent about this policy is its dodgy
timing and grubby political motivation. In the interests of
proper transparency, will the Home Secretary finally publish a
detailed estimate of how many billions this policy will cost? She
was chuntering that she had the deal sorted out, so she should
now announce it to Members of the House. And for what are we
paying this money? Can she say what percentage of asylum seekers
coming to the UK will be subjected to this abysmal treatment?
Reports from Rwanda suggest capacity for probably around1%, but
certainly less than 5%. Is that correct? We are told people will
be screened before transfer, but how can a pathetic screening
interview possibly pick out trafficking survivors, torture
victims or LGBT people? Quite simply, it cannot, so is she happy
to see those people subjected to this treatment?
Why are women and children within the scope of this policy? Will
people going through the screening process be able to access
legal advice? Why are we not allowed to see the criteria for
deciding who will be sent? Where is the transparency in that? How
will she monitor their treatment? Her Government have completely
failed to stop abuses in UK detention centres, never mind in
centres that are 5,000 miles away. In short, this disastrous
policy has nothing to do with the global migration crisis and
everything to do with distracting from the Prime Minister’s
political crises. It is absolutely sickening, for all that.
Just for the record, I think the hon. Gentleman’s latter comment
was absolutely unacceptable. It does a great disservice not just
to this Government and the officials who have worked for over
nine months on this partnership, but also to our counterparts in
Rwanda who have been working with us, to my international
counterparts who are working collectively to tackle the issues of
illegal migration, and to some counterparts in the EU as
well.
To answer some specific points, I think it is shameful that the
hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East
() is playing party
political games on that point, just like the Labour party.
[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman lets me answer the
question, I will.
The other point is that Rwanda has successfully resettled more
than 130,000 refugees. I think the hon. Gentleman’s comments are
a slur on the successful efforts of our partners in Rwanda.
Rwanda is a safe and secure country with respect for the rule of
law. I think hon. Members should listen to the undercurrent of
their tone towards Rwanda, which has done a great deal to provide
safety, refuge, security and a new life to many refugees from
around the world.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the approach we will take.
Everyone considered for relocation will be screened and
interviewed, they will have access to legal advice, and decisions
will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nobody will be removed if
it would be unsafe or inappropriate for them.
The hon. Gentleman is not the first hon. Member to mention legal
obligations and the legalities. Rwanda is beholden to the same
legal obligations on human rights as the United Kingdom and I
make the point again that I think there is something really quite
unpleasant about the undercurrent of the tone towards Rwanda.
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Con)
The latest figures suggest that, in December, more than 7,000
people in Birmingham were claiming asylum support amounting to
tens of millions of pounds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that
this partnership with Rwanda will reduce the reliance on hotels
and reduce the number of small boat crossings?
There are a number of things—[Interruption.] If the right hon.
Member for Islington South and Finsbury () were less hysterical and
actually listened, she might learn something about the new plan
for immigration.
It is important to reflect on a number of points. The answer to
my hon. Friend’s question is yes, because we do not want people
to be in hotel accommodation. It is a cheap point for Opposition
Members to make, but we had to use hotel accommodation to protect
people during the pandemic, and Public Health England guidance
spoke to that.
On decision making—[Interruption.]If the right hon. Member for
Islington South and Finsbury chooses to listen, the new plan for
immigration is about speeding up asylum decisions and processing
through legislation and the digitalisation of the system. I have
to add that, because every single Opposition Member voted against
this policy, they clearly want open borders. They just want to
have uncontrolled migration, and they have done nothing to come
up with an alternative plan on this issue.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, .
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
The announcement made last week, when Parliament was not sitting,
has caused a great deal of confusion about what this policy
actually entails. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary turned her
head away from the microphone when she responded to the right
hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), so I wonder whether she
will answer the question of who will actually be eligible to be
sent to Rwanda. Will it be single young men, or will it be women
and children? What percentage of asylum seekers does she think
will be sent to Rwanda?
On eligibility, as I have already said, everyone considered for
relocation will be screened and interviewed and have the right
access to legal advice and services, and decisions will be made
on a case-by-case basis. That is absolutely right and proper, but
the fundamental principle in relation to this policy and the new
plan for immigration, in which I am sure the right hon. Lady is
well versed, is that it will apply to people who are inadmissible
to our asylum system and to people who have come to our country
illegally: through illegal and dangerous routes.
(Thirsk and Malton)
(Con)
The asylum reception centre to which my right hon. Friend
referred will be at Linton-on-Ouse in my constituency. I am not a
nimby in any shape or form but, nevertheless, the RAF base on
which it will be situated is at the centre of that small rural
village. Local people are understandably concerned that this is
not an appropriate place to put such a reception centre. Will she
meet me to discuss that decision and to see what can be done?
Absolutely. I want to thank my hon. Friend because he has been in
dialogue with Ministers on that issue. I would be very happy to
meet him. Of course, he understands the principle behind all of
this, so I am very happy to discuss that with him further.
(Hackney North and Stoke
Newington) (Lab)
The Home Secretary asserts that Labour Members do not understand
the issue, but she will be aware that a former permanent
secretary at the Home Office, , said last week about her Rwanda policy:
“It’s inhumane, it’s morally reprehensible, it’s probably
unlawful and it may well be unworkable”.
How does she come to know better than a former Home Office
permanent secretary?
First, I am surprised that the right hon. Lady is using Sir
David’s name in vain, given that a former Labour Home Secretary
infamously and discourteously described the Home Office
leadership and management as “not fit for purpose” during Sir
David’s tenure. Things have moved on in terms of the asylum
system. Her party and other Opposition Members continuously vote
against the new plan for immigration, but they have no plan to
deal with these important and difficult issues. It will bring in
the reform that our country needs, while making sure that we
preserve the efficacy of safe and legal routes for people fleeing
persecution to come to our country and get the support they
need.
(Sutton Coldfield)
(Con)
My right hon. Friend deserves great personal credit for seeking
to tackle the dreadful crisis that exists in the channel, but
does she accept that many of us have grave concerns that the
policy she has announced simply will not work? On the cost, can
she confirm that she will not be using expensive military
aircraft to make the 9,000-mile round trip? Also on cost, will
she ensure that before the House of Commons votes on this matter
tomorrow we know the cost per asylum seeker of those she is
sending to Rwanda?
My right hon. Friend knows Rwanda incredibly well. We have had
many discussions about it and I am very happy to meet him to have
further discussions. We will not be using military planes for any
removals. He will, like many Members of this House, be pretty
familiar with the approach we take to removing failed asylum
seekers and foreign national offenders to return them to their
country of origin or to third countries. There is a whole process
around this, which involves a lot of operational work and detail.
I am happy to talk to him privately about that because the ways
in which we can do this are complicated. He makes further points
that I am happy to discuss with him as well.
(Eltham) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary say whether she has negotiated a cap on
the cost of this arrangement with Rwanda? What will be the cost
per person sent? Is there a limit on that cost? If so, what is
it?
On cost, as I have already published and said, there is an
upfront £120 million development cost and, with that, of course,
when we remove people, payments will be made accordingly—only
once we have removed people to Rwanda.
Dame (South Northamptonshire)
(Con)
I am incredibly proud of this country and this Government’s track
record in providing a safe welcome to more than 185,000 asylum
seekers and refugees since 2015, but I hope that my right hon.
Friend will be ramping up the welcome for Ukrainian refugees—I
know she will be working flat out at it. What I find abhorrent
and inexplicable is the way in which many Opposition Members, and
even those in the top echelons in the Church of England and in
other faiths, seem to have completely forgotten the images of
children lying drowned on our beaches. How can they not seek to
try to remedy that appalling situation? These people are not
refugees and asylum seekers—they are coming from France.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and observations.
She will be well aware of the work that our noble Friend Lord
Harrington is currently doing in the other place on the Ukrainian
scheme in terms of resettling people and bringing people over for
the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
The left in particular like to preach compassion, but there is
little compassion when they do not have the backbone to make
difficult decisions when it comes to the protection of human
life. For months and months, they have talked about saving lives
and lost lives, and now that there is the prospect of action to
save lives and to go after the evil people smugglers, they wring
their hands and choose to play party political games.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Members throughout this House are desperately concerned about the
children who are often on these boats, so can we have a straight
answer from the Home Secretary? Does she intend one of the
criteria that prevents somebody from being sent to Rwanda to be
their being under 18? Crucially, where will the processing and
the decision making as to whether or not somebody is under 18
take place? Please, Home Secretary, be straight and honest with
us about what you intend to do with these children. We all
deserve better.
I have already spoken about the processing and the
eligibility—[Interruption.] Yes, I have. I absolutely have.
Operational decisions are for the officials and practitioners on
the ground who undertake them. That is part of our process that
the hon. Lady should respect.
(Wellingborough) (Con)
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton,
Pontefract and Castleford (), was slightly wrong when she
talked about human trafficking. This is not human trafficking;
this is people smuggling. This is about evil gangs being paid
money to take people across the channel. They do not care about
the lives of these individuals. The only way we are going to stop
the people smuggling is if we reduce the demand for it, and the
Home Secretary’s Rwanda policy is absolutely right. Does she
agree that her policy is morally the right thing to do?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a distinction
and a significant difference between people trafficking and
smuggling. It is the people-smuggling gangs that we are trying to
stop. We are trying to break up their business model and end
their evil trade, and it is absolutely right that we do so. When
it comes to cases of human trafficking, it is a well-known fact
that it is down to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member
for Maidenhead (Mrs May) with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and
the work of this Government, that we have stood up the legalities
and the proper processes to give those people who have been
trafficked the legal protection and the safety and security that
they need in our country.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many people she
expects to send to Rwanda in the first 12 months of the scheme?
She will be aware that Rwandan Government Ministers are on the
record as saying that they expect their capacity to be in the
hundreds, with a few thousand over the five-year period. Given
that 28,000 people crossed the channel last year, does the Home
Secretary really think the scheme is going to have the deterrent
effect that she claims for it?
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. The
scheme is uncapped and that is exactly what we have negotiated
with the Rwandan Government.
(Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
The Home Secretary is quite properly focused on saving lives, so
may I ask her a practical question? The World Bank has said that
Rwanda has one of the highest incidences of malaria in the world.
Our own Government website warns travellers about hepatitis A and
B, tetanus, typhoid, cholera and tuberculosis, not to mention
rabies and dengue fever, which cannot be vaccinated against. What
are the Government going to do, both from an ethical and moral
point of view and to protect the British taxpayer against
compensation claims, to protect the asylum seekers who go to
Rwanda?
My right hon. Friend makes some important points. The partnership
we have undertaken with the Rwandan Government is based not only
on direct support, technical expertise, education and training
but, as I said in my statement, on providing care in terms of
individuals’ health and resettlement needs.
(Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab)
The proposal to treat refugees differently based on how they
arrived in the UK undermines a key principle of refugee
protection. Such an approach weakens the very foundation of the
1951 refugee convention and contradicts the steps agreed to by
the UK upon signing up to the global compact on refugees. What
legal assurances did the Government seek about the protection of
people in Rwanda, which has an authoritarian regime with one
person in power for 30 years?
I have already been very clear that Rwanda is a safe country.
People arriving in the United Kingdom are coming here illegally
from safe countries, which is where they should claim asylum in
the first place. Rwanda is not just a safe country, as I have
said, but one that has resettled over 100,000 refugees. I
appreciate that the hon. Lady just mentioned countries in both
the EU and UN, both of which have deemed it safe to send asylum
seekers to Rwanda, and Rwanda is beholden to the same legal
obligations on human rights as the United Kingdom. The hon.
Lady’s tone towards Rwanda is deeply offensive in the light of
our partnership relationship.
(Dover) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that there is both a moral and
financial responsibility to bring small boat crossings to an end
and to save lives? That is what this bold package of measures is
seeking to do.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to her work
with the Home Office as the Member of Parliament for Dover, which
has been at the forefront of receiving people coming to the UK,
and to her county council, which has been under significant
pressure for many years. The dispersal policy, which was first
proposed by the leader of Kent County Council, has taken time to
be pushed forward, but it will not only have a significant impact
on the people and taxpayers of Kent, but see the principle of
fairness applied to people who rightly come to our country
through legal routes as opposed to those with no legal basis to
be in the UK.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
This afternoon the Home Secretary has described Rwanda as a safe
and secure country, saying that to suggest otherwise is a slur.
However, on at least two occasions only last year, the United
Kingdom called for an investigation at the United Nations into
torture, deaths in custody, extrajudicial killings and forced
disappearances in Rwanda. Was that a slur by the UK, or was it a
well-founded request? What was the outcome of the request? What
legal assurances has she obtained from Rwanda regarding the
treatment of any asylum seekers sent there?
Under this agreement, as I have said, Rwanda will process claims
in accordance with the UN refugee convention and national and
international human rights laws. Importantly, it will ensure that
individuals are resettled in the right way. Over 130,000 refugees
have been resettled in Rwanda, and it is not just a safe country,
but one where both the UNHCR and the EU have resettled
individuals. Finally, with all partnerships—[Interruption.] If
hon. Members would like to listen, I will answer the question. We
have thorough discussions in all partnerships, and in these
negotiations, including those on human rights, we have worked
closely with the Rwandan Government on the need to protect
vulnerable people seeking safety and a new life.
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
The Home Secretary is right to deal with the issue of criminal
people trafficking and to recognise the frustration of many at
the length of time it takes to remove people who are here
unlawfully from this country. The caveat many of us would enter,
however, is whether this scheme will achieve either of those
objectives. Can she tell me how she can assume that a set of
criteria to determine claims, as clearly must be drawn up, is
likely to be free from legal challenge, if the criteria are not
published and transparently available? Would it not be much
better to invest the significant amounts of money we are talking
about in speeding up the work of our current immigration system,
in recruiting more immigration tribunal judges and in more
investigative resource for the Home Office, so that we can
achieve the objectives without the financial and potential legal
risks that the current scheme involves?
We are doing both. My hon. Friend will know that the legislation
for the new plan for immigration does exactly that by introducing
the one-stop shop for immigration courts and tribunals, stopping
the merry-go-round of various legal practices being used to
prevent the removal of individuals with no legal right to be in
the United Kingdom and the constant right of appeal in the
immigration courts, which slows down the processing of cases.
That is the purpose of the new plan for immigration. There are
clauses in the Nationality and Borders Bill that, I repeat for
the benefit of the House, the entire Opposition voted against,
because they do not want to see the issue of illegal migration
and reform of the asylum system addressed at all. Those are many
of the challenges we are confronted with every single day.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
On the basis of what evidence has the Home Secretary concluded
that this policy of forcing some asylum seekers on to planes to
Rwanda will have a deterrent effect on people getting into boats
to cross the channel?
I alluded to that in my statement earlier. This is exactly what
is required to break up the evil people-smuggling gangs. We are
bringing in that deterrent effect, but I have been clear that
there is no single solution. Frankly, those on the Opposition
Benches can scream hysterically as much as they want, but they do
not have a plan. They have supported for decades uncontrolled
migration through whatever route. There is a degree of dishonesty
now with the British public, at a time when we could come
together to support the proposals, now that we have proposals in
the Nationality and Borders Bill and a safe third country, which
many called for in debates as the Bill went through this House
and the other place. Now they just wring their hands and,
typically, just oppose any option or solution that could make a
difference.
(Ashfield) (Con)
We can see from the level of questions coming from the
Opposition, especially the Labour party, that they are completely
out of touch with the British public. In the interests of safety,
can the Home Secretary please confirm that if anybody does not
want to go to Rwanda, they can claim asylum in France?
France is a safe country.
(Westminster North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been pressed several times on the question
of who will and who will not be liable to be included in this
scheme, and specifically whether it will include women and
children. She has refused to say, despite having been asked by
the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the former Prime
Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). If the
Home Secretary knows how many people she believes will be
included in the scheme over the coming months, surely she knows
what the criteria will be. If so, is it not her duty to inform
this House of them?
I have made the point several times about those who are
inadmissible to the asylum system, which is those who come to our
country through illegal routes. We have made abundantly clear
time and again that we are bringing in these reforms to stop that
illegal trade in people smuggling, by creating safe and legal
routes for women, children and families so that they do not have
to be put in the hands of the evil people smugglers. As I have
said, we will consider everyone for relocation through the
process I have outlined on a case-by-case basis, and no one will
be sent to the third country if it is unsafe or inappropriate for
them.
(Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Asylum is sought by some of the world’s most desperate people
fleeing some of the most horrendous sorts of crimes, but sadly
this process is abused by so many people traffickers exploiting
the vulnerability of those people. What reassurance can my right
hon. Friend give that she will continue to develop safe and legal
routes for some of those people who have been left in refugee
camps around the world for so many years?
My right hon. Friend makes the most important point about safe
and legal routes. As I announced in my statement, we have
resettled over 180,000 people through safe and legal routes—more
than any Government in recent years. Those routes include Syria,
Afghanistan, Hong Kong and now Ukraine. We will continue to do
exactly that. I have said in the House on a number of occasions
that safe and legal routes should be bespoke because every single
crisis is unique. It is right that we work with the right
international partners to make sure that we provide safety and
security for those fleeing persecution and oppression.
(Rochdale) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will know that Israel introduced a seemingly
very similar scheme to this and then abandoned it. Can she tell
us precisely why she believes that failed and why what she has
put forward will succeed?
I cannot comment on the schemes of other countries when they are
not comparable to what the British Government are doing. This is
a different scheme. It is a migration and economic development
partnership. It is not comparable to those of other countries
that the hon. Gentleman refers to.
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
I know the Home Secretary has worked tirelessly with our European
partners to try to stop vile people smugglers, but it is evident
that more measures are urgently needed. Does she agree that a
fair and just immigration and asylum policy should not rely on
someone’s ability to pay, nor on whether they are young enough or
fit enough to attempt to jump the queue by making the journey,
and that to oppose any measure to stop these people smugglers is
immoral?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We see the scale of not just
the global migration challenge but the level of criminality that
has been associated with migration and illegal migration for
decades. This is not a new phenomenon, as I have repeatedly said
in the House many, many times. It is right that we absolutely go
after the individuals who are responsible for this trade in
people smuggling and stop these routes being viable. We cannot do
this on our own. We have to work internationally with our
partners in the EU, but other international partners as well, who
want to step up and be part of the solution, and also to
demonstrate to other countries around the world how we can
resettle refugees in a good, proper way.
Dame (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The permanent secretary at the Home Office concluded that he
could not tell whether this was value for money, but on every
number and every question of cost, the Home Secretary has failed
to answer. Can she answer the point made by the right hon. Member
for Maidenhead (Mrs May)? If this deters certain people from
crossing, surely the people traffickers and smugglers will just
load the dinghies up with women and children and make sure that
they get their money somehow; it does not break the business
model.
I am sorry, but I want to dispute that point. It is our moral
responsibility and duty not to just wring our hands and let the
people-smugglers carry on trading in human misery. We have a
responsibility to find solutions. It is disappointing, as I have
repeatedly said, that the Opposition just sit on the sidelines
carping and playing political games. The message to the British
people is obviously that they just want uncontrolled immigration,
they do not have a solution to this problem, and they are not
prepared to work with the Government to stop this awful and evil
trade of people smuggling.
(New Forest West) (Con)
Has the Home Secretary a plan to prevent potential emigrants from
absconding before we can get them to Rwanda?
It is an important point. Of course, there is a lot of work that
takes place with immigration enforcement and our operational
teams. I should just add that for those who go through the asylum
process, as claims are processed in the United Kingdom, issues
such as absconding will have an impact on how their asylum claim
is viewed and treated.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I suspect that there are more asylum seekers housed in my
constituency than in those of many who have been hectoring the
Secretary of State this afternoon. I have heard their stories,
and I know of the misery caused by people trafficking and of the
desperation of those who hand over huge amounts of money and risk
their lives to get into the United Kingdom. I therefore support
the Secretary of State’s aim to wreck this evil trade. However,
if after a lengthy procedure only a very small percentage of
those processed will have left the country, will not the people
smugglers still be able to argue, “It’s worth your while handing
money over to us and risking your lives”?
The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of points, and made
them incredibly well, about the human misery. The way in which
people’s lives are put at risk is absolutely shocking and tragic.
We want to stop that and break it, and we have to do so upstream.
It is not good enough to wait for it to come to the shores of the
United Kingdom or the coastline of France, because that is simply
too late. That is why a whole array of work has been redoubled,
working with intelligence and security partners upstream, and
with different Governments, so that we can target, intercept and
prosecute the gangs—not just in our country, but in other
countries further upstream.
(Crawley) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the new plan for
immigration. Does she agree that there is nothing moral at all
about a system that perpetuates evil people-smuggling and puts a
disproportionate burden on constituencies such as mine with
regards to temporarily housing migrants?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I come back to two points
about the issue of criminal gangs and people smuggling. This is
not a new phenomenon; it is well established. We have to work not
only with our international partners to break the model and have
the right level of prosecutions domestically, but with our
counterparts on intelligence, intelligence sharing and
prosecutions outside the United Kingdom. Much of that is in the
new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill,
which Members on the Government side of the House support but
Opposition Members do not. My hon. Friend is also absolutely
right to say that it is unfair that a handful of local
authorities across the United Kingdom—in England and Wales—have
stood up to provide housing accommodation and meet the needs of
asylum seekers. That is a shameful reflection on many other local
authorities, but that will now be remedied through the dispersal
policy.
(Lewisham East) (Lab)
I cannot accept that the Secretary of State believes that this
policy is about protecting people, when we all know that it is
utterly harmful. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York were
right to speak out against the Government’s unworkable plan to
send asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda. The Government’s
language criminalises vulnerable and traumatised people. The
was right to say
that
“there is, in law, no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. It
is the people who exploit them that we need to crack down
on”.
This policy will also cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds, as
has happened in Australia—is that not correct?
I hear the hon. Lady’s case, but doing nothing is not an option
when people are dying in the channel.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
Following the previous question, does my right hon. Friend agree
that the un-godly thing to do would be to do nothing and have a
mass drowning of children in the channel this winter? Given that
there is no end of people who want to cross the channel—however
many we let in legally—is it not morally incumbent on those who
oppose the policy to explain to the House how they will break the
business model that once someone gets here, they are put in a
hotel and never sent back?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
(Islington North) (Ind)
Is it not a moral requirement for the Home Secretary to explain
why she will deport people who have arrived in this country,
fleeing from desperate wars, famine and problems, prepared to
risk all to cross a dangerous sea? Do they not deserve a sense of
humanity from the Home Secretary, and not to be deported to
incarceration in Rwanda?
Again, I refer to the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman
refers to our partners in Rwanda, which frankly I think is quite
questionable. I remind him and all Members of the House that
France, alongside many other EU member states, is a safe country,
and those travelling to the United Kingdom by making illegal and
dangerous crossings that put their lives at risk, which is what
we are trying to stop, could and should claim asylum in those
countries first of all.
(Ruislip, Northwood and
Pinner) (Con)
I welcome much of what has been said today, but given that three
quarters of child asylum seekers who come to the UK are boys aged
16 or 17, what assurance can my right hon. Friend give me that
the age assessment process will be fully completed before they
become eligible for removal from the United Kingdom?
I thank my hon. Friend for his very sensible question. The House
will be very well aware of the new age assessment work that will
come forward under the Nationality and Borders Bill. This is an
important piece of work that will help to ensure greater efficacy
in the asylum system and support local authorities in determining
the age of young people claiming asylum. For too long we have had
some of the most egregious abuses, whereby young men have
masqueraded as children and posed a safeguarding threat in our
schools and social services. This is important and serious work
that is taking place right now, and that will provide everyone
with assurance about the age of those youngsters coming to our
country and claiming asylum.
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary has been repeatedly asked this afternoon about
the costs of this totally wrong policy. She said that she knew
the costs involved in chartering aircraft from examples of our
existing removals scheme, so can she tell us today what the cost
will be of chartering one return flight to Rwanda and what the
cost will be per person deported? Will she admit that this policy
will cost far in excess of the £120 million that she said was
just for development costs?
First of all, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. As for the
costs of removing individuals, for the record, it is worth
reflecting upon the number of Opposition Members who frequently
write to me to stop the removal of individuals with no legal
basis to be in the country when we are chartering planes to
remove failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders.
Those costs are marginal compared with the long-term cost of
housing people with no legal basis to be in this country and the
wider cost to society, through our public services, healthcare,
and housing and wider accommodation.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend on the proposals she has
announced today, which offer the real prospect of breaking the
business model of the people smugglers? Is it not the case that
if anyone should be coming in for criticism, whether from this
side of the Thames or the other, it should be those who are
plying that disgusting trade and not those who are seeking to
disrupt it?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this should be a
moment of reflection for all colleagues, when it comes to those
who thwart the removal of those with no legal basis to be in the
country, on the cost to the public purse and hard-pressed British
taxpayers of not removing those individuals from the country in
the first place.
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
(PC)
Global Britain used to be a byword for bad trade deals; now it is
an excuse to outsource our asylum system to Rwanda. Of course, we
all stand, do we not, with the people of Ukraine in their fight
to repel one dictator, but the Home Secretary is yoking the UK’s
reputation to another. The Welsh and Scottish Governments have
long asked for talks on a solution and on the establishment of
safe routes for refugees. Did she engage with those two
Governments, or does she only talk with dictators?
If I may say so, I think the right hon. Lady will be very well
aware of the engagement that has taken place in Government on our
safe and legal route for Ukrainian nationals coming over to the
United Kingdom, and those discussions have taken place across the
devolved Administrations. I should also say for the record that
the number of people who have come to our country through safe
and legal routes stands at over 180,000 right now. Global Britain
is doing more than its fair share in the world, and we are
leading the world when it comes to safe and legal routes.
Finally, I conclude by saying that, when it comes to safe and
legal routes, it is those from the right hon. Lady’s party and
every party on the Opposition Benches who have voted against the
Nationality and Borders Bill, which actually puts safe and legal
routes into statute.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
My right hon. Friend has highlighted the opening of a reception
centre at the former RAF base at Linton-on-Ouse, located between
Harrogate and York. Can she give us a bit more information about
that—for example, when might it open, what is its capacity and
how many local jobs will be created?
I can confirm that the centre will be opening in the next six
weeks. Work has been undertaken for several months on the
development of the site, including capacity at the site and all
the various measures required for the housing and accommodation
for asylum seekers.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Between 2015 and 2020, the number of asylum applications decided
early stayed constant at about 30,000, but the proportion decided
within the Secretary of State’s six-month target plummeted from
80% to 17%, despite doubling the number of caseworkers. Is it not
the truth that her asylum processing system is broken—sending
refugees to Rwanda will not fix that—and that she is using those
fleeing from the worst atrocities of war as a shield for her
incompetence?
The asylum system is completely broken. That is the only fact
that the hon. Lady is correct on. I am changing the asylum
system, as per the Nationality and Borders Bill, which the hon.
Lady has voted against and every Opposition Member has voted
against. This includes turning around asylum decision making in a
faster way with digitalisation of the process, and also making
sure that the immigration courts and tribunals hear more cases in
a faster time, which is a point I made to a colleague in the
House earlier. It is important that all these aspects of the
reformed asylum system come together—
indicated dissent.
The hon. Lady may shake her head, but she shakes her head
because, quite frankly, she is opposed to any reform or any
controls on illegal migration and immigration.
(Heywood and Middleton)
(Con)
Ever since this policy was announced over the bank holiday
weekend, we have heard some very strong rhetoric from the
Opposition parties, leaning into some very lazy tropes about
Africa and dripping with European exceptionalism. Can I ask my
right hon. Friend whether she agrees with me in condemning that
kind of language when talking about Rwanda, and can I advise her
to keep on this course, because when I was talking to my
constituents over the weekend, the one phrase everyone was using
was “not before time”?
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I refer to some of
the undercurrents of the tone that has been used—not just in this
House today, but more broadly—about our partnership with Rwanda.
I could go so far as to say that some of this is quite xenophobic
and, quite frankly, I think it is deeply egregious. Rwanda is one
of the fastest growing countries in Africa, and we have an
incredible partnership with it. Rwanda will be the host of the
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting later this year, and it
is leading the way on the international stage on many
international issues. I actually think this is pretty
distasteful, and it says a great deal about Opposition Members’
understanding of global Britain and internationalism.
(Knowsley) (Lab)
Recently my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central
() joined many others throughout
this statement in asking for evidence that this policy could
possibly work in some way or another. In each case the right hon.
Lady has declined to provide that evidence, so will she put in
the Library of the House of Commons all the internal Government
advice she has received on the legality, workability and cost of
the scheme? That way, at least we will be able to assess what the
evidence-base is.
I refer to the comments I made earlier on the legal and
legislative basis, which was all put in place under the previous
Labour Government. Indeed, this scheme and proposal were also
looked at under the previous Labour Government, and had it been
operational back then we might not be having this debate today as
more people would be claiming asylum in safe countries in the EU
and the people-smuggling gangs would have been broken up.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and believe that the
policy will work. Will my right hon. Friend explain what the
successful implementation of her policy will look like on the
ground, and in particular what impact she believes it will have
on the number of vulnerable people willing to put their lives in
the hands of ruthless people traffickers to gain illegal entry to
our country?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One answer will be in
the policy working and the removal of people to Rwanda. It will
also be in overcoming many of the obstacles and hurdles, some of
which colleagues have touched on this afternoon, including the
legal and other barriers we face in removing those with no legal
basis to be in the United Kingdom. The other point to make is
that the long-term impact has to be to start disrupting the
business model of the people smugglers by breaking up the evil
people-smuggling gangs and going after them with more
prosecutions, making sure the pilots of those small boats are
prosecuted in the way I explained earlier in my statement. That
not only takes a whole-of-Government approach, but also means we
have to work with our international partners across Europe and
further afield.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
My constituents want none of this despicable plan. As the chair
of the all-party group on immigration detention I went to Napier
barracks. It is not fit for purpose: it is cold, bleak and
lacking in dignity and privacy. Vulnerable people struggle to get
medical, social and legal support but at least we could visit.
Can the Home Secretary tell me how facilities in Rwanda will be
scrutinised, particularly given that Human Rights Watch says of
Rwanda:
“Arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, and torture in official and
unofficial detention facilities is commonplace”?
I would be delighted to tell the hon. Lady how accommodation
facilities in Kigali in Rwanda will be scrutinised. That is part
of the monitoring work the Home Office and technical officials
have established and is part of the memorandum of
understanding—as if she has read the details in the MOU.
Secondly, the hon. Lady’s characterisation of Napier is grossly
wrong.
I have been there.
As we have as well. The hon. Lady will also be aware of the
facilities that have been put in place—all the recreation,
leisure, legal and accommodation facilities that UK taxpayers are
paying for, the costs of which are going up and up and up.
(Don Valley) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that no one would spend thousands
of pounds to go to one country and end up in another and that
this policy will be a deterrent, which will save lives and save
the taxpayer money?
My hon. Friend is a voice of common sense on this, primarily
because we want that deterrent effect—there is no doubt about
that—and in addition we want to go after the individuals who have
been profiteering for decades and decades from the human misery
of people smuggling.
(Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Given that many Rwandans seek and are granted asylum here in the
UK, how can the Home Secretary possibly tell the House with a
straight face that Rwanda is a safe country to send people
seeking asylum to?
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I made earlier on
Rwanda: Rwanda is a safe country and I think his tone on Rwanda
as a country and our partnership is unjustifiable and insulting.
I will leave my remarks there, Madam Deputy Speaker.
(South Thanet) (Con)
It seems to me that some actively celebrate the porosity of the
French border. That weakness has seen 28,000 irregular crossings,
a huge number of appalling deaths and a trade that is bigger than
the drugs trade. Contrast that with my right hon. Friend’s new
policy, which will normalise proper immigration rules, taking
people to safe countries for proper processing in the right way.
Can she understand my confusion that people are not celebrating
this new policy?
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and his comments. As I
said earlier, I think the Opposition should just be honest about
their position. They clearly stand for open borders; they do not
believe in controlled immigration. We have a points-based
immigration system that provides legal routes for people to come
to the United Kingdom. They do not want the differentiation
between legal and illegal routes, but I will tell you who does,
Madam Deputy Speaker—the British people.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
When somebody is trafficked or smuggled into the UK, and then
determines that they do not want to be deported to Rwanda, what
steps will she take to uphold their rights under the Refugee
Convention?
As I said earlier, there is a difference between trafficking
cases and those who have been smuggled through the people
smuggling routes. When it comes to cases of trafficking, we have
all the legal bases to provide support and to go after the
traffickers for the abuses that they have committed. The hon.
Lady will be very familiar with all of that. Not only that, I say
again that every case is determined case by case. That means the
right kind of legal support, both in this country and in
Rwanda.
(Morecambe and Lunesdale)
(Con)
People smuggling does not start at Calais; it can go through five
different countries before people get to Calais. Then we have the
abhorrence of people drowning in the Channel. I understand the
concerns of the House about sending people to Rwanda, but we have
one champion in the House who sadly is not in his place at this
moment in time. When he was the shadow Secretary of State for
International Development and became the Secretary of State for
International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for
Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) had a lot to do with Rwanda and he
has the utmost respect from their Government. Will my right hon.
Friend utilise his talents and use him in some ambassadorial way
to allay the fears of Members of this House?
My hon. Friend makes some very important points, particularly
about the country of Rwanda. Those of us in this House who know
Rwanda well—I put that in the context of some of the ignorance
that has been shown today—and know about the incredible work of
the Rwandan Government through difficult times more recently,
know how they have become almost Africa’s voice on the
international stage.
(City of Chester)
(Lab)
May I challenge this lazy and probably sexist assumption that all
young men are economic migrants? Does the Home Secretary not
understand that in conflict situations—especially civil wars,
whether in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ethiopia or Sudan—one side
will come to a town or village and either press gang all the
young men to fight for them or kill them and then the other side
will come and do exactly the same? These young men are not
economic migrants but people trying to flee a war they want
nothing to do with.
That is exactly why we are proposing safe and legal routes, as we
have done with Syria and Afghanistan. These are bespoke routes
that help those fleeing persecution. There is an important point
that the hon. Gentleman has made in there, which is also why our
case-by-case approach and assessment when it comes to those
seeking asylum is absolutely applied in the right kind of way.
The new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill
are trying to do exactly that by bringing efficacy to our asylum
system to make sure that we can help those in genuine need.
(Broadland) (Con)
The EU uses Rwanda for refugee settlement. The United Nations
uses Rwanda for refugee settlement. Even the Labour Government
legislated to use safe third countries to process asylum claims.
Given this, does my right hon. Friend agree that exactly the same
approach lies behind this partnership with Rwanda?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It goes without saying that
it seems to be fine, depending on your political persuasion, to
say it is fine for the EU, it is fine for the UN, but it is not
fine for the British Government. That is simply not acceptable.
This has worked in the past. I come back to the fundamental
principle that doing nothing is not an option while people are
drowning not just in the channel but in the Mediterranean. People
are taking dangerous journeys, often through Libya, making
difficult and dangerous crossings across the Mediterranean and
then across the channel. That is what we want to stop and we have
a moral duty to do everything we possibly can to break up that
model.
(Llanelli) (Lab)
We know that two-thirds of migrants arriving by dangerous routes
have a legitimate claim for asylum. On the remainder, can the
Home Secretary please tell us what new agreement she has struck
with the top five countries of origin for economic migrants in
respect of returning migrants, improving visa application
processes and tackling people smuggling at source?
Well, of course, tackling people smugglers at source is exactly
what our country and Government are leading on right now. We are
leading on that work with our intelligence and security partners,
and through law enforcement co-operation. We are doing that
through our EU near-neighbours such as France, Belgium and the
Netherlands, but also countries further upstream, including Italy
and Greece. It is right that we do that. This is difficult,
difficult work and we are supporting them. My final comments very
much come back to the hon. Lady’s question, but also to points
made by others. Speeding up processes is exactly what the
Nationality and Borders Bill is about: making sure we can speed
up asylum claims and stop the merry-go-round of going to the
courts and tribunal again and again and again, and ensuring we
can bring efficacy to the asylum system.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
I very much welcome measures that will offer a proper deterrent
to those who are seeking to come to this country illegally. I
also particularly welcome action to ensure that people are
dispersed more fairly right across the country. Does my right
hon. Friend agree that for far too long areas like Stoke-on-Trent
have taken far more than their fair share and that it is about
time other parts of the country did their part?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to Stoke
Council and to all parliamentary colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent
who have made representations over a long period of time many,
many times with great strength and feeling. The dispersal policy
is important. I have touched on it already. It is a complete and
utter shame that the nationalists have been howling about this
policy, while at the same time only one local authority has
actually supported the dispersal policy. In the principle of
fairness and a sense of fairness across the country, and to
British taxpayers, we must make sure that every local authority
participates in the scheme.
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
Can I try to get a clear answer to the question that others have
asked? The Home Office factsheet on this proposal explains:
“Every person who comes to the UK illegally, or by dangerous or
unnecessary methods…will be considered for relocation to
Rwanda.”
The Home Secretary seemed to confirm that in her earlier
comments. Will she confirm now that women and children who come
to the UK through irregular routes fleeing conflict and
repression will be eligible for transfer to Rwanda, and not just
the adult men, as her Department briefed the media?
I will repeat what I said earlier on. Decisions will be taken on
a case-by-case basis and nobody will be removed if it is unsafe
or inappropriate for them.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
on this fantastic policy which people overwhelmingly supported
when they voted for Brexit in 2016 and when they overwhelmingly
voted for the Conservative party in Stoke-on-Trent for the first
time across the board? Does she agree with me that it is about
time that other local authorities did their bit, particularly in
Scotland, and that the north Islington wokerati are more than
welcome to come to Stoke-on-Trent and explain why they oppose it?
Perhaps they should send the hon. Member for Bury South () to explain why.
I think it is fair to say that my hon. Friend has made a very
powerful and compelling case for the dispersal policy, but
equally for why doing nothing is no longer an issue when it comes
to reform of the asylum system and to dealing with how we remove
individuals with no legal basis to be in the UK, particularly
those who have travelled to the United Kingdom illegally through
dangerous crossings from safe European countries.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the right hon. Member that our asylum system is
broken and that the £5 million cost is too much. This includes
the people who are staying in hotels in my constituency on South
Lambeth Road—the many people I am trying to help with their
asylum claims. So many people in Vauxhall have contacted me
because they are worried about this policy. The FCDO website
states that Rwanda is not a safe place and that it is frowned on
for people to be LGBT. There are many LGBT people who claim
asylum. Can the Home Secretary guarantee that those people will
still be safe and not sent to a country where they could be at
harm?
Absolutely—we can—and that was part of our negotiation with the
Rwandan Government. It has been made very clear in the legal
agreement that we have between us.
(Aylesbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crucial point is that
the partnership with Rwanda is for people attempting to come to
the UK illegally? Has she been struck, as I have, that despite
the complaints, the carping and sometimes the caterwauling from
Opposition Members, when it comes to proposing an alternative—a
thought-through, responsible plan—their silence is deafening?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will repeat what I said
earlier: this is the same party opposite that writes letters to
me frequently to stop us removing people with no legal basis to
be in the UK, including many foreign national offenders—rapists,
murderers, paedophiles, you name it—along with asylum seekers.
That speaks volumes —it really does—when it comes to protecting
our country and protecting British citizens.
(Twickenham) (LD)
Like me, the Home Secretary is the daughter of east African
Indian immigrants whose family sought sanctuary and a better life
in this country, so does she not feel, as I do, a personal moral
responsibility to extend the generosity that was shown by the
British Government to our communities in the ’60s and ’70s by
providing further safe and legal routes to the UK for refugees,
rather than shipping them off to Rwanda?
When it comes to safe and legal routes, I hope that the hon. Lady
will vote with the Government on the Nationality and Borders
Bill, because that is exactly what this Government are proposing.
As I said, 180,000 people have been brought to the United Kingdom
under safe and legal routes and this Government are committed to
doing much, much more.
|
