The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on
the Government’s plan for ending illegal immigration. The Supreme
Court has today upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, meaning
that we cannot yet lawfully remove people to Rwanda. The important
thing to note is that today’s judgment was made on the basis of
facts from 15 months ago. The Government, of course, fully respect
the Supreme...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for the Home Department ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on
the Government’s plan for ending illegal immigration.
The Supreme Court has today upheld the judgment of the Court of
Appeal, meaning that we cannot yet lawfully remove people to
Rwanda. The important thing to note is that today’s judgment was
made on the basis of facts from 15 months ago. The Government, of
course, fully respect the Supreme Court, but its judgment does
not weaken our resolve to deter people from making these illegal,
dangerous and unnecessary journeys.
This is a lengthy judgment that we now need to digest and reflect
upon. We take our obligations to the courts very seriously, which
is why we have already taken action to address a number of points
raised by the lower courts. It is only through breaking the
business model of illegal people traffickers that we can fully
take control of our borders and save lives at sea. This is why
the Prime Minister backed our deal with Rwanda, passed
legislation to deliver it and said, last December, that other
countries would follow our lead. We have now seen that other
countries are, indeed, also exploring third-country models to
address illegal immigration, including Austria, Germany and
Denmark. Italy’s deal with Albania is a new and innovative model
for processing asylum claims.
Nothing in today’s Supreme Court judgment dims our commitment.
The Supreme Court said there are issues with Rwanda’s asylum
system that could create the possibility of someone being
returned to a country where they could face persecution. I am
struck by the Court’s remarks about the risk of refoulement:
“The structural changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate
that risk may be delivered in the future, but they were not shown
to be in place at the time when the lawfulness of the policy had
to be considered in these proceedings.”
The judgment was making reference to the earlier proceedings.
We have a plan to provide exactly that certainty. We anticipated
this judgment as a possible result and, for the last few months,
have been working on a plan to provide the certainty that the
Court demands. We have been working with Rwanda to build capacity
and to amend our agreement to make it clear that those sent there
cannot be sent to any country other than the UK. Our intention is
to upgrade our agreement to a treaty as soon as possible, which
will make it absolutely clear to our courts and to Strasbourg
that the risks laid out by the Court today have been responded
to, will be consistent with international law and will ensure
that Parliament is able to scrutinise it.
The Prime Minister has said that, if our domestic legal framework
frustrates our plans, he is prepared to change our laws, but we
are not going to put forward proposals simply to manufacture an
unnecessary row for political gain. We have a plan to deliver the
Rwanda deal—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are not listening,
but they might want to listen to this. We have a plan to deliver
the Rwanda deal and we will do whatever it takes to stop the
boats.
Illegal immigration is a huge global challenge, and that
challenge is growing. It was a topic that I regularly raised with
countries across Europe and around the wider world in my former
role as Foreign Secretary. Across Europe, monthly illegal migrant
numbers are trending upwards, with an exception: our numbers are
falling. Illegal immigration is dangerous, it undermines the laws
of our country, and it is unfair on those who come here legally
and on the British people who play by the rules. It must and it
will stop.
This a wonderful country. I recognise that because I have just
had the chance to see it as others see it from overseas.
Inevitably, people aspire to come here. But more people coming
here illegally is not fair on those struggling to get GP
appointments, housing or access to schools, or on those people
living near to asylum hotels. The impacts are felt by some of the
poorest in our society and we have a duty to address their
concerns. While the Conservative Government have taken action to
protect our country, the Labour party has voted time and
again—more than 80 times—not to protect our borders.
Rwanda is ready and willing to help. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees operates its own refugee scheme in
Rwanda. Rwanda is ready to receive thousands of people, process
their claims, give them excellent care and then support them to
integrate in Rwanda; this is an African country full of potential
and promise. We have a future-focused, mutually beneficial
partnership with it, and we have a plan to deliver it.
The Rwanda plan has only ever been one tool in our toolbox. We
have a plan to drive down numbers and our plan is working. Before
the Prime Minister launched his 10-point plan last December, the
number of people entering the UK illegally in small boats had
more than quadrupled, but while illegal migration in the rest of
Europe continues to rise, crossings to the UK are now down by a
third.
We are tackling illegal immigration at every stage of the journey
of a would-be illegal migrant, and our plan is working. Last
year, the Prime Minister signed the largest ever small boats deal
with France. We have expanded our joint intelligence cell to
deepen intelligence sharing and dismantle the criminal gangs.
Cutting-edge surveillance technology is in play, and we have
beefed up security infrastructure, such as more CCTV, at key
border crossing points along the channel. We have ensured that
more French officials and officers patrol French beaches, and
they are working closely with UK staff. So far in 2023, nearly
22,000 crossing attempts have been prevented because of the close
co-ordination between British and French officials. That means
less money that the British taxpayers have to spend on hotels,
less profit for the criminal gangs and fewer people to process.
It sends a clear message to the gangs and to those who want to
cross that we will stop them.
As Foreign Secretary, I worked closely with my right hon. Friend
the Immigration Minister to agree a new deal with Albania, with
better data sharing, closer operational working and financial
support. In response to the work that he and I did, the number of
Albanian small boat arrivals has fallen by 90%—I repeat that
figure of 90%—so far during 2023, and we have returned more than
4,600 people in just 10 months. We want to ensure that it is
harder to get into one of those boats in the first place,
including by reducing the supply of boats.
We are targeting the movement of those goods, such as dinghies
and engines that are used to facilitate the crossings, in order
to undermine a key component of the smugglers’ business
model.
Those who do make it through will not be able to stay. We have
expedited returns arrangements with countries including France,
Albania, Turkey and Italy. We have increased the number of
illegal working raids by almost 70%. We have cut the asylum
legacy backlog by more than 59,000 cases. We have freed up
hundreds of hotel beds with the use of alternative sites. We have
announced the closure of the first 50 asylum hotels and we have
passed the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the most ambitious
immigration legislation in decades, which makes clear that the
only route to asylum in the UK is via one of the safe and legal
routes we have put in place. Anyone who comes to the UK illegally
will not be able to stay. They will be removed either to their
home country, if it is safe, or to a safe third country, if it is
not.
Mr Speaker, I can assure you that our commitment to ending
illegal immigration is unwavering. We are a positive outlier in
Europe. Our efforts are working. Small boat crossings are down.
Our decision making is faster. We are removing those with no
right to be here, and taking action against those who are working
illegally.
We have done deals with multiple countries and will continue to
do so. Arrivals down, decisions faster, returns up—we are getting
on with the job and will do whatever it takes to deliver on our
commitment to stop the boats. I commend this statement to the
House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
12.46pm
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the new Home Secretary to his post. He is the eighth
Conservative Home Secretary in eight years—and what a mess he has
inherited. The Supreme Court’s conclusion today is damning. It
exposes the complete failure of the Prime Minister’s flagship
Rwanda policy, of his judgment in making it the central part of
his policy and of the Conservatives in getting the most basic
grip on the boats and asylum chaos.
There is no serious plan on the dangerous boat crossings that are
undermining our border security and putting lives at risk, the
end of which we all want to see. There is no serious plan to sort
out the chaos in the asylum system, including ending placing
people in costly asylum hotels because of the soaring backlog.
There was a readiness to spend more than £140 million of
taxpayers’ money on this plan—money we cannot get back now that
the policy has totally failed. That adds to the Prime Minister’s
disastrous judgment in appointing and backing the previous Home
Secretary, who was unfit for the job.
I do not agree with pretty much anything the Home Secretary’s
predecessor ever said, but she was right in this message to the
Prime Minister:
“If we lose in the Supreme Court…you will have wasted a year and
an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one…your
magical thinking…has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of
credible ‘Plan B’.”
Wasting time, wasting money and letting the country down: that is
the Conservatives’ record.
The Supreme Court judgment outlines a catalogue of problems with
the policy, but Ministers knew all about them. When it was first
announced 18 months ago, I raised in the House the problems with
the Israel-Rwanda deal. Ministers were warned many times about
failures and weaknesses in the Rwanda asylum system, but they
just pressed on. Even if the plan had been found lawful today,
they have admitted it would have covered only a few hundred
people anyway—at a time when 100,000 people applied for asylum in
the UK last year, on the Conservative watch—and that it would
have cost about twice as much per person as deciding cases in the
UK.
The truth is the Government have wasted not just one but five
years by failing to deal with the situation. Five years ago there
were just a few hundred people crossing in boats, but they let
criminal gangs take hold along the channel. They let asylum
decisions collapse, so the backlog soared and there are now 20%
more people in asylum hotels than there were when the Prime
Minister promised to end that.
Will the Home Secretary tell us how much in total the Government
have spent on the failed Rwanda plan so far? The House has a
right to know. He says he wants a new treaty. How much more will
that cost? Despite his optimism, the Supreme Court judgment
says
“the Rwandan government indicated that the contemplated
arrangements might not be straightforward to implement in
practice…the provision of resources does not mean that the
problems which we have described can be resolved in the short
term.”
Again, we have more of the magical thinking.
What does this mean for the Prime Minister’s flagship
legislation? He boasted about passing it only yesterday, but the
Government have not actually commenced the central clauses of the
law, because without Rwanda—and, frankly, even with Rwanda—the
policy does not work and will just lead to an endless,
ever-increasing permanent backlog. Will the Secretary of State
confirm now that he will not be implementing the central tenets
of that law this year? Will he also confirm that this means that
the Prime Minister’s pledges to introduce the new law to stop the
boats and end hotel use will all be broken this year?
Why will the Home Secretary not put that money into a proper plan
to tackle the boats? I do not believe that he ever believed in
the Rwanda plan. He distanced himself from it and his
predecessor’s language on it. He may even, on occasion, have
privately called it batshit. But he and I agree that we need
action to stop the boat crossings that are undermining border
security and putting lives at risk. We need a properly controlled
and managed system for asylum and refugees.
Let us concentrate instead on the things that can work. We
support the work with France along the northern coast; we want it
to go further. We support the work with Albania and with other
countries across Europe to tackle the gangs, but it is far, far
too weak. We need a proper, comprehensive and massively scaled-up
plan to go after the criminal gangs, a proper system to clear the
backlog, and a proper returns unit in place so that we can end
hotel use. Instead of that cost going up from £6 million to £8
million a day on his watch, let us end hotel use and save the
taxpayer £2 billion. That should be common ground, so I suggest
that he stops wasting taxpayers’ money on more failing schemes,
that he ditches the magical thinking and the culture wars of his
predecessors and that he ditches the gimmicks and finally gets a
grip.
One of the dangers of writing a critique of Government policy
before reading the facts laid out in a statement is that the
statement makes the critique obsolete. The right hon. Lady talks
about hotel usage, which I remind the House is coming down. She
talks about small boat arrivals in the UK, which I remind the
House are coming down. She talks about forming closer working
relationships with our European partners, which I remind the
House we are already doing.
In response to the right hon. Lady’s various questions, I have
written here, “Does Labour have a plan?” [Interruption.] If those
on the Labour Benches could curb their enthusiasm and listen to
what I was about to say next, they would hear that I was going to
concede that it is clear that they do have a plan. Their
plan—their great idea—is to do what the Government are already
doing, which is bucking the European trend. When other countries
are seeing 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% or 100% increases in their
illegal arrivals, we are seeing a reduction of one third in ours,
bucking the trend.
We have always said that Rwanda, and the deterrent effect of the
Rwanda plan, is an important tool in our toolbox; we have never
claimed that it was the only one. We have always pursued a range
of options—when I say “we”, I mean my right hon. Friend the
Immigration Minister, with me watching him from King Charles
Street, although the collective “we” is appropriate here—and, as
I set out in my statement, those activities are having an
effect.
My final point is that the mask has slipped. The glee that I
detect from those on the Opposition Benches for this temporary
setback on the delivery of our plan displays what we on the
Government Benches know to be true: they do not want migration
control to work. They do not want to take control of our borders;
they would rather delegate it to anybody else—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Home Secretary. I do not need those on
the Front Bench—[Interruption.] You may pull faces, but the
bottom line is that I want some quiet to hear what is being said.
Our constituents at home want to hear that as well, but when you
are chuntering so loudly, they cannot do so.
Indeed, Mr Speaker.
(Maidenhead) (Con)
May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position? The Home
Office is a great Department of State and I hope that he enjoys
his time there as much as I enjoyed my time as Home Secretary.
Will he confirm that the judgment that the Supreme Court made
today was not contingent on the European convention on human
rights? Indeed, the fundamental judgment was made regardless of
the ECHR.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and predecessor. She was a
fantastic and long-serving Home Secretary, and I intend to
compete with her on both of those metrics. She makes an
incredibly important point. We looked closely at the judgment and
found that it draws our attention to work that we can do, working
with our partners in Rwanda, to address the Supreme Court’s
concerns about people being returned to unsafe countries. That is
where we will address our focus, because that will be the pathway
to ensuring that Rwanda remains a key element of our basket of
responses to illegal migration.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
We on the SNP Benches were very glad to see the unanimous
decision of the Supreme Court today. It really is quite
ridiculous for the new Home Secretary to come to the House today
to tell us that his predecessor’s dream will never die. It has
gone. Give it up! Do something else instead! Before the
extremists on his own Benches start to blame the ECHR, the
Supreme Court judge, Lord Reed, was very clear that this is not
just about the ECHR, but about the refugee convention, the UN
convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, and the international covenant on civil
and political rights as well as our own domestic legislation.
The Supreme Court made it clear that Rwanda is not a safe
country. At the heart of the judgment today is the principle of
non-refoulement, which means that people must not be sent back
into harm’s way. The United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees provided compelling evidence of Rwanda doing so, even
after it signed the memorandum of understanding with the UK, as
well as in its earlier deal with Israel. The UNHCR pointed out
that it had rejected claims from countries such as Syria, Yemen
and Afghanistan. It is absolutely ludicrous that those claims
could be rejected. It also pointed to the lack of integrity in
Rwanda’s own systems. It is a serious problem and one that the
Home Secretary claims today that he wants to fix, but he should
focus his intentions instead on fixing the multiple failings of
his own Department.
What now for the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and for the people
who will now be left in immigration limbo without any recourse to
claiming asylum? This incompetent Tory Government cannot yeet
them back to Rwanda and they will not process their claims, so
what will happen to that group of people? The solution lies not
in puncturing the market in rubber dinghies, but in creating
functioning safe and legal routes. In the first half of the year,
the largest group in small boats were Afghans. That is proof
positive that the schemes that the Government claim exist are
just not working.
Many people make these dangerous journeys because they have no
other option. That remains the reality whoever the Home Secretary
is, so I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he will stop wasting
public money chasing fantasies. At least £1.4 million has been
spent just on the legal challenges, never mind the rest of this
incompetent scheme. When will he create a system that treats the
most vulnerable in the world with the dignity and respect that
they are due to rebuild their lives here in the UK?
The Immigration Minister has not even given Glasgow’s MPs the
meeting that he promised to discuss the people that the
Government are about to make homeless through their bulk
processing. If the Home Secretary will not take seriously his
responsibilities on immigration and on refugees, will he at least
allow Scotland to have the right to do so, because we want to
welcome people to our world?
On the hon. Lady’s final point, if Scotland, or rather the
Scottish Government—not the Scottish people—want to be more
generous in practical terms to people seeking refuge here, they
can do so. In my experience, they choose not to.
With regard to the work that we are doing, I made clear in my
statement the various work strands that we are doing in close
co-operation with countries around the world to address all
elements of the illegal migration pipeline, including
interrupting the logistics around this evil practice, and it is
working. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that many
other countries around Europe—countries that we have close
working relationships with—are seeing a significant increase in
their illegal arrivals, in stark contrast to the reductions we
are seeing in the UK.
The hon. Lady talked about a number of things, but ultimately I
am drawn to the remarks that the Court made about
refoulement:
“The structural changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate
that risk may be delivered in the future”.
That is exactly what we are seeking to address.
(Witham) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend and Essex neighbour to the great
position of Home Secretary, and wish him well in all his
endeavours on this incredibly difficult issue. He touched on the
Supreme Court’s decision and its comments on refoulement. Today’s
judgment was clear on that, but the issue is not new; it was
raised earlier this year in the Court of Appeal. If I may say so,
Ministers had the opportunity to address some of the practical
measures prior to today’s judgment. I urge the Home Secretary to
take every necessary step and measure to work with the Government
of Rwanda on the practical, operational delivery of the migration
and economic development partnership to give all those
assurances. That partnership is clearly integral to ensuring that
we break the business model and stop the evil trade of people
smuggling. Addressing that principle will go a long way towards
bringing in this essential deterrent in the illegal migration
battle.
My long-standing friend and predecessor is absolutely right. We
will break the people-smuggling gangs. We will undermine their
business model. We will pursue all the various workstreams that
my right hon. Friend will be familiar with from her time in this
fantastic office. In parallel, just as she suggests, we will
work—indeed, we are already working—to address the issues raised
by judges in the lower courts to ensure that we can prove what
they need to see, which is that we will remove the risk of
refoulement.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role. This
morning at the Home Affairs Committee, David Neal, the
independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told us
that the biggest challenge facing the Home Office is being
professional, maintaining objectivity, being fair and
understanding human rights. The inspector also said that what
keeps him up at night is the question of who is protecting our
borders and whether they are doing so to the best of our
collective abilities. Could the Home Secretary tell us whether
today’s ruling on Rwanda proves or disproves Mr Neal’s
concerns?
The Government are responsible for the protection of this
country, and it is a role and responsibility that we take
incredibly seriously. It is the primary function of Governments.
In this statement, and in the other statements I intend to make,
and which Ministers from the Department will make from the
Dispatch Box, we will show the House and the country that
Conservative Members take that responsibility incredibly
seriously, and we will take whatever action is necessary to
ensure the protection of the people and the borders of this
country. It would be helpful, frankly, if the Labour party would
break the habit seemingly of a lifetime and once in a while vote
to support the actions that we take.
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
As well as welcoming my right hon. Friend most warmly to this
post—a post in which his and my former London Assembly
constituents in Bexley and Bromley are massively proud to see
him—I congratulate him on the tone and manner of his statement.
It is right that, as a rule-of-law-abiding country, we respect
the decisions of the courts however they go. The Supreme Court
was asked a legal question and it gave a legal answer. Does he
agree that it is clear that the decision is essentially
fact-specific, applied to well-established legal principles, and
the solution is, first, to look at how those facts can be
rectified to make this compliant?
My long-standing friend and former south-east London
representative is absolutely right. Their lordships told us what
we need to do to address their concerns. We intend to do what
they said needs to be done. We will address their concerns,
operationalise this plan, break the business model, and stop the
boats.
(Exeter) (Lab)
Two per cent of those claiming asylum in this country are LGBTQI+
people fleeing countries where just being themselves can be a
death sentence. Does the Home Secretary agree with his
predecessor that they are pretending?
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know my views on things, he
can ask me for my views on things, rather than asking me to
comment on other people’s views.
(East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I welcome the new Home Secretary to his place and share his
disappointment at this morning’s judgment. As we have heard, the
Supreme Court focused on the principle of non-refoulement.
Hopefully that can be addressed in a new treaty. Perhaps it will
be made more robust if we can work jointly with other European
partners who have expressed an interest in a Rwanda-type scheme.
Why, however, was this not considered in the original Rwanda
treaty, and which Law Officer was responsible for giving legal
advice to the Home Office about how it might stand up to
challenge in the courts?
My hon. Friend knows that Government legal advice is for
informing the decision-making of Ministers. It is not appropriate
to discuss Government legal advice at the Dispatch Box, and we
will not do so—he knows that. We always prepare for a range of
eventualities, as I said in my statement. We recognised that this
was one of the decisions that might come from the Court. We
listened carefully to the statements made by the judges in the
lower courts, and we have already started to take action in
response to the concerns that they have raised.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
I, too, welcome the new Home Secretary to the Dispatch Box. He
has a difficult job, but it is in everyone’s interests that it be
done well. I also welcome the part of his statement in which he
said, “We are not going to put forward proposals simply to
manufacture an unnecessary row for short-term political gain.”
That much at least will be a refreshing change, but he should be
aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (), the deputy chairman of the
Conservative party, is reported as having told ITV that the Prime
Minister should “ignore the laws” following the Supreme Court’s
decision. Will the Home Secretary dissociate himself from those
comments?
This country prides itself on being a law-abiding country, so to
hear the Government’s position on things, listen to the
statements of Government Ministers. I have made it clear that we
respect the judgment. We listened carefully to the comments made
by their lordships and the lower courts. As I said, we are
already responding to the comments that they made to ensure that
the actions we take, when the Rwanda scheme is operationalised,
are in strict accordance with international law.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary explain to those of us who are not
experts in this area why it is that people who arrive illegally
on our shores from a safe nearby country cannot immediately be
returned to that safe nearby country? Clearly it would be in
breach of certain laws, so can he set out, perhaps in a
statement, what those laws might be?
Receiving countries have to consent. That is the nub of the
issue. That is why it is so important that Ministers in the
Department, particularly the Immigration Minister, have spent so
much time working with those countries from which we have
traditionally received illegal migration, including France and
others—most notably, in terms of the statistics, Albania, with
which we have developed an excellent working relationship. I will
claim a bit of credit here, because my right hon. Friend the
Immigration Minister and I formed something of a tag team with
the Government in Tirana, and we are seeing the success that
comes from pragmatic but determined relationships with European
partners and others. I pay tribute to the Immigration Minister
for that work.
Sir (Rhondda) (Lab)
I also warmly welcome the Home Secretary to his post, not least
because I know people in the Foreign Office who were rather sad
to see him go. However, let me try this question again: what does
he think about the 2% of people who claim asylum on the basis of
their sexuality because they face massive persecution and death
threats in their own country? Does he think they are pretending
to be lesbian, gay or bisexual? If he does, can he provide
evidence for that?
The hon. Gentleman will know that we cannot prove a negative.
That is a fallacy. I thank him for his kind words about my time
as Foreign Secretary; he will know, since he clearly has a mole
inside my old organisation, how passionately I pursued the rights
of LGBT people around the world, including having some very
difficult conversations where necessary. I absolutely want to
make sure that those people are protected, but we should also
recognise that bad people hide among good people and sometimes
people lie to take advantage of the good will of others.
It is nonsense to suggest that everybody who claims to be
suffering persecution because of their sexuality is lying, and I
would certainly never say that, but we need to ensure that people
are not attempting to abuse the process, as we do with any
process or system, because that limits our ability to help those
who genuinely are in need. I recognise that LGBT people do face
genuine persecution around the world, and we want to support and
help them.
(Torbay) (Con)
Much of the Supreme Court’s judgment today was encouraging, with
a high court endorsing yet again the principle of what we are
looking to do with Rwanda. As was touched on earlier, much of the
decision turned on the facts, particularly those relating to
refoulement—that is, the risk that those transferred to Rwanda
might be returned to a country where they would face persecution.
May I test my right hon. Friend on what work he is doing, looking
at the decision-making capability of the Home Office, to help
Rwanda to build up its own decision-making capability, and how
our judiciary might work with Rwanda’s judiciary to address some
of the Supreme Court’s points in that area?
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I meant to
say my hon. Friend, although he deserves to be my right hon.
Friend. I know that he did a lot of the work on this very
subject, and his question goes to the heart of how we
operationalise the Rwanda plan. Their lordships set out exactly
the point he raises about capacity building and professionalising
Rwanda’s system. I have had exchanges this morning with my
Rwandan opposite number, who I have met before. The Rwandans are
keen to build and strengthen their institutional structures, and
they see us as a key partner in achieving that. Together we will
work to operationalise this plan. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend
for the work he did on this very issue.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
The Supreme Court’s judgment has put paid to the lazy,
ill-informed argument that it is the European convention on human
rights, and only the European convention on human rights, that is
blocking this Government on asylum and immigration. This
Government have spent two years formulating a policy that has
proven incompatible with a multitude of international treaties to
which the UK is signed up and with numerous provisions of our
domestic law. The Supreme Court was very clear about that. My
question for the Home Secretary is this: when is he going to
explain to his Back Benchers that the UK Government’s response to
this judgment must be to produce a humane asylum policy that
works, not to try to overcome vital checks and balances of the
rule of law and human rights law that stymie bad policy decisions
and protect human rights?
Our immigration policies, as laid out in the figures I ran
through in my statement, are having the positive effect that we
committed to. We are bringing down small boat numbers, the need
for hotel places and so on. I said in my statement that their
lordships have set out the route to successfully operationalising
the Rwanda scheme, through addressing those concerns about
refoulement. We will focus on what we need to achieve to unlock
that. We recognise that this is a constant battle against
criminals and, as with all constant battles against criminals, we
focus on what is effective and right. Their lordships set out
exactly what that is, and that is what we will focus on.
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
I genuinely welcome my right hon. Friend to his place at the
Dispatch Box. Speaking softly and carrying a big stick is always
a very good way of behaving—no reference intended. I fully agree
with all his intentions and the direction of travel in which he
wants to go to settle this issue, in terms of proper organisation
such that concerns are dealt with in the courts. Does he not
agree that those who greet this judgment with glee need to
remember that people are dying in the channel trying to cross in
the boats?
Will the Home Secretary ask our right hon. and learned Friend the
Attorney General to come to the Dispatch Box in due course to
reflect on the judgment? It appears to me that it is much wider
than the migration judgment, because we are now linking directly
to applicability in UK law agreements that were made with the UN
that were never bound into UK law. Whether one wants it or not,
that widens the whole issue of what becomes justiciable, and I
would be grateful if she would come to the House at some point
and deal with that.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. My focus in this
role is making sure that the Department is highly effective in
protecting the British people and protecting our borders. This is
not about trying to look tough; it is about trying to deliver for
the British people, and that will be my relentless focus. My
right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General reminds me
that her advice, like that of all very good in-house lawyers, is
limited to the client, which is His Majesty’s Government.
However, I have no doubt I could persuade her to meet my right
hon. Friend on a private basis.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his new role. I am sure he would
want to join me in expressing gratitude to all those in our
public services who came here as refugees and make such a
fantastic contribution to our country. At the heart of this case
are a series of asylum seekers, one of whom I know has been
confirmed as a victim of trafficking. He has been stuck in an
asylum hotel since May 2022. As yet, the Government have not even
begun to look at his claim for asylum. Can the Home Secretary
tell us when his Department will begin to process the claims of
those people and get on with finding out whether they are illegal
asylum seekers? Or is he just going to continue with the charade
that he can make Rwanda workable?
I do not have the details of the individual case that the hon.
Lady raises, so I cannot comment on the specifics, but I remind
her and the House that, as part of the Prime Minister’s 10-point
plan, eliminating that historic backlog of case files was a
commitment. At the start of this process, the backlog stood at
91,000 cases; it has now been reduced to—
The Minister for Immigration ()
Fewer than 30,000.
Fewer than 30,000. So, we are delivering on our commitment to
work through that backlog of cases. It was one of the areas where
we made a commitment, we are delivering on it, and we will pursue
all the elements of our plan.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I urge colleagues to be brief in their questions so that
the Home Secretary can be brief in return. We have a very packed
agenda today and I want to make every effort to get everyone
in.
Sir (Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland) (Con)
I add my congratulations to the Home Secretary on his new role.
It seems to me that the key word is “time”. We cannot keep
relitigating this question to achieve what seems an ever-moving
target in what the courts want us to achieve. Our constituents
sent us here with a very clear message: sort the small boats
issue. Parliament has passed legislation to sort the issue. Can
my right hon. Friend be specific about the point at which the
attempts by the Government to recondition the agreement with
Rwanda into treaty form will have elapsed, and a
“notwithstanding” clause, of the kind that my hon. Friend the
Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has set out, will become the
only tool by which we can ensure that the will of this House
takes effect? We cannot allow this cycle to continue
indefinitely.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the House that I did just say “be brief.”
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s comments. We are
absolutely determined to maintain the deterrent effect of the
Rwanda scheme. To an extent, it is already demonstrating utility
by the fact that we know—anecdotally, so I will not
over-interpret these figures—that the fear of it as part of our
arsenal is already having a deterrent effect, which is exactly
what it was designed to do. National Governments cannot just vote
themselves out of international commitments. I recognise, as a
former Foreign Secretary, that they are incredibly powerful tools
as we try to do good around the wider world. I give my right hon.
Friend the commitment that we remain relentlessly focused on
ensuring that we continue to drive down the small boat crossings
using the full range of capabilities at our disposal.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
The Home Secretary and the Government are right to prioritise
ending illegal migration. By my count, he spoke six times in his
statement about having “a plan”; the only word he left out was
“cunning”, because his plans seem to be as workable, effective
and chaotic as Baldrick’s in “Blackadder”. That is no laughing
matter, because while the plans are not working, there is still
pressure on our infrastructure, there are still criminal gangs
profiting from people’s misery, and people who use legal routes
are being disadvantaged. Will the Home Secretary give us the
commitment that, if the European Court of Human Rights continues
to be a barrier to the will of this House, the Government will
take action and ignore the demands of that court?
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have a huge amount of
respect for him. One point that I took from the judgment today is
that it is not just about the ECHR. Their lordships set out a
number of international commitments that we have made, but they
also set out what we need to do to get the Rwanda plan up and
running. That is on a very specific legal point, which we are
already in the process of addressing.
I respectfully disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because
small boat arrivals are down, unlike almost everywhere else in
Europe, where they are significantly up. The use of hotel bed
spaces is down because of the arrangements that we have put in
place. The speed of processing has increased, and the volume of
processing of asylum claims has significantly increased. There
are always multiple strands to this plan, as set out in the 10
points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put forward,
and they are having the desired effect. We will just keep working
to deliver on our commitments.
(Ashford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the glories of our
parliamentary democracy is that Governments have to obey the law
in the same way that individual citizens and corporations do?
Does he also agree that those who look carefully at the judgment
and think that there is a simple solution, with one lever to
pull, will be disappointed?
I shall quote a very wise woman, Giorgia Meloni—who was herself
quoting an even wiser woman, Margaret Thatcher—by saying: this is
a constant battle. In that battle, both domestically and
internationally, one of our real strengths, as I saw as Foreign
Secretary on the international stage, is that when we speak and
demand that other countries abide by the rule of law, we are
taken seriously because of our posture on this issue. We will
continue to ensure that we abide by the rule of law while
simultaneously—we have proven that we can do both—delivering on
the commitments that we have made to driving down illegal
migration and stopping the boats.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his new position. One fifth of my
constituency casework relates to his Department, and it is a
catalogue of human misery. In just one example from the hundreds
that I could give, the claimant’s asylum application was made in
December 2020, their interview was in November 2022, and they are
still waiting for a decision. The claimant has two young children
and has twice attempted suicide. That all comes at huge cost to
them, the NHS and the police. Will the Home Secretary get a grip,
stop the “magical thinking” and just fix his Department and the
asylum process?
I completely sympathise with the frustration that the hon. Lady’s
constituent must feel, which is reflected in the frustration that
I detect in the question. I remind her and the House that we
never claimed that the Rwanda deal was the totality of our
response to this issue. We made a commitment to increase the
speed of decision making and to drive down the backlog, and we
have demonstrably done that.
(Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con)
My constituents are disappointed by the judgment, but will be
heartened by the Government’s commitment to stop the boats. As
the Government threaten to take over RAF Scampton, my
constituents are impatient and want the boats stopped as soon as
possible. I understand that the Home Secretary’s plan is to
upgrade the treaty with Rwanda. How long will that take, could it
be subject to legal challenges, and if so, how long could those
legal challenges take?
I am not able to give certainty on timelines—I wish that I
was—but my hon. Friend will know that I have a constituency
interest in getting this right, as RAF Wethersfield in my
constituency is being used as an asylum centre. In my
conversations with the Minister for Immigration, in a
constituency capacity, we discussed the need to drive down the
demand for accommodation, be it at Scampton, Wethersfield or
anywhere else. The best way of closing down Wethersfield and not
needing Scampton is to stop the boats—[Interruption.] We are
relentlessly focused on doing so, as my right hon. Friend the
Member for Gainsborough ( ) understands, for all the
reasons that I have set out.
(Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his position, and I welcome the
court judgment this morning. I noticed in the Home Secretary’s
statement a complete lack of empathy as to why people seek asylum
in the first place—why people risk all, risk their lives, risk
everything, to try to cross a dangerous channel to get to what
they hope will be a place of safety. He is right to confirm that
there is a massive global rise in the number of refugees. Should
all Governments not work together to address the causes of
that—poverty, wars, human rights abuses and all of those issues?
Will he confirm that this country will not walk away from the
important—although not perfect—advances made over the past
decades by the European Court of Human Rights in improving human
rights across Europe, including in this country?
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to refer back to my previous
role as Foreign Secretary. I can assure him and the House that a
huge part of the work that is done by the Foreign, Commonwealth
and Development Office is on exactly those issues: addressing
climate change so that rural farmers in the developing world have
crops that they can grow, sell and eat, and reducing the risk of
conflict and persecution. We are addressing those drivers, but I
have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the idea that we can
somehow uninvent illegal migration is naive beyond belief. We
also have to address the fact that people are abused by
criminals: they are used as a product to smuggle, and we have to
break the business model of the people smugglers, as well as
address the issues that drive people away from the countries from
which they originate.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
I add my voice to the general welcome to my right hon. Friend. He
has told the House that his Department had anticipated the
decision of the Supreme Court that was announced today. That
being the case, can he tell the House whether he has made an
assessment of whether legislation will be necessary to remedy the
problems that have been identified? If so, when does he
anticipate being in a position to introduce that legislation?
I can assure my right hon. Friend that as a thoughtful and
proactive Department, the Home Office looked seriously at the
range of potential outcomes from the judgment. I cannot claim
credit for that work, because much of it was done before my
arrival. We have already set in place the work to turn the
memorandum of understanding into a treaty, thereby addressing
some of the concerns of their lordships, and the Prime Minister
and I have both made it clear that if there needs to be domestic
legislative work to ensure that we resolve this, we are unafraid
of putting legislation forward.
(Eltham) (Lab)
I know from my recent visit to Colfe’s School that they will
welcome their former pupil to his new role, as I do. I urge him
to resist calls from people on his own Benches to remove us from
the European convention on human rights. If we were outside that
convention, a serious criminal or someone who means us harm—such
as a terrorist, or someone suspected of terrorism—who seeks to
hide overseas could legitimately claim that their human rights
could be violated if they were extradited back to the UK. How is
that taking back control of our borders?
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will take the opportunity to go
back to my old school and get their congratulations directly at
some point. Of course, I will let the hon. Gentleman know that I
will be treading on his hallowed turf.
The hon. Gentleman invites me to be distracted, but I refuse to
be distracted: I will focus on what we need to do to achieve this
policy. In their judgment, their lordships set out the route to
operationalising the Rwanda plan, and I will focus on what they
have told us will resolve the sticking points. There was much in
the judgment to be welcomed, including all the elements about the
fundamental soundness of the policy. We will focus on the thing
that will unlock the operationalisation of the plan.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
How long will the Rwanda treaty take to get through? How long
will it take to have the court case and the judgment, and have
the whole thing crawled over again by human rights lawyers?
Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend is a victim of our failure to
stop the boats: he has Wethersfield in his constituency, as I
have RAF Scampton in mine. He is a thoroughly nice chap, and I
think that he feels my pain. Therefore, once the court case over
Scampton is decided in the next week or two, whatever the result,
will he meet me so that we can work together to get up to £300
million-worth of levelling up at Scampton?
I am always delighted to meet my right hon. Friend. He will know,
of course, that I am now in a position where I have to be careful
about the commitments I make, certainly about RAF Wethersfield. I
do not intend to abuse my position as Home Secretary, but I am
absolutely committed to driving down the need for RAF Scampton
and RAF Wethersfield, just as we have driven down the need for
hotel accommodation. I am absolutely committed to that, but of
course I will meet my right hon. Friend.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
We need to speed up if we are to get everybody in.
(Belfast South) (SDLP)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to his new role. The UK is
absolutely entitled to create bespoke policy, and he referred to
his constructive work with Albania, but does he understand—unlike
his predecessor—that policy must be compatible with facts and the
law, and that it should focus on the chaotic processing he has
inherited and on funding the public services that he says are
under pressure? Can I confirm that he acknowledges that the ECHR
is a fundamental cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement, and
that abandoning it would not be compatible with the Government’s
commitment to Northern Ireland?
Once again, the hon. Lady is asking me to comment on something in
parallel to the things that I have set out. My commitment to her
and the House is that we will focus on the things that will
unlock this strand of our work. I cannot give her—or indeed
anyone else in the House—guarantees about timescales, but we are
already being effective on processing, on driving down the need
for hotel accommodation and on speeding up decision making. All
those things are part of the basket of activities that are
helping us be a positive outlier compared with our European
partners.
(Stone) (Con)
There is a lot of tinkering going on here, but the real problem
is parliamentary sovereignty. The rule of law, which my right
hon. Friend referred to, is at the heart of this issue. If the
law is clear and express, and uses a “notwithstanding” provision,
as I proposed in an amendment a few years ago, it will deal with
all these matters. If I may make a further point before the
Attorney General jumps in, if we get the law right, we can then
deal with what is effectively an international problem, while
distinguishing between economic illegal migrants and proper
refugees.
I would caution the House against grasping for silver-bullet
solutions. Sometimes, the most effective Government policy is
just focus and graft. I assure the House that the Home Office,
and the Ministers and officials within it, will be relentlessly
focused on the daily work that needs to be done to address this
issue. Of course we will look at what changes we need to make to
operationalise the Rwanda scheme, but I urge people against
grasping for silver-bullet solutions, which are rarely
effective.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
The Rwanda scheme is callous, inhumane and ineffective; one might
say the same about the former Home Secretary. That is why I
welcome the new Home Secretary to his post, on the grounds that
he could not possibly be any worse. I hope that he will consider
the ethical dimension of this issue, since the Court has just
ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country. Even if he does not,
does he not agree that the scheme is simply not workable? It is
not a good use of money, and it will take a huge amount of effort
to get to a place where anyone is sent to Rwanda. Are there not
much better ways of pursuing this issue and destroying the small
boats model?
Again, it is easy to criticise—it is easy to criticise
ineffectually. Sadly, that is what I hear from Opposition Members
far too often: no credible alternatives, just criticism. The
point is that we are pursuing a number of workstreams that are
already proving effective, which is why our numbers are going
down at a time when all our European partners are seeing illegal
arrivals go up. We will continue working on multiple strands and
we will continue pursuing the Rwanda plan. When Labour Members
finally decide to vote for something rather than against
something, we will listen, but that day has not happened yet, and
I do not expect it to happen any time soon.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
We must be briefer.
(Ruislip, Northwood and
Pinner) (Con)
I warmly welcome the tone and content of my right hon. Friend’s
statement. Does he agree that in addition to the commitment to
the ECHR, which is very much treasured by the settled refugee
communities in my constituency, this is an opportunity to
reinvigorate the work with France that has done so much to bear
down on the number of small boat crossings in the way he has
described?
I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we are doing extensive
work with France—I once again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend
the Immigration Minister—and it is working. This is the point: it
is working, and therefore we will continue to pursue it.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
Will the Home Secretary please answer the question from my hon.
Friend the Member for Glasgow Central ()? When are Glasgow MPs
going to get a meeting with the Home Office to discuss those
successful refugees who have been granted status? More widely,
what discussions is he having with local authorities across the
UK on rehousing successful refugees?
My understanding is that officials from my Department meet
regularly on these issues. If there are specific cases, the hon.
Member should please bring them to my attention.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place, and I welcome his
comments on the unfairness of illegal immigration for those who
have come here legally. However, the Supreme Court’s verdict this
morning is extreme comprehensive, and it reveals not just one
obstacle, but multiple obstacles to deporting people from this
country. If we want to deter the small boats, we need to be able
to remove significant numbers of people extremely quickly. Given
the comprehensive nature of the judgment this morning, can I
encourage my right hon. Friend against an incremental approach?
It is clear from the ruling that we need to do something stronger
now. We chose in the Illegal Migration Act not to include
“notwithstanding” provisions, but I think we do need them
now.
I hear the point my hon. Friend makes about a powerful
deterrent—we are absolutely committed to that—but I do say again
that, in circumstances as challenging as this, there are rarely
silver-bullet solutions. In my whole time in government and in
politics, I have never yet come across one. We have to pursue all
our lines of effort, and I give him my assurance that we will
continue to do so.
(Arfon) (PC)
Would the money wasted on the Rwanda plan not have been more
usefully spent on massively improving the application process to
reduce illegal immigration and on establishing safe and legal
routes to reduce the number of small boats?
I am wondering whether the microphones are working. There has
been a tenfold increase in the pace of asylum processing this
last year. We are increasing it. The things are not mutually
exclusive; we are doing all of them.
(Gloucester) (Con)
It is great to have the Home Secretary in his new role, and to
hear his confirmation that small boat arrivals are down not just
by a fifth, but now by a third, and that he will find a treaty to
resolve the remaining legal issues on the Rwanda deal. Will my
right hon. Friend also encourage his officials to share the data
on asylum applications that are over a year old with Members of
Parliament, so that with our local councils we can prepare
housing solutions in advance?
I will absolutely take that idea on board. We want to do
everything we can to make sure that this process is as quick and
as smooth as possible.
(Livingston) (SNP)
The European convention on human rights was developed to ensure
that Governments would never again dehumanise people and abuse
their rights with impunity. So can the Secretary of State tell
us: does the threat of revisiting international relationships
really mean that his Government are ready to unpick our
international relationships and treaties, including the ECHR, so
that they can demonise with impunity those fleeing persecution
and conflict? We say “never again”.
Members have asked me the same question over and over again. I
hate doing this, but I will refer the hon. Lady to the answer I
gave some moments ago.
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role, and I agree with
him that today we saw the Opposition mask slip. They have no wish
to tackle this issue, and that is not surprising when their
policy is to pass the numbers decision to the Leader of the
Opposition’s mothership in Brussels. My constituents are
absolutely fed up. Will my right hon. Friend speak directly to
them, and address their concerns by saying that nothing will be
off the table to get this sorted quickly?
The Opposition are devoid of ideas. They criticise, but they put
nothing forward. Their best plan is to list things that we are
already doing, but object to other things that we are going to
add to that basket of tools. That is why I can reassure my hon.
Friend and her constituents that we, unlike them, will remain
focused on serving the British people and stopping the boats.
(North Down) (Alliance)
To go back to the European convention on human rights, because
the Home Secretary has not been clear on this point, does he
recognise that if the UK was to renounce the convention or tamper
with it, that would undermine the Good Friday agreement,
particularly around human rights and policing and justice;
undermine the policing and justice co-operation aspect of the
trade and co-operation agreement; and leave the UK in the company
of Belarus and Russia?
I am well aware of the implications of the European Court of
Human Rights. I keep being invited to comment on something other
than the text of my statement. I have made the Government’s
position clear: we are focusing our attention on what we believe
will unlock this important strand of a multi-strand approach to
illegal migration.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Home Secretary will agree that the control of our borders is
a defining issue for millions of people, so when the Prime
Minister says that
“if necessary I am prepared to revisit our domestic legal
frameworks”,
could we sharpen that up a bit to say that we will revisit our
domestic legal framework, and will do so on multiple fronts in a
timely way?
We are focused on delivering for the British people and
delivering quickly. As I say, we have always had a multi-strand
approach, and we will make sure that the domestic legislative
framework is fit for purpose and that we can deliver on our
commitment to stopping the boats.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
When and how will the Home Secretary know that his treaties and
legislative changes are giving the Court the certainty that it
demands? Will he proactively go to the Court for a fresh ruling,
or will he wait for third-party challenges and for the litigation
merry-go-round to continue?
I am not going to set out all the plans for how we will put this
in place. We have already started the process for turning the MOU
into a treaty. We are focused on addressing the specific issues
raised by their lordships.
(Don Valley) (Con)
In addition to voting against the Government 70 times on stopping
the boats, the Opposition speak about natural dispersal when
dealing with economic migrants. This means they often end up in
Doncaster, where property is cheaper, rather than in the leafy
suburbs of the liberal elites, but Doncaster is full. So will the
Home Secretary do everything he can to put through the Rwanda
treaty as soon as possible?
I welcome the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is often the
least well-off communities who feel the burden most heavily, and
it is our duty to them to address these issues. I give him that
commitment—on my recent trip to just outside his constituency, I
got his name wrong, for which I apologise—and I will do exactly
that.
(Glasgow North East)
(SNP)
This morning I met a British Palestinian woman called Wafia, who
told me that 30 members of her family have died in the last month
in Gaza. She told me about her cousins, who so far have survived
but are utterly traumatised and completely terrified. Should
those cousins and their children somehow make it to these shores,
albeit on the only route given to them by this Government—in
other words, the dangerous small boats crossings—is the Home
Secretary seriously telling me that he could look them in the eye
and tell them not only that they will they not be joining Wafia,
but that they will be going to Rwanda, which is his eventual
plan, and will never be reunited with what remains of their
family?
I am not going to be drawn into making comments on specific
individuals without knowing the circumstances; it would be
ridiculous for anyone in the House to try to do immigration
processing across the Dispatch Box like that. Of course I
recognise the pain and suffering that Palestinian people in Gaza
are experiencing—I have seen it. We have family reconciliation
schemes as part of our safe and legal routes, but I am not going
to make specific comments on individual cases, and the reason
will be obvious to anyone who gives it any thought.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to
know clearly and simply whether the Home Secretary, as well as
looking at our legal framework here in the United Kingdom, will
be willing to disapply international treaties and conventions
such as the ECHR and the refugee convention in order to take back
control of our borders—yes or no?
I do not believe those things are necessary, but the point is
that we remain focused on what we need to do. As I have said a
number of times, there are no silver bullets. This requires
constant work, constant vigilance and constant effort, and I give
a commitment to my hon. Friend, and to the whole House, that that
is exactly what we will continue to do.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
According to the Home Office’s own figures, it will cost £63,000
more to transport a vulnerable human being to Rwanda than to let
them stay in the UK. So if the Government wanted to scrap this
unlawful, inhumane and cruel policy, how much money would it save
taxpayers?
I do not agree. I do not agree with those numbers
because—[Interruption.] No, I do not agree with the hon. Member’s
interpretation of those numbers because, ultimately, that fails
to take into consideration the cost to human lives of not
deterring people, of putting their lives into the hands of
criminals, and of putting their lives at risk on the open seas in
small, dangerous dinghies. He should be conscious that deterring
this evil trade is a human good and something we should pursue. I
am amazed that he looks at it purely in pounds, shillings and
pence, not in the cost to human life.
Mr (Old Bexley and Sidcup)
(Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is classic Labour double
standards when Labour Members appear to support the United
Nations sending people to Rwanda but do not support the British
Government doing the same?
A friend of every country except their own, I think.
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
The Home Secretary is clearly under a lot of pressure from his
Back Benchers on this, but may I remind him that the ECHR is
entwined throughout many years of devolved Parliament
legislation, and indeed Scottish case law? What assurances can he
give that his Government will not attempt to weaken or change the
ECHR without consent from the devolved Administrations?
With regard to amendments, when I was Foreign Secretary I made
the point that if we want to preserve institutions, they need to
evolve. Nothing should be caught in aspic or frozen in amber.
Ultimately, once again, the hon. Lady asks me to be distracted
from our core effort, which is delivering on our multi-strand
approach to tackling illegal migration, and I refuse to do
so.
(Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post, and the
clear determination he has shown to stopping the boats. However,
speed is the metric by which our constituents will judge us. Once
the dust has settled on the judgment and it is clear whether we
need a “notwithstanding” provision or other legislation, will he
bring that to this House with the same speed that we brought
through things such as the Coronavirus Act 2020, so that we can
shut down the evil trade of people smuggling?
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and my commitment, which
is echoed by the Prime Minister, is that we will look at our
domestic legislative framework and take action. We have passed
one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation and we are
unafraid to do so. This is core to the lives of the British
people and their confidence in the security of their country, and
it is core to our mission as a Government.
(Cumbernauld, Kilsyth
and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
What the Home Secretary is ultimately arguing for is a system
whereby rich western countries get to pack off asylum seekers and
refugees to poorer countries that already bear a vastly
disproportionate share of responsibility for sheltering refugees
around the world. There is zero evidence that that will work, and
an abundance of evidence of the harm it does to the individuals
caught up in it. Is it not the case that this is not just
illegal, but immoral and impracticable?
So what would the hon. Gentleman do? Would he say that every
person in the world—[Interruption.] The world is a big place, and
there are lots of people in it. Is he credibly saying that
anybody choosing to come here by any means, including through the
hands of evil criminals, should automatically have the right to
stay? It is an untenable position. We are addressing poverty and
conflict in the developing world. We are addressing climate
change, which is affecting farmers in the developing world. We
are doing all those things, but we are also discharging our duty
to the British people to protect their borders. If he does not
feel that that is a function of Government, then he is wrong.
(Ipswich) (Con)
I first raised this issue in this place on 18 May 2020. The
Rwanda scheme was stuck in the courts for 18 months. Enough is
enough. Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the tools in
his basket needs to be a deterrent that is robust, and that
timescales matter? I have had enough, and all of my constituents
have had enough. This is a matter of critical importance. Does
the Home Secretary agree?
I remind my hon. Friend that we are already seeing success, and
that success is accelerating because of the measures we have put
in place. He is right to say that we need a deterrent for people
making those dangerous crossings, and a deterrent for the illegal
criminals. We are determined to deliver that, and we will do so
in the face of the Opposition, who are desperately trying to
prevent us from doing so.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
I very much hope that the measures my right hon. Friend has set
out will allow us to deliver the Rwanda plan as soon as possible.
Will he also look—I have asked for this on a number of
occasions—at other third countries that we could form
partnerships with, to deliver more processing overseas in a
number of those locations?
I assure my hon. Friend that in addition to the conversations
with Rwanda, which are well progressed, we are having similar
conversations with a number of other countries. Indeed, our
policy is now being adopted in large part by a number of other
European countries whose circumstances are considerably worse
than ours. We are absolutely leading the field on this issue.
(Southend West) (Con)
I warmly welcome my fellow Essex colleague to his place and wish
him every success. I welcome his commitment to a tough but fair
policy on immigration. The people of Southend are particularly
concerned that if we do not resolve the issue of illegal
migration, we are preventing people who have served our country
from coming here legally to safety. Does he agree?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and a number of people have
mentioned the humanity of this. It should be the elected
Government of a country who decide who can and cannot come to
that country; it should not be criminals, smugglers or people who
prey on the weak. That would be the by-product of a failure to
address the issue, and that is what we see from the Opposition—a
complete vacuum where policy should live. That vacuum encourages
illegality and criminality, and that is what we are seeking to
address.
(Bassetlaw) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his place and thank him for the
outstanding job he did in his previous brief. Rwanda is a country
that we do business with, a country with a thriving economy, and
a country that the Leader of the Opposition’s football team even
promotes as a tourist destination. Bearing that in mind, will the
Government consider whether it may be appropriate to add Rwanda
to the list of safe countries?
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and one of the few things that
the former Leader of the Opposition and I share is a passion for
Arsenal football club. Rwanda is a country that is developing
fast, and it is a close partner. They listen carefully when we
talk to and work with them, and I have no doubt that working
closely with them we will bring this scheme into operation, and
put forward the deterrent that will be a really important strand
of our multi-strand approach to illegal migration.
(Blackpool South) (Ind)
Although I welcome the steady progress being made to close asylum
hotels, I am extremely disappointed that the Metropole in
Blackpool is yet to be vacated. That hotel is located in the
poorest ward in the entire country bar none, and the pressure on
my local community and public services is immense. Is the Home
Secretary able to assure me that in the next batch of hotel
closures, socio-economic conditions will be taken into account,
and that the Metropole will finally be closed?
I listened careful to my hon. Friend’s point, and he reinforces
the issue that I think is key: it is very easy for people to be
generous of spirit when someone else is bearing the burden. The
people in his constituency and the immediate neighbourhood of the
Metropole hotel are, as he said, not wealthy people, yet they are
the ones disproportionately bearing the brunt of illegal
migration. That is why we are committed to helping them, and
other people like them across the country, by getting a grip of
this evil trade and stopping the boats.
|
