The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement
about the Government’s plan to stop the boats and tackle the vile
trade in people smuggled across the channel. Three weeks ago, the
Supreme Court handed down its judgment on this Government’s
migration and economic development agreement with Rwanda. In that
judgment their lordships upheld the view of the High Court and the
Court of Appeal that...Request free
trial
The Secretary of State for the Home Department ()
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement
about the Government’s plan to stop the boats and tackle the vile
trade in people smuggled across the channel.
Three weeks ago, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment on
this Government’s migration and economic development agreement
with Rwanda. In that judgment their lordships upheld the view of
the High Court and the Court of Appeal that it is lawful to
relocate illegal migrants, who have no right to be here, to
another safe country for asylum processing and resettlement, but
upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which means that the
Government cannot yet lawfully remove people to Rwanda. That was
due to the Court’s concerns that relocated individuals might be
“refouled”—removed to a country where they could face persecution
or ill treatment. We did not agree with that assessment, but of
course we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also acknowledged that its concerns were not
immutable and were not an aspersion on Rwanda’s intentions, and
that changes may be delivered in the future that could address
its concerns. Today I can inform the House that those concerns
have been conclusively answered and those changes made, as a
result of intensive diplomacy by the Prime Minister, by the
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, by the Attorney
General’s Office and by the Home Office. We have created a
situation that addresses the concerns.
Our rule of law partnership with Rwanda sets out in a legally
binding international treaty the obligations on both the United
Kingdom and Rwanda within international law, and sets out to this
House and to the courts why Rwanda is and will remain a safe
country for the purposes of asylum and resettlement. This is a
partnership to which we and Rwanda are completely committed.
Rwanda is a safe and prosperous country. It is a vital partner
for the UK. Our treaty puts beyond legal doubt the safety of
Rwanda and ends the endless merry-go-round of legal challenges
that have thus far frustrated this policy and second-guessed the
will of Parliament. I want to put on record my gratitude to
President Kagame, Foreign Minister Biruta and the Rwandan
Government for working with us at pace to do what it takes to get
this deal up and running with flights taking off as soon as
possible.
Rwanda will introduce a strengthened end-to-end asylum system,
which will include a new specialist asylum appeals tribunal to
consider individual appeals against any refused claims. It will
have one Rwandan and one other Commonwealth co-president and be
made up of judges from a mix of nations selected by those
co-presidents. We have been working with Rwanda to build capacity
and to make it clear to those relocated to Rwanda that they will
not be sent to another third country.
The treaty is binding in international law. It also enhances the
role of the independent monitoring committee, which will ensure
adherence to obligations under the treaty and have the power to
set its own priority areas for monitoring. It will be given
unfettered access to complete assessments and reports and to
monitor the entire relocation process, from initial screening to
relocation and settlement in Rwanda. It will also develop a
system to enable relocated individuals and legal representatives
to lodge confidential complaints directly with the committee.
But, given the Supreme Court judgment, we cannot be confident
that the courts will respect a new treaty on its own, so today
the Government have published emergency legislation to make it
unambiguously clear that Rwanda is a safe country and to prevent
the courts from second-guessing Parliament’s will. We will
introduce that legislation tomorrow in the form of the Safety of
Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, to give effect to the
judgment of Parliament that Rwanda is a safe country,
notwithstanding UK law or any interpretation of international
law.
For the purposes of the Bill, a safe country is defined as one to
which people may be removed from the United Kingdom in compliance
with all the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law
that are relevant to the treatment in that country of people who
are removed there. This means that someone removed to that
country will not be removed or sent to another country in
contravention of any international law, and that anyone who is
seeking asylum or who has had an asylum determination will have
their claim determined and be treated in accordance with that
country’s obligations under international law.
Anyone removed to Rwanda under the provisions of the treaty will
not be removed from Rwanda, except to the United Kingdom in a
very small number of limited and extreme circumstances, and
should the UK request the return of any relocated person, Rwanda
will make them available. Decision makers, including the Home
Secretary, immigration officers and the courts, must all treat
Rwanda as a safe country, and they must do so notwithstanding all
relevant UK law or any interpretation of international law,
including the human rights convention; the refugee convention;
the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights;
the 1984 UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment; the Council of Europe
convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which
was signed in Warsaw on 16 May 2005; customary international law;
and any other international law, or convention or rule of
international law, whatsoever, including any order, judgment,
decision or measure of the European Court of Human Rights.
Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim
measure relating to the intended removal of someone to Rwanda
under, or purportedly under, a provision of immigration Acts, a
Minister of the Crown alone, and not a court or tribunal, will
decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim
measure. To further prevent individual claims to prevent removal,
the Bill disapplies the relevant provisions of the Human Rights
Act 1998, including sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The Bill is
lawful, it is fair and it is necessary, because people will stop
coming here illegally only when they know that they cannot stay
here and that they will be detained and quickly removed to a safe
third country. It is only by breaking the cycle and delivering a
deterrent that we will remove the incentive for people to be
smuggled here and stop the boats.
This legislation builds on the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which
the House passed this summer, and complements the basket of other
measures that the UK Government are employing to end illegal
migration—for example, the largest ever small boats deal with
France. Tackling the supply of boats and parts, the arrest and
conviction of people smugglers, and illegal working raids have
all helped to drive down small boat arrivals by more than a third
this year, even as the numbers are rising elsewhere in
Europe.
Parliament and the public alike support the Rwanda plan. Other
countries have since copied our plans with Rwanda, and we know
from interviews that the prospect of being relocated out of the
UK has already had a deterrent effect. This will be considerably
magnified when we get the flights to Rwanda. This treaty and this
new Bill will help to make that a reality, and I commend this
statement to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
The usual rule applies: only those who have been here for the
statement should stand to ask a question. I call the shadow Home
Secretary.
6.18pm
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the
statement.
There is total chaos in the Government and the Conservative
party. These are the desperate dying days of a party ripping
itself apart. It is clearly totally out of ideas and has lost any
sense of leadership or direction. We have the Home Secretary
making a statement, but there are rumours that the Immigration
Minister has resigned. Where is he? Perhaps the Home Secretary
could make that the first question he answers: does he still have
an Immigration Minister in place? The Conservatives have open
warfare on their Back Benches, the starting gun has been fired on
the next leadership election and, once again, the whole country
is paying the price for this chaos.
This is the third Home Secretary to go to Rwanda with a cheque
book and come back waving a piece of paper making grand promises.
This is the third piece of new Tory legislation on channel
crossings in two years. Each time, they have told us that new
laws would stop all the boat crossings and send everyone who
arrived to another country, but they had to partially revoke the
first law because it was making things worse and they have not
implemented the second one because they know it will not work.
Now, they are on their third new law. Forgive us for not
believing that this one is going to solve anything, either.
The previous Home Secretary seems to agree with us, because she
is already saying tonight that the Bill is “fatally flawed” and
that it will not stop the boats. One side of the Conservative
party is warning that it does not come close to meeting Suella’s
test; the other side is appalled that the Home Secretary, who
used to wander round the world promoting international law, just
boasted in his statement about a new British Bill that tells the
courts not just to ignore international law, but to ignore the
facts. What kind of party have they become?
What of the view from No. 10? The Prime Minister has just met his
Back Benchers, and the official briefing from that meeting says
that he has told MPs that the Government have gone as far as
possible, but Rwanda did not want to be part of anything that
broke or disapplied international law. The statement from the
Rwandan Government says:
“Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to
continue with the Migration and Economic Development
Partnership.”
You could not make this up!
Our Supreme Court says that the Rwanda scheme is a problem
because of evidence that Rwanda is not complying with
international treaties on the treatment of asylum seekers, but
the only thing stopping the British Government ignoring
international law completely is the Rwandan Government. It is the
Rwandan Government keeping us on the straight and narrow. The
Prime Minister is too scared to defend a policy in its own terms
and too scared to tell his Back Benchers what he really
thinks—too scared to take a view. Instead, he is hiding behind
President Kagame. Weak, weak, weak. He does not deserve to be
running the country if he cannot even sort out the issues and the
divisions on his flagship policy in his own party.
And all of this for what? For a scheme that will likely cover
less than 1% of the people who arrive in this country to claim
asylum and will cost hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’
money. Will the Home Secretary tell us about the cost? In 2022,
the UK taxpayer paid Rwanda £140 million, but the permanent
secretary has said that there are additional payments each year.
Will the Home Secretary tell us, on top of that £140 million, how
much more has already been sent as an additional payment this
year? Is there a secret commitment to make annual payments under
the migration and economic development partnership even if no
asylum seekers are sent to Rwanda? Will he confirm that the
British taxpayer will also have to pay additional millions to
sort out the problems in the Rwandan asylum system, even though
the Government are totally failing to sort out the problems and
delays in the British asylum system, which the Conservatives
broke? Will he also confirm that the UK is paying costs for
people sent to Rwanda for five years? Will he tell us how much
that will cost? Will he confirm that it will be at least twice as
much as dealing with those cases here? Will he also tell us,
instead of trying to hide the information, the total sum that he
will be paying to Rwanda?
Will the Home Secretary tell us how many people are going to be
covered? The treaty says that it is limited by capacity in
Rwanda, and the Court of Appeal said that it would be 100 people
and that talk of thousands of people was “political hyperbole”.
Will he now admit that even if he ever gets this failing scheme
off the ground, it will cover less than 1% of the people who
applied for asylum last year? Will he tell us how many Rwandan
refugees the UK is going to take, and who is going to pay for
them?
The Home Secretary has a treaty and a law that he knows will not
stop dangerous boat crossings. We should be taking action to stop
those crossings, to go after the criminal gangs and to clear the
asylum backlog, and he knows that Labour’s plan to set up a new
cross-border unit would have far more effect than the things that
he has been talking about today. He says Rwanda is not the
“be-all and end-all”, but his Back Benchers think it is do or
die—that is why he is in so much chaos. He thinks—he has said it
privately—that this whole thing is “batshit”. That is nothing on
what he has had to swallow to come forward and make this
statement today.
This is total chaos. The Government are arguing about full-fat,
semi-skimmed or skimmed options—it is a full-on milk war in the
Tory party, which sums up this failing Government. They cannot
solve their own Tory boats crisis. They cannot defend our border
security. They cannot solve their broken asylum system, and they
cannot hold their party together. They do not deserve to run the
country. Britain deserves better than this.
Hon. Members
More!
The calls for more from the right hon. Lady’s own Back Benchers
are well placed. I was hoping that she would speak for longer, so
that she would eventually get around to giving us some comments
about the Bill, or the policy, or giving us some clue about what
on earth Labour would do.
It is quite interesting that, once again, we see the mask slip on
the Opposition Benches. The right hon. Lady was critical about
the financial arrangement that goes hand in hand with the
agreement that we have come to with Rwanda. It is interesting
that hers is the same party that was very critical of this
Government when we were forced by circumstances to reduce our
official development assistance expenditure. I just want to
understand the Opposition’s thinking. They seem comfortable with
the idea that the UK gives away money to countries such as Rwanda
to help them develop, but they seem deeply uncomfortable when
those countries actually earn the money by bringing forward
reform. It is, I think, a rather distasteful state of affairs
that they would like to view Rwanda exclusively through the prism
of development and aid, but are deeply uncomfortable when a
country like Rwanda earns the money.
The simple truth is that Rwanda is making huge progress in
professionalising and strengthening its institutions, working
alongside the UK and other international partners. I believe that
we are duty-bound to support countries such as Rwanda when they
play their part in addressing the issues that the world is
facing. They are helping to resolve problems, rather than being
part of a problem, and they deserve our thanks for doing so.
We will pursue this legislation, which supports a treaty that
sees Rwanda strengthening its institutions and addressing some of
the world’s most intractable challenges, and we support it as it
is supporting us.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Can people please focus on asking a question and not making
statements, and please can we hear the questions and the answers
in silence? There is a lot of calling out on both sides of the
House.
(Witham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Clearly, he is
becoming incredibly familiar with the legal challenges that the
Government, the country and the nation face when it comes to
migration issues. Can he give us details of the assessments that
have been made as to whether the disapplication of the Human
Rights Act and other laws is robust, will stand up to the legal
challenges and, ultimately, will ensure the delivery and the
implementation of this policy to curb illegal migration?
The UK takes its international obligations incredibly seriously.
The Human Rights Act is, in part, being disapplied through this
legislation. We were, of course, one of the founding members of
the European Court of Human Rights and we regard it as an
important institution, but, like many post-war institutions, it
would benefit from evolution and updating. I made that position
clear when I was Foreign Secretary.
The point is that we want to make sure that a country, Rwanda,
which is working with us, strengthening its institutions and
seeking to do the right thing by both European refugees and
African refugees, is supported in doing so. We have a robust
legal system and a robust parliamentary system here in the UK; we
should have some more self-confidence in those systems and use
our experience to help capacity building in partner countries
such as Rwanda.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
When the permanent secretary came before the Home Affairs Select
Committee last week, he was unable to tell us how much is being
spent on the Rwanda deal because Ministers have decided to update
Parliament annually. Can the Home Secretary confirm today how
much additional money will be provided to Rwanda in the light of
the changes in the treaty, and whether he will update Parliament
more often than once a year? We are looking forward to seeing the
Immigration Minister at the Home Affairs Select Committee next
Wednesday to ask him further questions; if, for whatever reason,
he is not able to attend, will the Home Secretary attend in his
place?
Let me make it absolutely clear: we remain committed to our
promise to publish the costs of the scheme on an annual basis. To
make this absolutely clear to the House, too, the Rwandans asked
for no additional money in connection with this treaty. None was
asked for, none was offered and none was provided. We will update
the House in the way we have committed to and I have no doubt
that the Immigration Minister will come before the right hon.
Lady’s Committee as promised.
(Dover) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that he would not allow a foreign court
to block his Rwanda plans—meaning, of course, the European Court
of Human Rights—so can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
explain why article 11(4)(a) of the treaty expressly requires
Rwanda to enable migrants to make claims to that European
Court?
Throughout this plan, we have made it clear that we will remain
in conformity with international law. The European Court of Human
Rights does of course have an important role to play, but the
point we have made is that there are many countries that are in
disagreement with international courts, including the European
Court of Human Rights. We are determined to do the right thing to
deter the evil people smugglers, the slave traders, and those
people who would seek to abuse and take advantage of vulnerable
people, and to work with Rwanda, in conformity with international
law, but being clear that we are not going to be deterred from
acting promptly.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
Humpty Dumpty said, “When I use a word, it means just what I
choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Just by saying that
Rwanda is a safe country does not make it so. Legislating does
not make it so. The Home Secretary says that Rwanda is safe, yet
somehow his treaty says that we will accept asylum seekers from
Rwanda—from that safe country—so it is both safe and unsafe. He
says that he respects the assessment of the Supreme Court, but he
is here today to override it. His treaty says that they will not
remove children, but the treaty is full of provisions for what
happens when children do end up in Rwanda. He says that human
rights are important, but they are not there for everybody, and
he seeks to disapply them.
The Home Secretary comes here today while the Rwandan Minister
says:
“It has always been important to both Rwanda and the UK that our
rule of law partnership meets the highest standards of
international law, and it places obligations on both the UK and
Rwanda to act lawfully. Without lawful behaviour by the UK,
Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and
Economic Development Partnership.”
So if this deal does break international law and our treaty
obligations, the deal fails to exist. [Interruption.] The Home
Secretary says it does not, but it is not a matter in which they
can just overlook the human rights convention, the refugee
convention and all those other conventions and disapply them when
it suits. International law does not work that way.
This is an assault on human rights. We should not let this stand
from this House, because human rights are universal and they are
for everybody, not who the Home Secretary thinks they should
apply to. This Bill is a dangerous distraction; it is part of a
march towards fascism. Every single piece—[Interruption.] I do
not say that lightly, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not say these
things lightly. Does the Home Secretary believe that human rights
are universal or does he not? That is the key question on this
legislation, because we have been told, on every piece of
legislation we have passed so far, that it would be a deterrent,
yet none of them has worked. This illiberal, toxic piece of
legislation today is supposed to be a deterrent, when all the
others have failed.
The Home Secretary’s plans for Rwanda have been found to be
unlawful. They are immoral. They are a waste of money. They
should be scrapped. Scotland wants none of this—none of
this—appalling legislation.
It is a shame that the hon. Lady’s comments are clearly based on
what I can only assume is a cursory and superficial skim of the
legislation. She criticises it for a number of things that are
not in the legislation, so I will forgive her for the fact that
she did not take the time to read it properly. We are absolutely
committed to human rights. We were one of the founders of the
European Court of Human Rights and our commitment to abide by
international law is unwavering. It underpins the relationship we
have with Rwanda and I can assure her that it will remain at the
forefront of our thinking throughout. And she might reflect on
the appropriateness of throwing the word fascism around when we
are bringing forward a Bill on which every Member of this House
will be allowed to vote, because we are in a democracy.
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
The new Home Secretary will be aware and welcome the fact that he
will be gauged, indeed judged, on the effectiveness of this
legislation for weeks, months, years and perhaps even decades.
Will he confirm that the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to
resist individual challenges from those who might be sent to
Rwanda, and the interest groups and the deluded dodgy lawyers who
support them? In particular, will he speak specifically about the
disapplication of rule 39?
The right is for Ministers to decide on our response to a rule 39
application. That is in the Bill. My right hon. Friend is right
that this sets important precedents. The precedent we want to
establish is that the people who wish to live and work in this
country should do so through the numerous safe and legal routes
that we have established; that those people who put themselves in
the hands of evil, vile criminal gangs and people smugglers
should not expect to be here; but that we work with safe third
countries, such as Rwanda, to ensure that those people who are
removed from here still have their human rights respected and are
homed in a country that respects their human rights. That
underpins the Bill, that underpins the treaty that the Bill
supports, and that runs through the heart of all the actions and
decisions we will make in our response to illegal migration.
(Rochdale) (Lab)
The United States Department of State’s annual country report on
Rwanda says that among its human rights issues are unlawful
killing, arbitrary killing, cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment, and torture by the Rwandan Government. By what token
does the Home Secretary judge that Rwanda is a safe country?
Should he not, actually, hang his head in shame?
The Supreme Court, when it handed down its decision, focused on
two elements of the situation in Rwanda. One was about the
capacity of its judicial system, in particular with decisions on
refugees. We have worked with Rwanda to improve that situation.
The treaty underpins the fantastic work the Rwandans have done
with us and others to strengthen their institutions. The judgment
also spoke about the fear of refoulement, and the treaty will
ensure that that will not happen.
I was also struck that the Supreme Court, in its judgment, made
heavy reference to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees. The UNHCR was critical of Rwanda, and yet on the day
after the judgment was handed down by their lordships, it flew
160-plus refugees to Rwanda. I judge it by its actions, not
necessarily by its words. Rwanda has made huge progress with our
help and that of others, so it is now in a situation where it can
sign a treaty that protects refugees sent there. I am very
confident that that will be the case.
(North Somerset) (Con)
It is long overdue that we got to grips with the current levels
of both legal and illegal immigration in this country, and that
is what our voters expect us to do. I congratulate my right hon.
Friend on bringing proposals before us, unlike the intellectual
vacuum of the Labour party. Can we be clear that when it comes to
the boats crisis, the fault does not lie with those who try to
seek a better life for themselves and their families, but with
those who trade in human beings? Does my right hon. Friend agree
that there is a moral imperative to break the business model of
the people smugglers, no less than there was a moral imperative
to break the evil of slavery at the time? Should not all of us
who believe in human rights dedicate ourselves to that end?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not do this
because it is easy, or because it is convenient; we do it because
it is incredibly important. If, collectively, the UK and other
European countries do not address the issue of people smuggling,
the winners will be the people smugglers; the losers will be the
people who are manipulated by the people smugglers, the ones who
are robbed, beaten, raped and murdered, or who drown in the
Mediterranean or in the Channel. Those are the people we are
trying to help by bringing in a structure that breaks the
business model of the people smugglers. The vacuum that he talks
about on the Labour Benches means that the silence when it comes
to ideas is deafening. Opposition Members choose to oppose at
every stage, but they do nothing—nothing—to address the evil of
our time.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will soon be updating us on
when the next personal statement might be made to the House.
Those in Kigali appear to understand and agree with Winston
Churchill. The point of international treaties and the European
Court of Human Rights was to tackle oppressive Governments and
the things they did to citizens. We do not sign up to
international treaties just on immigration law, so a change to
anything in our relationship with the European Court of Human
Rights will have an impact, potentially, on the trade and
co-operation agreement, because that specifically states that if
we end judicial co-operation, there would be a problem. The Good
Friday agreement also has the ECHR at the heart of it. Will the
Home Secretary therefore tell us what conversations he has had
with the European Union and the Irish about this legislation?
This legislation does not change our relationship with the
ECHR.
(North West Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
Some in this House take the view that our proposals are not the
way to treat asylum seekers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that
the people we are talking about are arriving in this country from
a safe country, France, and are mostly young men in their 20s and
30s who come here as economic migrants and not asylum seekers? It
is important that that point is recognised.
This country has always been, and remains, incredibly generous to
people who are fleeing persecution and seeking safe haven. We
will continue to provide that, but it is also right that many
people who attempt to come to this country do so to get a better
economic life for themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member
for North Somerset () said, we do not criticise people who seek to come to
this country for economic reasons, but we make it clear that
there are safe and legal routes for them to do so. This is about
breaking the business model of evil people smugglers who prey on
the people my right hon. Friend the Member for North West
Cambridgeshire () speaks of. We are duty-bound
to explore every way of breaking that evil model and that evil
trade in human misery to ensure that we protect the people who
need protecting by working with countries such as Rwanda that
seek to do the right thing on the world stage.
(Lewisham East) (Lab)
Government briefings suggest that the Government wanted to go
further with the Bill but the Rwandan Government stopped them.
How does the Home Secretary feel about being legally constrained
by President Kagame?
That speculation is not accurate. Within the whole of this
negotiation, we have always made it clear that we would work
within the boundaries of international law. Rwanda takes
international law just as seriously as we do, which is why we are
both completely comfortable that these proposals are within the
bounds of international law.
(Gloucester) (Con)
Over the past few years, we have taken over half a million
refugees from different parts of the world—women, children and
others—from countries in extreme difficulties. Does my right hon.
Friend agree that if we can stop people being trafficked across
the channel in small boats, we may well be able to help more of
those who are genuinely in the most danger?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is so important for us to
break the trade in human misery being perpetrated by the people
smugglers. This is a generous country. We do not want the people
smugglers to abuse and erode that generosity. That is why getting
this right and working with Rwanda is so important, and why I am
proud of how hard the Rwandans have worked to ensure that their
institutions are robust, fair and impartial.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
I want to know how much this shambles has cost the British
taxpayer so far and how much it will continue to cost us. The
treaty means that we would be obliged to support someone in
Rwanda for up to five years. What estimate has the Home Secretary
made, under the terms of the treaty, of how much it will cost to
support just one person for the full five years?
Again, I find this rather strange. As the House knows, I have
already answered that in saying that it will be reported in
accordance with the commitments that have already been made.
However, I do think it is interesting how uncomfortable
Opposition Members are with our having a partnership with an
African country rather than an aid relationship. The mask has
slipped on how the Labour party views countries such as Rwanda,
which are advancing and developing and which seek to be treated
as partners rather than just recipients of aid.
(West Worcestershire)
(Con)
The UK-Rwanda partnership is a long-standing one. I first went to
the country 15 years ago and have returned many times since,
including when I was serving as Africa Minister. How many of the
Opposition Members who are railing against the deal or the judges
who have criticised the deal have been to the now Commonwealth
country of Rwanda?
My hon. Friend asks an incredibly important question. I have
recently returned from Rwanda. I have had extensive dealings with
the Rwandan Government—a Commonwealth partner, as she said. It is
a country whose political leadership in many, perhaps most, cases
have themselves been refugees. They have huge pride in their
country and a plan to see it genuinely step up and be a serious
player on the world stage. This partnership with the UK is part
of Rwanda’s plan for development and advancement. We should
support countries such as Rwanda, which are seeking to solve the
world’s problems rather than being part of the world’s
problems.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am afraid that I have heard nothing from the Home Secretary
today that persuades me that the Rwanda policy is anything other
than immoral, expensive and unworkable. Earlier today, his
predecessor told the House that she believed that if the policy
did not work, the Conservative party would face “electoral
oblivion”. I wonder whether the Home Secretary accepts that it
could be facing that situation because the policy is
unworkable.
Obviously, my plan is to make this work.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his commendable
efforts to address a problem that is a major source of concern to
all our constituents by concluding the treaty with Rwanda and
publishing the Bill today. The Bill, as he will anticipate, will
be closely scrutinised by colleagues, and I am sure he will be
happy to answer questions, but could he assist me with one point?
Clause 4(1)(b) specifically allows a court to consider an
appeal
“on the grounds that…Rwanda is not a safe country for the person
in question”,
based on that individual’s particular circumstances. Can my right
hon. Friend say why that clause was inserted in the Bill, and can
he assure the House that it does not in any sense frustrate the
Bill’s intent?
I can give my right hon. Friend the reassurance that we do not
envisage that this will frustrate the Bill’s intent. It is
important that claimants do have recourse, if only for factual
errors. We are absolutely confident that the numerous measures
that Rwanda has taken mean that it is in fact a safe country for
the purposes of asylum, because of the capacity building that we
and others have done with its judicial system and because of its
treaty commitment on non-refoulement. Therefore, we are
absolutely confident that this will go forward, but it is of
course right that there have to be mechanisms for individual
cases.
(Eltham) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that he went to Rwanda intending
to get a treaty that went much further than he has been allowed
to go, and that what stopped him was that the Rwandan Government
refused to be party to a treaty that did not recognise
international law and conventions? What does it say about taking
back control when Rwanda is dictating his immigration policy?
The hon. Member’s question started with an error, and got worse
from that point onwards. The simple fact of the matter is that we
have been working with the Rwandans. They do not dictate to us,
and we do not dictate to them. We negotiate in good faith, as
mature democracies tend to do.
(Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for his efforts to tackle a problem
that is of great concern to my constituents in Sleaford and North
Hykeham, and I welcome the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty
because many of my constituents have questioned how courts can
tell us what to do. However, there is a provision, as he says,
for individual claims. Can he tell me in what circumstances such
an individual claim could expect to be successful, and how long
that and the appeal process would be expected to take?
The provision for individual claims is nothing to do with the
safety of Rwanda, and that is the important distinction that
needs to be made. Of course, there do need to be provisions for
appeals—that is a normal part of any judicial or legal
process—but the point is that in this Bill we are taking a huge
step forward in our ability to work with Rwanda on refugee
assessment, administration and ultimate relocation.
(Arfon) (PC)
The ECHR is fundamental to the operation of our Senedd in Wales.
Has the Home Secretary taken full account of the danger that his
proposals may deal a fatal blow to devolution as it is at
present?
We have no intention of leaving the ECHR, so the hon. Member’s
concerns are unwarranted.
(Eastleigh) (Con)
The Home Secretary has delivered his deal with his typical
efficiency and transparency, and that should be welcomed, but one
key aspect of immigration policy is the fast processing of claims
in this country. Will he outline the progress the Government have
made in that regard, and can he tell me and the House how it goes
hand in hand with the Rwanda policy?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is part of a plan
that has a number of elements. The speedy processing of asylum
claims here in the UK is an important part of that. There has
been a tenfold increase in the pace of asylum decisions, which is
really important. That relieves pressure on asylum accommodation,
which I know something about as the MP representing Wethersfield.
We are absolutely determined that this plan, in conjunction with
the other elements of our migration plan, will stop the boats,
gain control of our borders and ensure that people know that
those who come to the UK have done so through safe and legal
routes, are adding to our society, are contributing to our
economy, and know that they will be welcomed when they
arrive.
Sir (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has twice refused to answer the question of
whether the Immigration Minister has resigned—but he has, hasn’t
he? Has he resigned because he thinks that this policy does not
stand an earthly chance of working, or has he resigned because he
is embarrassed that a British Government would actually put
Ministers above the law? In other words, has he resigned because
he thinks this policy is crazy or because he does not think it is
crazy enough?
The hon. Gentleman always has an amusing turn of phrase, but his
question is not one for me. If he wants to know what any
particular Member of the House is thinking, he should ask that
Member of the House.
(East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I echo the Home Secretary’s praise of the patience shown by
Rwanda, whose integrity has been severely impugned by those who
oppose the treaty. The Strasbourg Court recently said that it was
going to reform rule 39 indications, acknowledging their
weaknesses. There would not be anonymous judges giving rulings,
they would only be used in extremis and the Government would be
allowed to put their case to weigh up the evidence. Rule 39
indications did not form part of the original European convention
on human rights in any case, so how confident is my right hon.
Friend that challenges to Rwandan deportations will not now fall
foul of rule 39 interim orders under the terms of the new
treaty?
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which proves
that, when the UK makes our case in international institutions
such as the ECHR and others, we are listened to, our views are
respected and changes are made. That is why reform of these
institutions is important and is done, often because of the
points that the UK makes. He is absolutely right: the legislation
that supports the treaty, which is the really important element
of this, will mean that we are much better able to send people
who should not be in the UK to Rwanda for their asylum
applications and to start a new life in a country that is
increasingly well prepared humanely and effectively to home
them.
(Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality is that the Government are making a mockery of
international law and playing with people’s lives. The Home
Secretary referenced his plans to tackle illegal migration, but
his plans for legal immigration are just as draconian. Doubling
the minimum income requirement for family visas to £38,700,
knowing full well that hundreds of thousands of families will be
torn apart, is nothing less than calculated, vindictive and
punitive. Is the Home Secretary really prepared to tear up
international law and tear families apart just so that he can
throw some red meat to his hard-right Tory Back Benchers?
We are not breaking international law.
(Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, the most important thing about this proposal is to deter
desperate people from leaving a safe country and making the
riskiest journey possible across the busiest sea lane in the
world. Can the Home Secretary update us on the position? The
message that needs to go to the people smugglers and those
desperate people is: “If you make this desperate journey you will
be removed to Rwanda, a safe country, for processing”—and this is
the key point—“from now on, not in many months’ time.”
My intention, and the intention of the Government, is to ensure
that this is operationalised as quickly as possible. My hon.
Friend makes an incredibly important point: those people who have
been smuggled across Europe by these people smugglers find
themselves on the coast of France, a safe, prosperous and
welcoming country, and are encouraged by those evil people
smugglers to get on increasingly fragile and unseaworthy vessels
to try to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world, at huge
personal risk, in order to come to the UK. The message that they
have to hear is, “Do not make that dangerous journey, because you
will not be able to stay in the UK. If you want to come and live
and work here, do so by the safe and legal routes that are
available to you.”
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
The Home Secretary has continuously said that this Bill complies
with international law. How does he square that with the
statement on the front of the Bill that he is
“unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of
the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill are compatible
with the Convention rights”?
Because what the statement on the front of the Bill says is
clear—the words are unambiguous —but I am also absolutely certain
that we are in accordance with international law. The two are not
interchangeable.
(Torbay) (Con)
As I know all too well, it is easy to throw rocks and criticise
from the sidelines on immigration; it is a lot harder to actually
get on and deliver something. What has been published today
brings up questions about the law and how it will be implemented
—the practicalities of getting people to Rwanda—and a couple of
points came to mind. First, if someone does appeal, would that
appeal be non-suspensive of their transfer to Rwanda so that they
could still be removed, pending a final decision on their claim?
Secondly, on getting planes off the ground, we cannot put someone
on just any plane to implement this, so has the Home Secretary
raised with the Ministry of Defence the prospect that its
aircraft might be used for the transfer?
As my hon. Friend will understand, I do not want to go into too
much detail about all the operational procedures at this point,
but I can reassure him that we are thinking about the logistics.
Within Rwanda, there is a well-matured process whereby people can
escalate their claims in a way that is completely consistent with
international law. The Rwandans are very keen to demonstrate
their conformity with international law, just as we are.
(Oldham East and
Saddleworth) (Lab)
Four days before International Human Rights Day, it is shameful
that we are seeking to disapply parts of the Human Rights Act for
a certain group of people, and it make me feel incredibly sad.
Does the Attorney General agree that the Rwanda treaty complies
with international law, and can we see her written advice?
As the hon. Lady will know, the advice of the Attorney
General—who is not in her place any more—is for Government. The
Government have made it clear that this is in conformity with
international law.
(Peterborough) (Con)
Will the legislation mean that it is the British Government,
elected by the British people, who determine who comes to this
country and in what circumstance, free from international and
domestic judicial challenge and individual judicial review?
The point is that it is the job of this Government to make
decisions about immigration policy. I reinforce the point that we
are a generous country—we have proven that over and over again.
We are an open-minded and generous people. This House reflects
the attitude of the British people, which is one of generosity,
but we also expect people to play by the rules. That is embodied
in this piece of legislation, and I can confirm that our view is
that it is the voice of this House that should determine our
immigration policy, not anyone else.
(West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Home Office safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for
Newbury (), has confirmed on air that
the Immigration Minister has resigned. Can the Home Secretary
confirm that? Did he know about it?
That has been confirmed. I regularly speak to Ministers in the
Department but, ultimately, these questions should be about the
Bill rather than individual Members.
(Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
If the Immigration Minister, who is a good man, has resigned over
this Bill, that is deeply worrying. I want to hear the verdict of
the star chamber chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone
( ) but, while we await that
verdict, the Home Secretary pointedly ducked several questions
about individual appeals. Every person we would seek to send to
Rwanda is an individual. If they can continue to appeal and
appeal in order to delay being put on a flight, what is the point
of the Bill?
The point is that all legal and judicial processes have an appeal
process. By extension of my right hon. Friend’s argument, the
point that there is an appeal process in UK criminal law, for
example, would mean that no one ever goes to prison, and my right
hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has
just been discussing prison places.
The point is that an appeal process is an important part of any
legal process. It will not preclude people from being sent to
Rwanda. This is a robust scheme that strengthens our position and
ensures that the decisions we make in this House—that he, I and
others make in this House—define the UK’s immigration policy, not
decisions made by unelected people elsewhere.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I remind the Home Secretary to face forward, so that his
voice is picked up more easily and so that people can see
him.
(Strangford) (DUP)
The Home Secretary and the Government will be aware that there
has been some surprise at the reciprocal agreement to welcome
Rwandan refugees to the United Kingdom. How can he demonstrate
the safety of Rwanda as a third country while simultaneously
accepting the conditions that produce refugees?
The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. This part of
the treaty reflects the previous memorandum of understanding that
has been in place for some time, and it is particularly tied to
non-refoulement. It is envisaged that it will be used only in
very exceptional circumstances, as I said in my statement. If
there are circumstances where, for whatever reason, a refugee we
have sent to Rwanda cannot remain there—these will be
exceptionally rare cases—the only place they can be returned to
will be the UK.
(South Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that all these human rights laws
were simply not designed for the massive problem of illegal,
mainly economic migration that we face today, and that a review
is urgently needed?
These frameworks, of which we were a founding nation, were
designed to deal with some of the issues we saw in the mid-20th
century, with often large numbers of people moving relatively
short distances for a limited period of time to flee either
persecution, abuse or conflict. We are now living in
fundamentally different circumstances. There is an
industrial-scale attempt to use those important, well-intentioned
laws and frameworks to facilitate an evil trade, the like of
which we probably have not seen since the dark days of the
international slave trade. It is incumbent upon us to put in
place frameworks that protect those people who are being
manipulated, smuggled and abused by people smugglers. We are
seeking to do that with our friends in Europe, Africa and other
parts of the world.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
If Rwanda is a safe jurisdiction, as the Home Secretary is trying
to legislate to say that it is, can he explain why he believes
there needs to be a provision in his Bill to override the powers
of the courts?
The Supreme Court judgment to which we are responding highlighted
two particular areas, and the treaty addresses both those areas.
It is the actions that Rwanda has taken in regard to
strengthening its institutions and the commitment it has made to
non-refoulement that will enable us to say in the Bill,
reflecting on the treaty, that it is a safe country for these
purposes. As I said in my response to an earlier question, the
UNHCR relies on Rwanda for its refugee processing and it is
therefore clear through its actions, if not its words, that it
also regards Rwanda is a good partner for these purposes.
Sir (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Like the Home Secretary, my constituents want to welcome genuine
asylum seekers such as the Ukrainians and the Afghans who now
live in my constituency. He will have detected some disquiet on
the Conservative Benches about potential elements of the Bill, so
will he assure the House we will be able to offer amendments that
may improve it, if necessary?
The Bill will go through the House, and although we are seeking
to do this at pace, it will go through the processes. I have no
doubt that hon. and right hon. Members will want to put forward
amendments and of course the Government will listen to all ideas
that seek to improve the efficiency of the Bill.
(Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree that our constituents would expect
that, before we vote on any measure in this House, we thoroughly
understand what it is going to cost? In the end, it is not our
money we are spending; it is their money. Coming back to a
question that he did not answer before, will he give a figure for
how much it will cost this Government—our constituents—for each
asylum seeker sent to Rwanda for the whole five years they are
there? If he will not give us a figure now, will he agree to give
a figure before we are asked to vote on the Bill?
The Government have committed to releasing the figures on an
annual basis—[Interruption.] The point I would make to the House
on dealing with migration, securing our borders and tackling
international criminal gangs is that none of these things are for
free. We do these things because it is the right thing to do. The
money that this country spent on the West Africa Squadron of the
Royal Navy to break the international slave trade was not a small
amount of money, but it was the right thing to do. It broke an
evil trade and we are committed to breaking this evil trade.
(Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the Immigration
Minister, who has apparently just resigned, and thank him for all
the hard work he has put into trying to resolve these issues over
several years, including working on this Bill? Does my right hon.
Friend feel that the Government will be inhibited in their
implementing of the Bill by the absence of the Immigration
Minister? Will he also answer the concern that been raised on
several occasions during this exchange—namely, that the Bill
might be fine for dealing with the issue of Rwanda as a safe
country in general but that it does not deal with the issue of
individuals who might want to make claims based on their own
individual circumstances on why they should not go to Rwanda?
I have said from this Dispatch Box and in a number of other
locations how much I value the work of the Immigration Minister.
He has done a huge amount of work on this and in a number of
other areas, and the work he has done to drive down small boat
arrivals by a third has been absolutely instrumental. I have no
doubt that the whole Government will work to ensure that this
legislation achieves what I think we should all want to achieve,
which is to break the business model of the people smugglers and
to prevent people from being abused by them in an attempt to come
and live in the UK.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
From the point of view of those of us who believe in the rule of
law, the separation of powers and the universality of human
rights, there are at least three extraordinary things about what
the Home Secretary has said this evening. First, he says that he
does not have confidence in the domestic courts of the United
Kingdom because they cannot always be relied upon to do what he
wants them to do. Secondly, he says that he will replace the
jurisdiction of the domestic courts of the United Kingdom with
ministerial fiat in relation to interim measures passed by a
court presiding over a treaty to which we are fully signatories.
Thirdly, as Jonathan Sumption has said, it is extraordinary for
the law to say that the facts are other than they are, and then
to oust the jurisdiction of the courts from determining whether
that is the case. It is not just extraordinary; it is also not
compliant with article 6, and of course the European convention
on human rights is part of our domestic law by virtue of the
Human Rights Act, which the Home Secretary is not repealing.
My question for the Home Secretary is this: is he proud of
driving a coach and horses through the British constitution?
What I am absolutely proud of is the fact that we are seeking to
break the business model of the people smugglers. We recognise
that, as the threat from organised criminality and the tactics of
people who prey on the weak and vulnerable and put their lives at
risk evolve, so our response has to evolve. This is an
international problem, and we are resolving it through
international relationships. I am proud of the work that Rwanda
has done to reform its institutions, with our support and the
support of others. We on this side of the House will not rest
until the people-smuggling gangs have been broken.
Sir (Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
I have been listening carefully to the questions from Opposition
Members, and there have been a good many references to human
rights, but surely the ultimate human right is the right to life.
Does the Home Secretary agree that once this legislation is
passed and comes into effect, fewer people will go to a watery
grave in the English channel?
My right hon. Friend has made a fundamental point. Every story I
read of people who have drowned in the channel or the
Mediterranean because their desire for a better life has been
manipulated by criminals is heartbreaking, as I am sure it is for
every Member of the House, and we are duty-bound to do something
about it. Hand-wringing and stone-throwing from the Opposition
Benches will not save those people’s lives, so we choose to take
action. We choose to break the criminal gangs, and we are working
with international partners in Africa, on the continent and
elsewhere to break the business model of those gangs. Opposition
Members can either help, or they can stand aside while we try to
do the right thing and prevent people from dying in the seas.
(Nottingham South)
(Lab)
The deputy chair of the Conservative Party has said that the
Government should just ignore the law and send people back
anyway. Does the Home Secretary agree with the deputy chair of
his party, and if he does, can he tell us when the Conservative
party became the party that ripped up laws and supported
disorder?
We absolutely abide by international law.
(Aberconwy) (Con)
Immigration, by any admission, is a complex, long-standing and
developing challenge. I have listened carefully to the concerns,
the obstacles and the different perspectives that have been
raised this evening through questions, and I have also noticed
the confidence with which my right hon. Friend has answered many
of those questions. May I ask him to look ahead and say when he
expects to be able to return to the House and declare the Bill a
success?
The timing of the passage of any Bill is in the hands of the two
Chambers of this Parliament. We are not in control of the total
timescale, but of course we are determined to move quickly. Every
day that we delay in addressing the criminality of organised
criminal people-smuggling gangs, more people’s lives are put at
risk. We intend to work quickly, and we seek the support of their
lordships to move quickly, so that we can get a grip on this
terrible situation and so that this set of proposals, in
conjunction with the others that we are already implementing, can
break the model of the people-smuggling gangs, save lives at sea,
and encourage people who want to come to live and work in this
country to do so by means of the numerous safe and legal routes
that we have in place.
(North Down) (Alliance)
I am opposed to the entirety of the Bill on policy grounds, but,
as a Northern Ireland MP, I have a particular duty to highlight
the importance of the Human Rights Act to the Good Friday
agreement, especially in respect of policing and justice reform;
to article 2 of the Windsor framework; and to the policing and
justice chapter of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement.
May I ask the Home Secretary what steps his Department has taken
to screen this policy and this Bill against all three of
those?
We are absolutely committed to maintaining peace in Northern
Ireland. It is something that many people have spent their whole
political lives pursuing and protecting. I assure the hon.
Gentleman that we will always seek to protect the peace that so
many people have worked so hard to bring.
(Wythenshawe and Sale East)
(Lab)
Rwandan Foreign Affairs Minister Biruta has said tonight:
“Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to
continue with the Migration and Economic Development
Partnership.”
Without lawful behaviour, Home Secretary? It is being reported in
the press that the Rwandan Government are getting cold feet
because this deal is too toxic for them. Is that the case?
No.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Home Secretary wants us to take great comfort from the fact
that the treaty with Rwanda will be binding in international law.
Then, in the next page of his statement, he assures us that next
week he will bring in legislation that will, in certain
circumstances, make it a legal requirement for British courts to
act contrary to that same international law. How can he expect
Rwanda to comply with its treaty obligations when his Government
will pick and choose what treaties they comply with and what
treaties they tear up?
We will absolutely remain in compliance with international
law.
(Stockton North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has used some choice language in this place,
and in recent times he associated a particular favourite word of
his to his own Government’s Rwanda policy. What specific changes
have been made for him to become such a robust defender of it
now?
I am not quite sure what the point of that question was, Mr
Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman really wishes for me to do
so, I can clarify the points I made that he refers to, but I
suspect that he does not really want me to.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
In her personal statement this afternoon, the former Home
Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (), said that she had been
unable to obtain the support of other Government Departments for
her preferred method of dealing with applicants for asylum. She
said:
“we must build Nightingale-style detention facilities to deliver
the necessary capacity… The only way to do this…is with the
support of the Ministry of Defence.”
Russia is on manoeuvres, more than 20,000 British troops are
being deployed across northern Europe next year, and the
Conservative Government are seeking to shrink the Army to 73,000.
Does the Home Secretary, who was the Foreign Secretary last
month, think that our armed forces should be training for war or
for kettling asylum seekers into camps?
Again, I am not at all sure how that question has anything to do
with the proposals that we have put forward, but the hon.
Gentleman will know that this party of Government will always
support strong defence of this nation, unlike the Opposition
parties.
(Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
(Lab)
It is clear to the country that the Government are riven with
division and chaos on this issue. Some still think that these
plans are batshit, and some think that they do not go far enough,
including the Immigration Minister, who has resigned. In an
earlier answer today—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Did the hon. Member just swear?
No, he quoted the Home Secretary!
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Please use other words.
Okay. In an earlier answer, the Home Secretary said that the
Immigration Minister would be attending the Home Affairs
Committee next Wednesday. Given that he has been embarrassed by
his own team today, who will now be attending the Committee to
take questions on this issue? Will it be him?
It will be the Immigration Minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you very much for your statement, Home Secretary, and for
answering questions for well over an hour.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Accuracy is incredibly
important in this House, and I would not want something incorrect
to be on the record. The Home Secretary said in his
statement:
“Other countries have since copied our plans with Rwanda”.
I can find no evidence that that is accurate. Can you advise on
this point of accuracy, Mr Deputy Speaker, because no country is
copying the plan with Rwanda?
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A number of
countries are exploring third-country—
So it is not true.
I’m sorry?
“Exploring” is not “copying”.
A number of countries are exploring third-country asylum
processing. The example that springs most rapidly to mind is
Italy’s relationship with Albania.
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a point of
accuracy, those who are being moved to Albania will be under
Italian law. That is not the case in the Rwanda plan.
Mr Deputy Speaker
We will now move on.
|
