The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about
the UK’s migration and economic development partnership with
Rwanda. One hundred million people are displaced globally. Others
want to move to a different country, often for economic reasons.
This presents an enormous challenge for sought-after destinations
such as the United Kingdom. Since 2015, this kind and generous
country has...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for the Home Department ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement
about the UK’s migration and economic development partnership
with Rwanda.
One hundred million people are displaced globally. Others want to
move to a different country, often for economic reasons. This
presents an enormous challenge for sought-after destinations such
as the United Kingdom. Since 2015, this kind and generous country
has welcomed nearly 450,000 people through safe and legal routes.
The British people are eager to help those in need and they
support controlled migration. They have opened their homes to
refugees. But they do not want open borders.
For decades the British people were told that this was immoral
and that their concerns and opinions did not matter. Even today
we see from certain quarters an unhealthy contempt for anyone who
wants controlled migration. Such an attitude is unhelpful.
Moreover, it is fanciful. We do not have infinite capacity.
Already we are struggling to accommodate new arrivals, meaning
that we spend millions every day in hotel bills alone.
We cannot tolerate people coming here illegally. It is not
legitimate to leave a safe country such as France to seek asylum
in the United Kingdom. We have to break the business model of the
people-smuggling gangs. Their trade in human cargo is evil and
lethal, as we were tragically reminded very recently.
There is a global migration crisis and it requires international
solutions. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham
(), backed by my right hon.
Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (), signed a ground-breaking
migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. They
deserve enormous credit for their work on this. We agreed that
people who come to the UK via dangerous, illegal and unnecessary
means can be relocated to Rwanda to have their asylum claims
considered there. Those in need of protection will be given up to
five years of support, including education and employment
training, along with help with integration, accommodation and
healthcare.
Being relocated to Rwanda is not a punishment but an innovative
way of addressing a major problem to redress the imbalance
between illegal and legal migration routes. It will also ensure
that those in genuine need of international protection are
provided with it in Rwanda. It is a humane and practical
alternative for those who come here through dangerous, illegal
and unnecessary routes. By making it clear that they cannot
expect to stay in the UK, we will deter more people from coming
here and make such routes unviable.
There has been a great deal of misinformation about Rwanda. I
visited Rwanda myself several years ago. She is a state party to
the 1951 United Nations refugee convention and the seven core
United Nations human rights conventions. It is a safe and dynamic
country with a thriving economy. It has an excellent record of
supporting refugees and vulnerable migrants. The UN has used
Rwanda for the relocation of vulnerable migrants from Libya—and
this was first funded by the European Union. Many migrants,
including refugees, have already built excellent lives in Rwanda.
Our partnership is a significant investment in that country and
further strengthens our relationship.
A myth still persists that the Home Office’s permanent secretary
opposed this agreement. For the record, he did not. Nor did he
assert that it is definitely poor value for money. 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. As he would be the first
to agree, it is for Ministers to take decisions having received
officials’ advice. Once the partnership is up and running, he
will continue to monitor its efficacy, including value for
money.
In June, the first plane was ready to relocate people to Rwanda.
Our domestic courts—the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court—upheld our right to send the flight. However,
following an order by an out-of-hours judge in the European Court
of Human Rights, the flight was cancelled. The European Court of
Human Rights did not rule that the policy or relocations were
unlawful, but it prohibited the removal of specific people. This
was a “without notice” order and the UK was not invited to make
representations to oppose it. As a result, we have been unable to
operate relocation flights pending ongoing legal proceedings, but
we have continued to prepare by issuing notices of intent for
those eligible for relocation, and my right hon. Friend the Prime
Minister recently outlined a comprehensive new approach to
illegal migration.
A judicial review was brought against the Rwanda partnership by a
number of organisations and individual asylum seekers. The first
part of proceedings considered a case that the partnership is
unlawful; the second part argued that UK domestic processes under
the partnership are unfair; and the third part argued that the
policy is contrary to data protection laws. Today in the High
Court, in a judgment spanning more than 130 pages, Lord Justice
Lewis and Mr Justice Swift held that it is indeed lawful for the
Government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to
Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda
rather than in the United Kingdom. The court further held that
the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the
refugee convention and with the statutory and other legal
obligations on the Government, including the obligations imposed
by the Human Rights Act 1998.
This judgment thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership.
Earlier today, I spoke to my Rwandan counterpart, Minister
Vincent Biruta, and we confirmed our joint and steadfast resolve
to deliver the partnership at scale as soon as possible. It is
what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to
happen. The sooner it is up and running, the sooner we will break
the business model of the evil gangs and bring an end to the
illegal, unnecessary and unsafe channel crossings. Now that our
courts have affirmed its legality, I invite the Opposition to get
behind this plan. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
4.17pm
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
The Government have failed to stop criminal gangs putting lives
at risk and proliferating along our borders; they have failed to
prosecute or convict the gang members; and they have failed to
take basic asylum decisions, which are down by 40% in the last
six years. Instead of sorting out those problems, however, they
have put forward an unworkable, unethical and extremely expensive
Rwanda plan that risks making trafficking worse.
The Home Secretary describes today’s court judgment as a
vindication, but I wonder whether she has read it, because it
sets out evidence of serious problems in Home Office decision
making. It also identifies the significant financial costs of the
scheme and the very limited number of people who will be covered,
and certainly identifies no evidence that it will act as a
deterrent or address the serious problems that we face.
The court concluded that the Home Office’s decision making in
each of the eight cases considered was so flawed and chaotic that
those individual decisions have had to be quashed. There were
cases of literally mixing up evidence and the names of
individuals, so the Home Office was making decisions on the wrong
people; there was confusion between teams in Glasgow and Croydon
about who was deciding what and which information should be
shared; and evidence of torture and trafficking was not
considered. We also know that the Home Office attempted to send
heavily pregnant women to Rwanda.
That is a damning indictment of the decision-making process in
the Home Office, which we know is not working because no decision
has been made on 98% of the small boat arrivals in the last 12
months. Ministers seem to have decided that they are so incapable
of getting a grip on the asylum system and of taking asylum
decisions effectively here in the UK that they want to pay a
country halfway across the world to take those decisions for
us.
On the lawfulness of the decision, the Court accepted that Rwanda
does not have the processing capacity, including interpreters and
legal support, needed to take asylum decisions, but it concluded
that the agreement was still lawful because of two key points:
the number of people Rwanda takes will be very limited; and lots
more money will be provided by the UK Government. The Home
Secretary did not tell us about any of those things. Will she now
tell us, first, how many people she expects to send to Rwanda
next year? Rwanda has said that it can accommodate 200 people.
That is the people from 0.5% of this year’s channel crossings.
The Home Office itself has said that there is no evidence that
the scheme will act as a deterrent, and that the scheme is
unenforceable and has a high risk of fraud.
Secondly, can the Home Secretary tell us the full cost? The Court
said that significant additional funding would be provided. The
Government have already written Rwanda two cheques this year: one
for £120 million, and another this summer for £20 million.
Millions more are promised—but how much more? How much will the
scheme end up costing per person? It looks as though it will be
more than £1 million per person.
Thirdly, the Court judgment says that there is no evidence that
the UK Government sought to investigate either the terms of the
Rwanda-Israel agreement or the way it had worked in practice. Why
on earth not? That agreement was abandoned, and there is evidence
that it increased trafficking and the activity of criminal gangs.
Convictions for people smuggling have already dropped by 75% in
two years; convictions for people trafficking are already
pitifully low; and a former chief constable has warned that the
Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will make that worse. Time and
again, the Government have failed to tackle the criminal gangs
driving the problem, and to make them pay the price. Instead of
pursuing this unworkable, unethical, extortionately expensive and
deeply damaging policy, the Government should use the money that
they are investing in it to go after the gangs that are putting
lives at risk. All that they are doing, time and again, is
chasing headlines, which is a damaging distraction from the
serious hard work that is needed to tackle the gangs and sort out
the asylum system.
The Home Secretary has said that the Conservatives are in the
last chance saloon. Their policies put them there, and have let
the country down. They are always ramping up the rhetoric, and
never doing the serious, hard work, or using common sense.
Britain deserves better than this. Britain is better than
this.
I am very disappointed by the response from the shadow Home
Secretary, and I am concerned that she is seeking to go against a
legitimate, rigorous decision set out exhaustively by our
independent judiciary, and is still suggesting that this is an
illegitimate scheme. We see in the judgment that the scheme is
lawful on several grounds. The judgment looked at the legislative
authority for the scheme. It looked very closely at the claims
that it breached articles 3 and 14 of the European convention on
human rights, and article 31 of the refugee convention. It looked
closely at whether it was fair, and at whether the right of
access to justice was respected. It looked very closely at other
public law grounds. On all those claims, the Home Office won. The
Court concluded that it was and is lawful for the Government to
make arrangements to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda, and for
asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda, rather than in the UK.
The judgment is a comprehensive analysis of the reasons why.
The right hon. Lady asks about the eight individual cases. We
accept the Court’s judgment on those cases. We have already taken
steps to strengthen the caseworking process, including revising
the information and guidance given to individuals during their
assessment for relocation, but we have been clear throughout that
no one will be relocated if that is unsafe for them, and support
is offered to individuals throughout the process to ensure that
it is fair and robust.
The simple truth is that Labour Members have opposed every one of
our efforts to deter illegal migration. They opposed the
Nationality and Borders Act 2022, life sentences for people
smugglers, and the removal of foreign national offenders,
including drug dealers and rapists. All they offer is
obstruction, criticism, the performative politics of opposition,
and magical thinking. What do they actually offer? They say that
we should return to the failed Dublin scheme—no matter that it
was ineffective, and no matter that the EU does not want it.
Labour Members want safe and legal routes as the answer, no
matter that this Government have done more than any other in
recent history, offering sanctuary to more than 450,000 people by
safe and legal routes. No matter that Labour Members cannot
define what routes they would stand up themselves, or that our
capacity is not unlimited, and that there are more than 100
million people displaced globally. Would Labour give them all a
safe and legal route to the UK?
We cannot indulge in fictions. A fundamental reason why Labour
Members cannot articulate a plan is that they cannot be honest
with the British public about what they really want. The shadow
Home Secretary could not even decide whether she would repeal
illegal entry, even though she voted against it. Labour’s
solution would be to turn our crisis of illegal migration into a
crisis of legal migration, with open borders by the back door.
Unlimited safe and legal routes are simply open borders
masquerading as humanitarianism. Last week the Prime Minister and
I announced our plan to tackle small boats. Today the Court
affirmed the legality of a central piece of that plan, and
tomorrow Labour still will not have a plan.
(Stone) (Con)
Although the High Court ruled that the Rwanda policy is lawful,
as has been said there were only eight asylum claimants. Those
cases have all been set aside by the Court, which said in its
ruling that the circumstances of each claimant had not been
considered properly. Latest Home Office website figures currently
show that more than 160,000 individual cases are outstanding.
Furthermore, as the Home Secretary—in whom I have the greatest
confidence—stated, the European Court judge who issued the
injunction clearly did so without proper consideration of the
Rwanda policy, and such rulings do not command our respect.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that for all those
reasons it becomes more essential than ever to apply the
“notwithstanding” formula to the new legislation that the Prime
Minister has announced for mid-January? That must also
distinguish in our own law between genuine refugees and illegal
economic migrants, not only in the interests of saving life, but
also to prevent organised criminality, and to assert UK
parliamentary sovereignty, overriding the European convention on
human rights, and at the same time dealing comprehensively with
the current backlog of those 160,000 outstanding asylum
cases.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The European Court of
Human Rights did not rule on the lawfulness of our policy. It did
not rule that the policy or relocations were unlawful, but it did
none the less prohibit the removal of individuals on the 15 June
flight, via interim and injunctive relief. We have a proud
tradition of defending fundamental rights in this country, and we
will always retain a robust approach to protecting and preserving
human rights. However, that does not mean that we will have a
migration system that can be abused and exploited by those who do
not have legitimate claims to be here. As the Prime Minister
announced last week, we will be bringing forward legislation to
ensure that we have a robust migration system and secure
borders.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
This is a dark day indeed with this judgment, particularly when
the Home Secretary comes to the House to imply that having morals
is fanciful. Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council has called the
policy
“wrong in principle and unworkable in practice”,
and I am certain that this will go to appeal as charities and
those involved in the issue have stated. SNP Members will never
get behind this policy—not in our name—and I remind Members that
slavery, apartheid and marital rape were all lawful at one time,
but none of them were right.
The Court found that the Home Office had failed to consider
properly the circumstances of the eight who challenged the
policy. How exactly does the Home Secretary intend to approach
such cases now, and what will happen to those eight individuals?
What happens to those who have already been issued with notices
of intent, and what confidence can they have in a system that
previously did not properly consider the cases of eight
people?
The Home Secretary claims that this will be a deterrent. The
Tories also claimed that the hostile environment would be a
deterrent and that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would be
a deterrent. Now they claim the Rwanda policy will be a
deterrent. None of them is working because they fail to recognise
the desperate circumstances that drive people to come here in the
first place. Safe and legal routes will work and prevent people
from losing their lives in the channel.
The Home Secretary talked about the trade in human cargo. We all
want to tackle the people smugglers who exploit people in the
most vulnerable of circumstances. However, what else is the
Rwanda policy but state-sponsored people trafficking? How many
people are actually going to be removed to Rwanda? It is going to
be a tiny proportion, so any deterrent effect that the Government
claim is not going to be proper. What is the total cost of this
unworkable scheme? How much money has been spent on it already?
How much has gone on the legal case? How much of it would have
been better spent dealing with the catastrophic backlog of cases
that the Tories have created?
I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s ideological zeal is blinding and
preventing her from taking a rational approach. I am proud of the
fact that we have welcomed 450,000 people through safe and legal
routes to this country since 2015. I do not think that anyone can
claim that we are not forward-leaning on all of this. She and her
party need to be honest about their position with the British
people: they stand for open borders and uncontrolled
migration.
(North East Somerset)
(Con)
Parliament has legislated, our courts have ruled. We are
apparently stopped by a Russian judge, woken from a bar, to issue
an injunction. Can this stand?
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Neither
the Prime Minister nor I are deterred from delivering on this
policy, which is an essential part of our wider plans to break
the business model to stop illegal migration. We have a
legitimate basis for it. It has been upheld after being
rigorously tested in our courts. We will continue to move quickly
to honour the will of the British people.
(Islington North) (Ind)
The Home Secretary says that Britain has a proud tradition of
supporting asylum seekers. That is true in part, but it is not
true under her tenure. She is pursuing a vile policy, which is
brutal towards the individuals concerned, and continually tells
us that it is illegal to seek asylum. It is not; it is clearly
there in all international conventions. Will she for once have a
sense of humanity towards people who are desperate and victims of
wars, environmental change and human rights abuse—and exploited
to boot? Cannot she just hold out a hand of friendship and
understanding towards these desperate people, rather than the
brutal assertion that she is making?
The right hon. Gentleman talks regularly about safe and legal
routes being a means to an end of illegal arrivals. The reality
is that our safe and legal routes have already allowed 450,000
people to come here since 2015, with 300,000 in the last year
alone—the highest number that we have seen in several decades.
However, that needs to happen in conjunction with deterrent
policies if they are to have any effect and if we are to stop the
practice of people taking lethal and unlawful journeys across the
channel, jumping the queue, undermining the British people’s
generosity and breaking the law.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
While the judgment is welcome, it will not solve the problem not
just because of the relatively few numbers that can be deported
to Rwanda but because each case must be fought individually, and
human rights lawyers will fight every single case individually.
That is the problem. Surely the only serious way in which we can
deter migration across the channel is by having the legal right
not just to process people when they arrive on our shores but to
arrest them and detain them until their asylum application is
dealt with. Does anything in the refugee convention stop us doing
that? If not, why are we not doing it? If the Human Rights Act
stops us doing it, can we not apply for a notwithstanding clause
in our new legislation to deal with that problem?
This is exactly why the Prime Minister made an announcement last
week, and the Immigration Minister and I are working intensively
to prepare legislation, which will be introduced next year. It
will deliver a scheme along the lines my right hon. Friend
describes, whereby if you come here irregularly or illegally—on a
small boat, putting yourself and others at risk—you will be
detained and swiftly removed to a safe third country or to Rwanda
for your asylum claim to be processed.
(North Durham) (Lab)
In her statement, the Home Secretary confirmed that the permanent
secretary at the Home Office had concerns about the cost and that
she overruled him. We have spent £140 million so far and not a
single individual has been removed. When the hon. Member for
Corby () was Immigration Minister, he said that the average
cost of removing people would be £12,000—something that was not
based on any fact. If she is so confident about the scheme that
she took a decision to overrule the permanent secretary, will she
not today publish all the costs of the scheme, so we can all take
a view on whether it is a good use of taxpayers’ money, or
whether it is simply a way of fulfilling one of her weird
dreams?
The right hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts right because
actually the agreement was struck between my predecessor, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, and the Rwandan
Government. But I support the work she did and the achievement
she struck. The agreement represents a long-term policy. It is
expected to last for at least five years, and the costs and
payments will depend on the number of people relocated, when that
happens and the outcomes of the individual cases. Of course, we
have been held up by litigation. Once the litigation process
comes to an end, we will move quickly to deliver that and deliver
value for money.
(Dover) (Con)
I am saddened that following last week’s tragic events neither
the shadow Home Secretary nor the SNP Front Bench are prepared to
say that people should not be getting into these boats in the
first place. They should be claiming refuge and asylum in one of
the 149 convention countries, many of which they will have gone
through. I welcome today’s judgment from the High Court. Is it
not even better than Rwanda that people stay safe on land in
France and do not make the crossings in the first place?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People should not be making
this journey, they should not be crossing through other safe
countries and they should not be choosing to come to the United
Kingdom via those means. The sooner we are able to deliver a
policy that reflects that, the better.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The courts have been very clear: it is wrong to have a blanket
approach to the treatment of refugees, just as it would be wrong
to decide that everybody caught speeding could never drive again.
What matters is treating each case on its merits. We have seen
already how poorly the Government treat refugee children who are
here. The Home Secretary talks about being honest, so let us
finally have some honest, straight answers. For the avoidance of
doubt, will the Home Secretary confirm whether she intends to
deport children, or those who are looking after children and are
here as refugees to Rwanda? Yes or no—will children be on those
flights, Ministers?
We have been very clear that families are not subject to the
Rwandan policy, but the broader point is this. The hon. Member’s
reading of the judgment is different from mine. There has been an
extensive and exhaustive analysis of the legal claims brought
against the Government, and the Court has been pretty emphatic on
the legality of the policy. It concluded that the scheme is
compliant with our ECHR and refugee obligations.
Sir (Maldon) (Con)
Two months ago, I visited the Hope hostel in Kigali. Not only was
the accommodation of a high standard, but the Rwandans I spoke to
expressed hope that those coming would, in due course, obtain
jobs and move out to their own homes, thus allowing more refugees
to come and take their place. Does my right hon. and learned
Friend agree that this policy is not just lawful, but humane in
that it offers refugees real hope?
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend reiterates a point dealt with
extensively in the body of the judgment. I refer right hon. and
hon. Members to that judgment, in which there is a complete
analysis of the exact support that people will receive when they
are in Rwanda, the monitoring that will go on to ensure that
their welfare is safeguarded, and the track record that Rwanda
has demonstrated in supporting refugees from the region in
previous instances.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is frustrating to sit here and listen to the Secretary of
State, because none of us is denying that this is a legal ruling,
but whether or not it is lawful, this plan is immoral,
ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers. Does the
Secretary of State agree that, instead of wasting taxpayers’
money on defending the policy through the courts, the Government
should focus on stopping these dangerous crossings and tackling
smugglers and trafficking by providing more safe and legal routes
and sanctuary for refugees? Rather than dealing with the problem
after people arrive here, we must deal with it at source so that
they are never put in the position where they make a dangerous
crossing over the channel.
As the justices made clear at the beginning of their judgment,
they are not opining on the politics or the morality of the
Rwanda scheme; they are simply opining on the lawfulness. That is
why I have huge confidence in the judgment that has been handed
down today.
If we are talking about the broader issues, I gently disagree
with the hon. Lady, as the House would imagine. I think that what
is actually unacceptable is that her party is peddling a mistruth
to the British people. It is saying that we can have an unlimited
and open borders policy, that we have unlimited capacity and that
everybody is welcome. Unfortunately, the reality is that that is
not the case. We have to take a pragmatic, measured and
compassionate approach to our migration—that is what is sensible
and is required by the British people.
(Buckingham) (Con)
Central to solving the crisis of illegal migration is the
prevention of further loss of human life in the English channel,
so I welcome not only today’s judgment, but the commitment that
my right hon. and learned Friend made in her statement to
delivering the Rwanda partnership
“at scale as soon as possible.”
However, it is clear that there will be continued legal
challenges to it, either on an individual basis or on a
whole-policy basis, so may I push the Home Secretary further on
the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone ( ): that the legislation coming
in the new year, which I look forward to supporting, really must
include a “notwithstanding” clause to ensure that we can prevent
the further loss of human life in the channel?
What is essential is that we introduce, consider and pass
legislation that will be robust and resilient and actually
deliver on our stated political objectives. That will require an
exhaustive analysis of the legal methods but, simply put, we are
in the process, we are in the sausage machine, as they would put
it, so it is not a pretty sight, but nothing is off the
table.
(Gower) (Lab)
The Home Secretary said over the weekend that she is considering
leaving the European convention on human rights in order to
prevent people from claiming asylum. Is it possible to do that
without breaking our commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday
agreement?
What I think is clear is that there are evident challenges with
the way in which international conventions and agreements
relating to migration are working in the 21st century. I think
there are legitimate questions that, at an international level,
all nation states are grappling with; I have seen that at first
hand when I have spoken to my counterparts in the Calais group or
other international partners. There is an unprecedented scale of
illegal migration and there is unprecedented pressure on domestic
resources. I think that looking at how we can forge a new set of
agreements to work better together is definitely a reasonable
approach.
(New Forest West) (Con)
Were more safe and legal routes to be made available, they would
quickly be taken up and the trade in small boats would then
continue unabated—wouldn’t it?
Yes.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary assure the House that if someone arrives
on the shores at Dover to claim asylum in order to be able to
join a child, a spouse or an elderly parent here in the United
Kingdom under the right to family life, that individual will not
be put on a plane to Rwanda and separated from his or her family
for the rest of their lives?
Anyone arriving here irregularly will be eligible for
consideration. We will consider every case on its individual
merits. We have excluded families from the scheme, but we will
also ensure that the decisions are made on a lawful and rational
basis.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the ruling and the Home Secretary’s comments. It is
clear from what we are hearing from Opposition Members that there
is a great gulf between their views and those of the vast
majority of the British people. Overwhelmingly, my constituents
will want to see the Home Secretary’s and the Prime Minister’s
proposals implemented as quickly as possible. In particular,
there is genuine concern about the speed of the processing of the
many cases. Although additional staff are being taken on, the
pitiful number of cases with which they are dealing each week
needs to be dramatically increased. Can my right hon. and learned
Friend assure me that action is being taken to ensure that that
happens?
Processing asylum claims is one core element of meeting the
challenge more broadly. That is why it is right that we are
increasing the number of caseworkers, increasing their specialism
and streamlining the process. Ultimately, we want to bear down on
the number of people waiting for a decision from the Home
Office.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
The Home Secretary says that she is taking a deterrent approach,
but it is plain that today’s judgment cannot and will not
function as a so-called deterrent. The whole point of this vile
policy of expelling asylum seekers to Rwanda is that expulsion
was supposed to happen automatically and rapidly for anyone
without a prior permission to come here via a refugee scheme.
However, today’s High Court judgment found that each and every
individual case must be assessed first, so there will be nothing
automatic about it, and under this Government there will be
nothing rapid about it either. Will the Home Secretary therefore
put a permanent end to this useless cruelty, provide safe and
legal routes, and ensure that such routes actually function? The
one from Afghanistan currently does not.
Will the Home Secretary also stop saying that this policy has the
support of the British people? According to a recent YouGov poll,
just 10% of them support it. The British people are better than
this vile British Government.
I think the reality is that we are supported in taking control of
our borders. That was reflected in both the 2016 referendum and
the 2019 general election. We have made it clear that we will do
whatever it takes to ensure that we make progress on stopping
illegal migration, bring an end to this lethal journey, and,
ultimately, restore integrity to our immigration system.
(Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome today’s judgment, but I find it deeply frustrating that
one isolated judge can delay this process for six or seven
months. Will the Home Secretary give me some sense of the
timescales following the judgment? When will the first flights
take off? That is what we all want to see happening, and my
constituents will begin to rest easy when they can see those
flights taking off.
We will probably have to strike agreements with other countries.
Can the Home Secretary assure me that when we do strike such
agreements, they will not be delayed in the way in which this has
been delayed, and we will not go through exactly the same
motions, which take oh, so long?
My hon. Friend is right. We have always maintained that this
policy is lawful, and today the court has upheld that. We know
that further legal challenges are possible, and we will continue
to defend this policy vigorously in the courts. However, once the
litigation process has come to an end, we will move swiftly in
order to be in a position to operationalise the policy and
deliver on our promise.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
Can I caution the Home Secretary gently against getting
overexcited about a decision at first instance? Often, important
constitutional decisions at first instance are overturned on
appeal. A recent example was when the last Prime Minister but one
unlawfully prorogued Parliament. I think an appeal is inevitable.
In the meantime, removals to Rwanda cannot take place because of
the interim measures issued by the European Court of Human
Rights. Perhaps she would like to explain to some of her Back
Benchers the concept of an interim order issued by a judge
sitting alone to preserve the status quo, which happens, I
believe, in English law regularly by way of injunction.
The Home Secretary seems to be implying that she will obtemper
the order of the European Court of Human Rights issued under
article 34 of the convention, which the United Kingdom is bound
by. I know she is not a great fan of the convention, and a lot of
her Back Benchers are asking her about the notwithstanding
clause, so is it her intention to domestically legislate her way
out of our international treaty obligations?
It is not appropriate for me to speculate on the claimants’
response or whether there will be any appeals following today’s
judgment. We welcome today’s findings and we will vigorously
defend any appeal on the substantive matters of the lawfulness of
the policy. We have been clear that, in designing and introducing
our legislation next year, we will have to ensure that it is
sufficiently robust to promote a scheme to ensure that if people
arrive here illegally, they will be detained and swiftly removed
to a safe country for your asylum claim to be processed.
(Kettering) (Con)
My constituents welcome the High Court judgment and want the
relocation flights to Rwanda to take off as soon as possible.
They will be very concerned to hear that they could be subject to
further judicial delay. Could the Home Secretary outline to my
constituents how long she anticipates that judicial delay will
be? When can I tell my constituents that the flights will take
off?
The reality of litigation is that there are appeal rights. There
is a hearing on 16 January, in which the claimants and the Home
Office will make representations on any applications to appeal.
The court will decide the next steps, if any, in UK litigation. I
am considering the Home Office’s position with my legal team, so
it would not be appropriate to discuss our strategy in the
meantime. There is a hearing on 16 January to consider appeal
applications.
(Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. and learned Lady tries very hard to find a way
forward and a solution, which I acknowledge, and I defer to the
High Court ruling. I say with great respect to the right hon. and
learned Lady that, clearly, we have a duty of care. Along with
many others in this House and in the nation, I do not believe
that the scheme fulfils our moral obligation. Should other ways
of dealing with the situation be identified, such as better
regulation of the English channel, better processes in France or
more acceptable ways of migration, will it be reconsidered? There
has to be a more compassionate approach.
The solution involves a multifaceted approach. That is why we are
working closely with the French. I was pleased to strike an
agreement last month with my French counterpart to bolster
co-operation on the channel, and information and intelligence
sharing. For the first time ever, UK Border Force officials are
working hand in hand with our French counterparts. That is why I
have worked closely with other Interior Ministers from European
nations on similar issues. That is why we need to work on our
asylum backlog and introduce legislation. The Rwanda scheme is
one element of a multidimensional programme. We need all elements
to work in tandem.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
As the Home Secretary knows, Stoke-on-Trent has already done more
than its fair share, and this has put huge pressure on our local
public services, so does she agree that it is really important
that we now get on with delivering this policy and get on with
those flights as soon as possible?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, his Stoke parliamentary
colleagues, the local authorities and all those involved in
supporting asylum seekers in Stoke. I know that a high number of
people are currently accommodated in his area. It is therefore
vital that we stop people coming in the first place, and
delivering the Rwanda partnership is key to making that
happen.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is the super-rich and those on luxury yachts, not small boats,
that people should be scared of. Asylum seekers are people just
like us; they have hopes, dreams and aspirations. This policy
could be legally sound but it is immoral and a waste of
taxpayers’ money. This cruel Government should be ashamed of
themselves. The Home Secretary said in her statement:
“This judgment thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership…It is
what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to
happen.”
Of course, the Rwanda partnership was not in the Tory manifesto,
so can she evidence this support from people across all four
nations wanting the Rwanda deal? Scotland certainly does not, and
Scotland will continue to reject these xenophobic policies.
The reality is that stopping people taking the journey in the
first place is the compassionate and pragmatic approach. It
delivers for the British people, but it also sends a message to
the people smugglers, the human traffickers and those who are
deliberately taking the journey to come here for illegitimate
means, not to do so. That is the sensible approach.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
I welcome the judgment today that confirms that the Government’s
policy is legal and will be a step forward to implementing what
the Prime Minister said last week. The Home Secretary is right to
say that we need to break the business model of the people
smugglers. Does she agree that it is not enough just to go after
the supply, even though those people are immoral and parasitic,
and that we also need to destroy the demand for these journeys in
the first place? The way we will achieve that is by making it
clear that those that come by boat will not be allowed to stay in
this country. That is what worked in Australia, and that is what
will work here.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have met Australian
officials who were involved in the design of their sovereign
borders programme, and they say that once they were able to
remove illegal entrants to Papua New Guinea or Nauru, they saw a
dramatic change in the numbers of people attempting the journey
in the first place. That is the model on which our Rwanda scheme
is based.
(Cumbernauld, Kilsyth
and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
If every country took this Government’s approach, this Rwanda
approach, the countries that already host the overwhelming
majority of refugees—the Jordans, the Lebanons, the Pakistans and
the Ugandas of this world; the first countries—would be required
to host all of them, while wealthy western countries such as the
United Kingdom could pick and choose if and when they wanted to
help out. What this Government are arguing for is an end to the
international system of refugee protection, is it not?
I really disagree with the moral high ground that the hon. Member
seems to be taking, in the light of Scotland’s paltry record on
taking asylum seekers. It has refused to take anybody who has
come here on a small boat, and that is unacceptable.
(Don Valley) (Con)
I welcome the statement today and the judgment, but will the
Secretary of State confirm to the House that she will continue to
use every tool in her power to stop these boats? As we can see,
the Opposition and the human rights lawyers will try to stop the
good work that the Secretary of State is doing, but the people of
Doncaster are tired of been taken advantage of by these illegal
immigrants. Will she confirm that she will continue to use every
power that she has?
My hon. Friend speaks not only for the people of Doncaster but
for the people of Britain in expressing the sentiment that the
British people are tired and want this problem to be fixed. It is
only this Government who are going to do it.
(Glasgow North) (Ind)
How many of the people who were pulled from the channel last week
does the Home Secretary think should be sent to Rwanda?
The incident last week was tragic. People died. Precious human
lives were lost. People had been exploited and took a journey
that was unlawful, lethal and, in the end, tragic. That is what
we want to bring to an end.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
The High Court found that the Home Office has to consider an
asylum seeker’s particular circumstances before deporting them to
Rwanda. Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that this defeats the
scheme’s original purpose, which was to have applications
assessed in Rwanda under Rwandan law? As such, will she
reconsider?
The judgment is very clear that our arrangement, under which
people will be relocated to Rwanda for their asylum claim to be
processed and for them to be resettled there, has been found to
be lawful. There was an extensive analysis of all the potential
legal claims that could render it unlawful, and the Home Office
won.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for responding
to questions for more than 50 minutes.
|
