Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Government’s failure to arrive at a workable solution to the problem of asylum seekers relates not only to how they have tried to deal with refugees, but to their failure to create the capacity in our country to maintain reliable services, and to such an extent that many British people find themselves unable to access the basic needs and services to which they are entitled. This is also about the Government’s stewardship of the economy. Additionally, it is rooted in their careless conduct of our relationships with other countries, particularly in Europe.

Therefore, in dealing with this sensitive issue, it is crucially important that we are clear about the principles upon which any approach should be based. The problem, however, is that the Government too often confuse slogans with policy, and in so doing they fail to take account of the principles upon which a realistic policy should be based. Their cynical obsession with creating dividing lines is a barrier to building the sort of consensus to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) referred.

For the purpose of clarity, let me say at the outset that our country’s capacity to admit migrants is finite. It therefore follows that we need a much more structured method of determining how many people can be accommodated; one that takes into account the capacity of our public services and our economy. I will later say a few words about the space that exists in our economy to fill the gaps in various industries and sectors. One of the principles would be to match would-be immigrants with sectors in which there are insufficient people to plug those gaps. Many of those people have those skills.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would make eminent sense to ensure that people who claim asylum in the United Kingdom have the right to work while they await a decision, not least because it would allow them to be better integrated into our community when they get their decision? Allowing people to support themselves while they are here would also reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

[Sir George Howarth]

I will address that point later in my speech, if I have enough time.

In England, the NHS waiting list for hospital treatment rose to a record of nearly 7.8 million in September, up from approximately 2.3 million. Ambulance response times have also risen, going up to one hour and 30 minutes in December 2022, against a target of 18 minutes.

The UK is experiencing an acute housing crisis, with house building consistently failing to keep pace with demand. The National Housing Federation says that 8.5 million people in England are in housing need, with 4.2 million of them in need of a social rented home. In England, in 2022, people had to spend more than eight times their annual salary to purchase a home. In 2020-21, 17% of primary schools and 23% of secondary schools were over capacity. We did not get to this position by accident; it is the result of 13 years of careless neglect and the obsessive pursuit of shrinking the state.

I will now turn to the capacity of our economy and the ongoing skills shortages. GDP is at zero growth, and low GDP growth is forecast to continue into 2024 and possibly beyond. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest economic and fiscal outlook stated that, in 2024-25, living standards are forecast to be 3.5% lower than pre-pandemic levels, which is the largest reduction in real living standards since records began in the 1950s.

The skills shortages not only affect our overall economic performance; they are also having a negative effect on our provision of public services such as health and housing, as well as affecting the important food supply, care and hospitality sectors. Many refugees already have those skills and, with a constructive approach from the Government, would be able to plug the gaps in those sectors and, consequently, help to grow the economy.

Our poor relationship with Europe and the wider world makes it more difficult for us to co-operate with other countries, whether bilaterally or through collective international efforts, to deal with the deeply damaging consequences of war and conflict, part of which is the growing displacement of people from their homelands, which results in mass migration. Bluntly, we are not trusted to be a reliable and constructive partner, and our international influence has diminished to the extent that other countries simply do not take us seriously.

As I said at the outset, the Government have tried to turn a slogan, “Stop the boats,” into a policy. Consequently, they have failed to offer a solution to the problem. Many Conservative Members know this to be the case, but they have splintered into factions, either wanting to go further, regardless of our international obligations, or are aware that another, more effective approach is needed. Sadly, this Bill and their conduct illustrate that the Conservative party is not a competent or coherent party that is fit to govern; rather, it is one riven by warring factions. Frankly, it is now time for the Conservatives to make way for national leadership from a party that will calmly and competently deal with our mounting problems.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

I know it happens already. That is what I have been saying, and the hon. Lady at least credits me with being consistent. We have three problems with the immigration system in this country. The first problem is how we can prevent people from leaving those, mostly French, beaches in the first place to make that most inappropriate and most dangerous journey—we can have a different argument about the safe and legal routes, which she knows I support, and whether that would reduce the numbers trying to do it, or whether we could come to some accord with the French so that they would intercept those boats and return the passengers to French waters.

The second problem is that we need to speed up the whole processing—as the Government have, to give them credit—of those people who are in limbo, those who came before the Illegal Migration Act 2023 who are still able to have their asylum applications in this country. We need to get through that backlog as swiftly as possible. We then have a problem with those in limbo post the Illegal Migration Act, who have effectively committed a crime under the terms of that Act.

The third problem in solving the migration process is then removing those people who have not been able to make a credible claim to stay in the United Kingdom. That is why the alternative, of their facing a lottery on whether they will end up in a hotel in Kent or a plane to Rwanda and have their claim instead assessed there, is an important part of the deterrent factor. It is one part, not an overriding part, as some people have tried to caricature it, but an important part of dealing specifically with that group of people whom it is really difficult to remove.

In time, we need more returns agreements, and we have successfully done that with a number of countries—Albania has been cited many times. However, there are countries, of which Iran will be one, with which a returns agreement is frankly impossible and we should not delude ourselves otherwise. It is wrong to suggest that we can solve this problem just by having a further agreement with the French and paying them more money. We have paid the French gendarmerie and police force £480 million already, yet the proportion of successful intercepts has fallen in the past 12 months. We already have joint operations with them. We already have a unit within the National Crime Agency dealing with this issue. The Opposition claim that this problem can be solved by getting better at cracking down on the people smugglers and co-operating with the French, but all that is happening already.

We need to speed up the applications, as I have just said, but that still does not deal with the problem of what we do with people who we cannot then return. That is why I agree with the spirit of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark and other hon. Friends are trying to do with amendment 23, but I do not agree with the method, and that is why I will oppose the amendment. Let us just remind ourselves that the reason this Bill has become necessary is in response to the Supreme Court judgment that found the Rwanda scheme to have various specific shortcomings: the refoulement threat and the fact it was a one-way street, which has now been resolved. That is why a number of measures have been brought in with the Rwanda treaty and within this Bill.

This Bill is about allaying fears about not fulfilling our obligations under international law and the implications that may have for the Northern Ireland agreement, as has already been mentioned, and for negotiating trade treaties and other international agreements in the future. However, the Rwanda agreement as it currently stands, before the reforms to it, fell foul of our own courts. It was not just the ECHR or the refugee convention; it was our own courts that ruled against the Government.

The Rwanda scheme needs to be seen to be lawful, not just by Rwanda, but potentially both by other countries who have signified an interest in operating a Rwanda-type scheme as hosts, and by other European countries who are interested in getting part of the action if we are able to get the Rwanda scheme into operation. Ultimately, my aim is to see a co-operation of European and other nations in a joint Rwanda-type scheme—although not one limited just to Rwanda. That could act as an effective deterrent so that far fewer people come across the channel and we can clamp down on those who still use that route, because they have little credible claim to have asylum in this country. For that, we need safe and legal routes operating properly as well, as I have said many times before.

There is a problem specifically with rule 39 indications, or “pyjama injunctions.” I am not a lawyer, but on the basis of the thresholds for which other things can go to court, that is a very opaque process. We have heard about the anonymous judges. They do not issue a full judgment, and the Government cannot make a case at all. Where else is there a legal system whereby the person who is effectively being prosecuted cannot make their own case in front of a judge? Nor is there any appeal facility in this whole operation.

Those rule 39 indications were never part of the European convention. That was never included in the constitution. There were attempts to include it in the constitution, but they were never supported. Those powers, as my hon. Friends have said, just seem to have been absorbed into the Strasbourg Court by its own fiat. To whom is that Court accountable? Why is the European Council not doing more governance of how those powers have been surreptitiously extended?

Last year, the Strasbourg Court itself admitted that it needs to change its ways and that the operation of rule 39 indications is not satisfactory. It said that, in future, they would be used only in extremis—although we do not know how it defines that—they would be operated by named judges; the Government, in this case, would have an opportunity to present their evidence and be listened to; and judgments would be more transparent. So, the Court itself knows that there is a problem with the rule 39 indications.

We are not the only country that is concerned about the way that the indications have been operated. Too often it seems, we are pilloried as if the United Kingdom Government are serial offenders against ECHR judgments and European convention diktats, but other countries seem routinely to get around rule 39 indications, and we have one of the best records in complying with ECHR judgments. Over the past 10 years or so, no fewer than 400 ECHR rulings have not been enforced or complied with, including 61% of those against Spain, 58% of those against Italy and 37% of those against Germany.

The United Kingdom is one of the best compliers with ECHR judgments. The sort of thing that we have not complied with includes votes for prisoners, about which we have heard. We had a vote about that in this House—largely to indulge the Liberal Democrats as part of the coalition Government, I seem to recall—and forcefully and robustly voted against it, deciding not to go forward with it. I think that that was absolutely the right judgment, and it stays in limbo. We need to reform the ECHR. In the past year, there have been only four judgments against the UK on convention matters.

Yet again, the UK has fallen foul of abiding by rules that too many others ignore, so I support the case for not being bound by rule 39 rulings. As I say, we need urgently to work with our partners, through the Council of Europe and others, to reform those rulings. It is a very opaque governance system. I do not believe, though, that not being bound by these confected rule 39 directions undermines our overall compliance with international law, or with international responsibilities and undertakings.

However, the Bill already says that in a reasonable and balanced way, the Minister has discretion to make the decision not to comply with those rule 39 indications, so we have given the Minister and the Government the power to say, “Actually, we do not think that is right, and therefore for good reason, we are not going to allow that rule 39 indication to apply to this case.” That is a sensible way of proceeding. It is not a mainstream, routine, blanket disregard, which could fall foul of our own courts and have international implications for the integrity of British legislation and governance. As such, I support the spirit of what hon. Members are trying to achieve with amendment 23, but I do not support the method.

We all know that getting this Rwanda legislation through Parliament is a very difficult, complex and sensitive issue. We have to strike a very fine balance between not trampling on international law and enabling our Government to get on with the measures that they were elected to implement, and I think the Government have got the balance right in this Bill, which was not an easy task. That is why I want the Bill to go through unamended—we all have something to gain from that happening.

I will certainly be voting for the full Bill on Third Reading, if that happens this evening, but my hon. Friends need to stop and consider before they pull the pin out of another grenade. If this Bill does not go through, there is no plan B for dealing with those people who we cannot transport back to the country from which they came. There will be no Rwanda Bill, no Rwanda scheme, no deterrent policy, and no obvious end to the small boats. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark—who made a very strong case, but, I think, with the wrong ultimate conclusion on the method—will consider the implications of pursuing that conclusion all the way to voting in the wrong Lobby on Third Reading. I hope he will withdraw his amendment and let the Government get on with the job of seeing whether we can get this Rwanda scheme to work, get the planes off the ground, offer a real deterrent, and get this problem sorted out once and for all.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Sir Roger, and to take part in a debate that has been broadly thoughtful, despite very clear differences of opinion. It is also a pleasure to have sat through and enjoyed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), who is the very definition of an activist lawyer, so we are grateful to have her with us. I speak in solidarity with the minority of other Members in the Chamber today who are not legally trained—who are not lawyers. It is right that our voices are heard as well.

I rise in particular to speak in favour of amendments 6 and 7, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—who is indeed a lawyer. First, I want to say something that ought not to be even remotely controversial: the evil trade of shipping people across the English channel in rickety boats needs to be stopped, and those people who are carried across the channel via those means are taking huge risks. We have seen significant loss of life over the years, including in recent times. However, the two amendments I am speaking to seek to challenge the fundamentals of the Bill. I believe this Bill will not do what it says: it will not stop the boats. It will not tackle the issues of deterrence and so on, and even if it did, the Rwanda provisions would tackle only roughly 1% of the number of people who seek asylum in this country.

As well as leading to poor policy, there are a number of errors at the heart of the Bill, because it is based on a series of false premises. There are three basic false premises. The first is the belief that, while this is a global problem and a European problem, the UK’s position is especially awful. I have heard incendiary language in this place and outside it relating to our being overrun or swamped, with people swarming across the channel, and that kind of thing. The reality is that 85% of those who declare themselves to be refugees remain in the region to which they have fled, normally the next country, so a very small minority end up in this continent. Germany takes four times more asylum seekers than the UK, France two and a half times more and Spain two times more. Perish the thought, but if we were to place Britain back into the European Union just for a second for a league table snapshot, we would see that the UK is 20th in the league table of countries among the other 27 in the number of asylum seekers we take per capita. The idea that the UK is overwhelmed by this particular problem is not true, and it does not take account of the realities across the continent and across the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I mentioned this question of global leadership in my speech yesterday for a very good reason. It is to do with reputation, but it is also to do with change. All over the European Union, faced with compulsory quotas and compulsory fines, countries are in a real mess. There is the charter of fundamental rights, and the EU cannot make changes without changes in constitutional law and in countries’ constitutions, and they may well have to have referenda. In this country, we are in a different position and can make changes because, in our dualist system, we are entitled to require our courts to obey the decisions of Parliament about sovereignty where clear and unambiguous wording is used. There is the difference, and that is why we can lead the world. Such negotiations are bound to be happening because my hon. Friends at the other end of the Chamber have been saying they believe there will be changes in the European convention on human rights and, for that matter, the refugee convention.

[Tim Farron]

Of course it is a given that the law changes, and laws change via a variety of different means, including how this place votes. Nevertheless, the UK would be seen to be choosing—in order to tackle a problem in an ineffective way—to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 and at least to an extent not to comply with international law.

I heard all the disparaging remarks about lefty lawyers, activists, judges, foreign judges and so on, all of which demeans this place and is not what people who are supposed to uphold the constitution ought to be saying, particularly given that the majority of lawyers I have heard speaking in this debate are on the Conservative Benches; if Conservative Members want to describe themselves as lefty lawyers, that is their business, but it is not helpful. But when we have the Law Society saying that the Bill might be incompatible with our international obligations and

“sets a dangerous legal and constitutional precedent by legislating to overturn an evidence-based finding of fact by the UK’s highest court”,

we should take it seriously.

There is no doubt whatever that for us to decide to pass a law to say that Rwanda is a safe country is an overreach of Parliament, because if we have evidence to say that Rwanda is safe, present it to the court—do it in the proper way. It is dangerously authoritarian to decide on a matter of fact of law rather than presenting it before the courts. It is not only an overreach, however; it is also ridiculous. If we are going to declare Rwanda safe just because we want it to be, I declare Blackburn Rovers back in the Premier League and Alan Shearer to be 30 years younger and back in a No. 9 shirt playing up front for us—there we are, make it so—but that is clearly not the case, sadly. If there is evidence, we should present it to the court. It is ridiculous for this place to say that somehow it can declare a place safe just because it is convenient for it to do so.

We do not control migration by this kind of sophistry, but deterrence is still appropriate. People have asked what deterrence we are going to have: the deterrent is if we had a functioning asylum system where we actually returned people whose applications failed.

[Tim Loughton]

On the point about declaring a country safe, France, Germany and other EU countries have decided they will not entertain any asylum applications from Albania because it is a safe country that abides by the same conventions. They have done it; why can’t we?

[Tim Farron]

I think on balance we would say that Albania probably is safe, and the bulk of returns we have had have indeed been to Albania. But I think it is wrong for us to get out of a hole on this individual case in this way where there is evidence that Rwanda is not a safe place; the issue is that we should present evidence to the court in order to achieve that.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman has just made a discretionary judgment on the safeness of Albania, having said that nobody can determine whether a country should be deemed safe or not. There are many dangerous things going on in Albania, which is why some people are leaving, involving trafficking, drugs and various other things. All I am saying is that European countries will not entertain asylum applications from Albania because they have deemed it not to be suitable and applicable, so why cannot we apply the same criteria to Rwanda?

[Tim Farron]

I have never been an apologist for other European countries: they make their own decisions, but the clear issue is that this House has been asked to decide on a matter of law when that is a matter for the courts. If there is evidence that Rwanda is safe, we present that evidence to the court. That is the proper way to go about it, and the hon. Gentleman knows that. My opinion on whether a place is or is not safe is neither here nor there; the issue is whether the courts have considered the evidence in front of them. The evidence in front of the courts was that Rwanda was not safe; we do not deal with that by just declaring it to be safe, which is unconstitutional and also ridiculous. We present the evidence, and if the Government have evidence they should present it to the court.

I want to go back to the issue of deterrence, which I was leading into before the intervention. If we want to deter people who do not have a legitimate claim from coming to the United Kingdom, we should be some use at removing those people who do not have a legitimate claim. The fact is that only a quarter of those people who are denied asylum once they have gone through the process are removed, and that is the problem. We have a Government who are incompetent at doing the basics, inefficient, and weak at tackling those people who eventually do get assessed and are shown not to be refugees. The problem is not activist judges, but weak and incompetent Government.

I am not accusing everyone on the Government Benches as being populists, but one of the hallmarks of a populist is that they look at a huge and difficult problem and they come up with a simplistic solution. The reality is that we need to be honest that this is a difficult problem that is not easy to solve. It is a global problem, and we have to work with other countries to try to address it. For example, some of the issues around Yemen will no doubt have been exacerbated by this country choosing to reduce its aid to Yemen.

If we want to influence and stop the flow of people away from troubled parts of the world, we should get alongside those places and try to deal with these things at source. I would not make any pretence that that will solve the problem, but let us not pretend that trying to attack one part of the symptom is an answer. It is dishonest to claim that this Bill is an overall answer to the problem.

The third false premise is that the provisions of this Bill will even remotely work. At best, on the Government’s own figures, a maximum of 1% of the asylum seekers coming to this country will end up being removed to Rwanda, at the cost of £240 million and counting. We could just say, “Why not put that money into a better Border Force? Why not put that money into clearing the backlog? Why not put that money into doing things that actually would deter people from coming?” The Bill will not work, though, and it will not deter people, and let us just think why it will not deter people.

Many refugees who end up in this country, including by coming over the channel, come from Eritrea in the first place. Many would refer to it as the North Korea of Africa. Isaias Afwerki is an awful, appalling dictator. Among the things he does that is a cause of people seeking refuge from that country is conscripting all young men at 18. Many of them, particularly from Christian communities, are then sent to murder their own people. People ask, “Why are so many of the people coming young men?” That is one of the reasons. They seek asylum. Where do they go next? Many will stay in the region.

It is important to understand deterrence. Let us say that some young men—maybe a couple of brothers—have escaped. It was hard to escape in the first place from Afwerki and his evil henchmen, so they leave the country. They end up at some point going through the lawless horror that is Libya. It is utterly appalling, and a country without rules. The experience of what happened post-Gaddafi is a reminder that there is nothing so awful in this world that you cannot make it worse, and Libya is even worse than it was then. They pass through that country with its human trafficking, a massive murder rate and the appalling human rights experiences, and they eventually make it to the Med.

They cross the Mediterranean on to mainland Europe, and then at some point they are asked to make a decision about whether they will cross the 20 or 30 miles of the English channel. That is a piece of cake compared with the horrors they have endured so far. Do we genuinely think that the 1% chance they might get sent to Rwanda is a deterrent at all? It is a reminder, is it not, that Rwanda is a huge distraction from the issues we face.

This Bill assumes a state of affairs that is not true. It assumes that the only way to deal with the situation is to act unconstitutionally, and in a very anti-Conservative and un-Conservative way, I might add. It assumes that the scheme will work when it blindingly obviously will not. Amendments 6 and 7 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) are there to challenge the assumption that to control migration we need to exempt vulnerable people from domestic laws that protect their human rights. We do not need to try to duck out of our obligations under the ECHR by ignoring interim injunctions. These provisions are morally wrong. They are constitutional vandalism and constitute a failure. This Bill is about seeking to distract the electorate from the reality of people’s daily lives.

We have a Government failing to govern or to tackle the cost of living and the NHS crisis. One in nine people in my constituency are currently on an NHS waiting list, and the Government are wasting their time on something that is morally outrageous, unconstitutional and will not even do the thing it is set up to do.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before I call Sir John Hayes, may I remind the House that this is not Second Reading debate? It is certainly a debate about the clauses standing part and the amendments, but it is not a Second Reading debate—there is a distinction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

What we certainly know about them all is that before they got here they have travelled through safe countries—more than one in many cases—and failed to claim asylum. The hon. Lady is right that we are probably too lax in how we process claims. Certainly, we offer asylum to more applicants than France. On average, we grant a higher proportion of asylum claims than most European countries.

We know, too, that the failure to remove those people costs the British taxpayer an immense amount of money. When I looked at the figures, I was staggered. The cost of asylum is now £3.97 billion. It is extraordinary that a single matter should cost so much. The need for the Bill is justified alone on the basis that we can no longer afford to deal with the current scale of illegal migration. We simply cannot afford for it to continue, as the British sense of fair play has been tested to its limits. The public see that, and they are increasingly disillusioned by the apparent inability and unwillingness of the political elite in this country—we are the political elite, like it or not—to accept the facts.

Progress has been made in clearing the backlog, largely as a result of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman). During their stewardship of the Home Office, they focused resources on processing claims more quickly and had considerable success in doing so. But the problem is that as fast as we process people, more arrive.

Until we deal with the root of the problem, we can never really tackle the cost I described nor the disillusion felt by our constituents. That is why the Prime Minister pledged to stop the boats. In order to do so, we need an Act that is as effective as possible. The amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark, which I strongly support, would ensure just that. Amendments 11 to 18 deal in particular with the Human Rights Act 1998. Taken together, they would fully disapply the Act from the Bill and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, particularly in relation to removals to Rwanda.

A lot of nonsense was spoken earlier about rights; indeed, a lot of nonsense prevails in this House about rights. Rights are fundamentally important. We believe in the essential rights that characterise our country: the right to a fair trial; the right to go about one’s business freely and unimpaired; the right not to be arrested without cause; the right to vote in free and fair elections. Those are important parts of what it is to be British, but they do not spring from the ether. They are not a given—it is a liberal myth that rights are natural. Rights are the product of decent Governments in decent places doing the right thing. They are special because we have chosen them, not because they were given to us by some ethereal source. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), whom I like and respect, will know, because he knows scripture even better than me, that rights do not get a mention in the ten commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps he can find a part in either of those to contradict me.

[Tim Farron]

I did not mean to intervene, but the right hon. Gentleman has tempted me. This is not a liberal thing, as many Conservatives ought to support it. I do not believe there is any case for human rights having any standing whatsoever without some form of metaphysical. He is quite right to say that the Bible does not talk about rights; it talks about individual duties. If I have duties to him, he therefore has rights. I do not believe that rights are made up by human beings; they are literally God-given.

[Sir John Hayes]

My opinion of the hon. Gentleman has soared to an even greater height. I knew he was the best of liberals—that is not a great thing to be, by the way, but it is better than nothing—and he has confirmed it in that pithy intervention.

The crucial point about amendments 11 to 18 is that they rule out using sections 4 and 7 of the Human Rights Act. We know from experience that the good intentions of Governments, backed up by legislation passed in this place, have been routinely frustrated by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham rightly described as activist lawyers abroad, and, I would add, dodgy lawyers in this country and deluded pressure groups; it is not just malevolent foreigners, but malevolent people here, too. I say to the Minister that the only way we will effect the policy is if we do not allow that kind of gaming of our system by those who come here. I entirely accept that there are among them people whom we should of course welcome. Of course there are people fearing persecution, and of course we should be proud of the fact that we provide a safe haven for people in desperate need—we always have and we always will—but people who are legitimate applicants for asylum are being effectively compromised by a system that does not adequately distinguish them from the very people I have described as gaming our far too lax system.

The Bill is an opportunity to put that right, but only if it is fit for purpose. The amendments are not designed to frustrate the Minister’s intentions or to allow the Prime Minister’s pledge to fail. On the contrary, they are designed to make his pledge real: to allow it to be effected. For if the amendments are not accepted by the Government, I fear the Bill will do just that: fail and disappoint the very people to whom we made that pledge to stop the boats.

Section 4 of the Human Rights Act deals with declarations of incompatibility and section 10, as I described it, deals with remedial measures. As it stands, they are not excluded by the Bill. That means that unamended, the Bill will allow a court to issue a declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR, which would effectively kill the Rwanda scheme. The Minister must know that that is a possibility at least—we would argue a probability —but even if it is a possibility, why would he not want to exclude that possibility?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I exclude the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. He is liberal but he is not bourgeois—at least, as far as I am aware.

[Tim Farron]

I am not.

[Sir John Hayes]

He definitely is not.

The amendments that disapply the Human Rights Act are fundamental to the Bill’s success. May I just say as an aside—it is, of course, entirely relevant to the Bill, Sir Roger—that we should, in government, from 2010 onwards, have got rid of the Human Rights Act anyway? It is a Blair construction, through the prism of which all legislation now seems to be seen. It is a very damaging statute that has stymied much of the work of subsequent Governments.

Amendments 23 to 25, taken together, would prevent the notorious rule 39 injunctions—the so-called last-minute pyjama injunctions—which emanate from Strasbourg. These amendments would ensure that the default position was that rule 39 indications were not binding and this was explicitly a matter for Ministers. The Government’s own legal advice has made it clear that without amendment to the Bill, flights may be grounded yet again. Ministers will indeed have the opportunity to introduce exceptions, but will not be bound to do so. The Bill must be amended so that Ministers can disregard rule 39 orders. We really cannot allow Strasbourg judges to overrule this Parliament and halt flights. Decisions must be taken by those elected in Westminster, not by courts in Europe. This is what the people expect of us; it is what the people demand of us.

The Bill may block claims about the general state of Rwanda, but it will still permit individual claims, which will block removal unless such individual claims are explicitly excluded. We know that spurious cases are used to frustrate removal, and thus the legislation will have no teeth. The Minister knows that these things go on for days and weeks and months. These cases are never resolved quickly, and time is short. Consequently, the Government must surely acknowledge that, at the very least, the flights that they, and we, regard as a necessary part of dealing with the scourge of illegal immigration will be delayed.

The amendment will block individual claims and suspensive claims, limiting such claims to exceptional circumstances. There are circumstances, perhaps when a seriously ill person cannot travel, that should be accepted—I hope we would all agree with that—but those will be rare cases. The Home Office has already correctly excluded families, children and pregnant women, but those circumstances are incredibly unlikely, given what I have said about the profile of those people arriving in small boats being overwhelmingly fit men under the age of 40.

This is the third migration Bill in recent times. It is our third and final chance, as others have said, to deliver on our promise to the British people to stop the boats and control our borders. If we fail to strengthen the Bill in the way that these amendments do, it will simply not work, and if we fail to make the Bill work, we will fail the British people. We will have broken our promise to them. Thousands more people will make risky journeys in perilous conditions and our hotels will remain full of those awaiting judgments at enormous cost. The British people will regard this as a failure that is rooted here in this House and in this Government.

The Minister is a good man and a diligent Minister and I am sure he understands the thrust of the arguments that have been made in the Committee today. He will know that, in the end, this is about a fundamental crisis of democratic efficacy: the ability of a nation state to deliver for its people. The greatest Conservative Prime Minister of all time, Benjamin Disraeli, said that

“justice is truth in action.”—[Official Report, 11 February 1851; Vol. 114, c. 412.]

This issue is a matter of justice—legal justice and social justice. It is for that reason that the British people want to see the boats stopped. They simply regard it as unjust that our borders are being breached with impunity.

If the elected Government of the United Kingdom cannot remove people who arrive here without permission, a more troubling and profound question must be asked. Who governs our country? My constituents want the Government they elect and the Parliament they vote for to determine who governs Britain. Only by improving this Bill and by delivering the Prime Minister’s mission of stopping the boats can we answer that question.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am gutted by the loss of Sir Tony Lloyd. He was a decent, kind, wise man and an excellent Member of Parliament. We will all seriously miss him.

They say that the smaller the stakes, the more ferociously they are fought over. The small stakes are that if this Bill works, 1% of the asylum seekers who come to this country might just end up being sent to Rwanda, at a cost of £240 million and counting. We know it will not be a deterrent, as we know that people have travelled from the horn of Africa, through Libya, over the Mediterranean and through Europe. As if the 1% chance that they may go to Rwanda will put off the tiny fraction of people who try to cross the English channel, having taken all the risks they have taken to get as far as France.

Of course people travel from France. They are not going to bloomin’ sail directly from Libya, are they? For pity’s sake. People will come from France. The French Government could say to Spain and Italy, “No, these people should stay in your safe countries.” The House will see where I am going. If we do not work co-operatively, the whole thing falls down.

The real issue is the backlog of 165,000 asylum cases that this incompetent Government have failed to clear. I have covered the issue of deterrence, but the people smugglers may well decide to bring people into this country under the radar, without claiming asylum at all. We would not reduce the number coming here, but we would massively increase the number of people who end up in the black market as victims of trafficking and sexual slavery, and so on.

Only a quarter of those few people who are denied asylum, having gone through the system, are removed by this Government. We have a Government who talk tough and act weak. If they actually wanted a deterrent, they would make sure that there is a system to deal with those 165,000 people, and they would remove the ones who are not genuine asylum seekers. Even the Government’s own figures show that 75% of the people who come here to claim asylum are legitimate and genuine refugees. If the Government want to deter people, they should assess them and return the ones who are not genuine refugees.

The weakest thing about this Bill is that it is predicated on the Government’s desire to demonise the world’s most vulnerable people because they think the electorate like it. They have misunderstood and massively underestimated the British people, and certainly my constituents, who are better than they think they are.

I can tell the Government about my community. In 1945, half the children who survived the death camps in Nazi-occupied Europe came to our shores. In fact, they came to the shores of Lake Windermere. They were the Windermere boys, the Windermere children, and we are proud of that legacy because it speaks to the kind of people we are in the lakes and in Britain.

I have visited some of the refugee camps in Europe, and when I speak to the people who seek to come to the United Kingdom—by the way, it is important to remember that 19 European Union countries take more refugees per head than the United Kingdom—the thing that drives them to come here is not benefits or the NHS but a belief in Britain. They believe that Britain is the kind of place where they can raise a family in peace, where they can earn a living and where they can have religious freedom and other liberties. That reputation is built on hundreds of years of proud experience of what it is to be British. Our forefathers and foremothers built that reputation, and it will take more than this tawdry Government and this shabby legislation to undermine that reputation overseas.

The Government want to make Britain unattractive, and they will fail. The Bill will fail. It is a costly, expensive failure, and it deserves to be rejected by this House.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

Here we are, back again debating the same issues and amendments that we have already rejected. We are not quite at the point yet of completing each other’s sentences, but we are almost there. The issue before the House is whether the clearly expressed views of this House throughout the entire passage of the Bill should prevail. We simply cannot accept amendments that provide for loopholes that will perpetuate the current cycle of delays and late legal challenges to removal. We have a moral duty to stop the boats. We must bring an end to the dangerous, unnecessary, and illegal methods that are being deployed. We must protect our borders and, most importantly, save lives at sea. Our partnership with Rwanda is a key part of our strategy.

The message is absolutely clear: if a person comes to the United Kingdom illegally, they will not be able to stay. They will be detained and swiftly returned to their home country or to a safe third country—Rwanda.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

No, I will not give way.

On Lords amendment 1, the use of a section 19(1)(b) statement does not mean that the Bill is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. There is nothing improper or unprecedented with such a statement. It does not mean that the Bill is unlawful or that the Government will necessarily lose any legal challenge. These statements have been made in the past, including in 2003 under the last Labour Government. We have a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international obligations, and we remain committed to that position. Our focus is on passing this legislation, which will deter people from entering the country dangerously and illegally.

Turning to the revised amendments on the implementation of the treaty and the role of the monitoring committee, clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Amendment 3B confuses the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill provisions to come into force. Amendment 3B confuses the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill provisions to come into force.

As I have said, the treaty enhances the role of the monitoring committee, and the monitoring committee will ensure that obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. It was always intended for the monitoring committee to be independent. Maintaining the committee’s independence is an integral aspect of the design of the policy, and Lords amendment 3C risks disturbing that independence and impartiality. The Government will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that the necessary implementation has taken place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. That being the case, there is simply no need for the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Beth Winter]

I fully agree that the Bill sets a dangerous precedent. I am pleased to say that the disgracefulness of this legislation is recognised by the Welsh Government, who have withheld legislative consent on similar draconian pieces of legislation and describe this Bill as cruel, inhumane, unworkable and unethical. It sets a horrific precedent for other countries to follow. I am so proud that we are looking to establish Wales as a nation of sanctuary, where we welcome, understand and celebrate the unique contribution that asylum seekers fleeing horrific situations can make to our country of Cymru.

The Bill is an assault on our checks and balances, and our scrutiny of powers. Quite frankly, it is unamendable and should be thrown out wholesale, but given that that is unlikely to happen, in a true attempt to make a bad Bill less bad, I will support amendment 6B and the other amendments before the House this evening.

[Tim Farron]

I rise to support the amendments from the other place that the Government are seeking to overturn this evening. The mass migration of people—refugees, or those fleeing from the consequences of climate change, seeking a better life for themselves or fleeing from war and persecution—is a huge and serious global problem, and this Bill is a deeply unserious response to it. The Bill has become a byword for Conservative incompetence, waste of public money and, at times, deep and unpleasant cruelty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

I had better not, because I am taking up more time, although I am sure I would have agreed with whatever the hon. Gentleman would have said!

I will simply finish with this. This is a Bill riddled with pretence: the pretence above all that it would be a deterrence to anybody. It is a ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money and deeply cruel. If Rwanda is a safe place, it will deter no one from coming here and then being sent there. If it is an unsafe place, no decent Government would ever propose to send anyone to it. They cannot have it both ways; they have it neither.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Bill casts a shadow over the reputation of this place and over our country as one where the rule of law is valued and respected. It is a matter of grave concern that the Government seem determined to ignore the many legal experts and human rights organisations that have voiced serious and fundamental concerns about the Bill. As Lord McDonald of Salford, a Cross-Bench peer and former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, set out clearly in the press over the weekend, the Bill declares as fact that Rwanda is safe enough to provide shelter for vulnerable people fleeing persecution in their home countries and that not only must British courts accept that Rwanda is safe; they cannot question that assertion even in the light of new evidence that Rwanda may no longer be safe. Surely all of us in this place know how quickly political change can arise in any state. It is nonsensical for the Government to make such a declaration about the safety of Rwanda, but to do so when the impact on vulnerable people has the potential to be so severe and affect their fundamental human rights and their safety is irresponsible and reckless.

Amnesty International UK is among those urging the Government to drop this divisive and dangerous piece of legislation. It has called the Bill an affront to international law, human rights and the rule of law more widely. It warned that, if passed, it will: leave the UK in serious conflict with its international human rights obligations; send a dangerous signal that other nations are free to show similar disdain for their obligations under international law; and harm people who are powerless, vulnerable to demonisation, and readily and cruelly exploited.

The Law Society described the Bill as “flawed” and said that it undermines important British values such as the rule of law and protection for victims, damages the UK’s constitutional balance, and will ultimately prove unworkable, while costing the UK taxpayer a great deal of money. It also highlighted research which suggests that 61% of people think the Government should either accept some amendments to the Rwanda policy or scrap it all together. Liberty described the Bill as

“a constitutionally extraordinary piece of legislation",

adding that “In several places” its

“provisions advance…into some potentially dangerous positions.”

For a Government to get to the point of trying to put through legislation that human rights experts describe as “potentially dangerous” is truly shocking. Why is it that the Government think they can ride roughshod over international law and human rights? The amendments we are considering today would, among other things: require the Government to give due regard to domestic and international law, a most important principle that no one could dispute; allow Ministers, officials and courts to consider whether Rwanda is safe on a case-by-case basis; and remove the risk of unaccompanied children being inadvertently sent to Rwanda. Lords amendment 6B, for example, would allow the court or tribunal to grant

“an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of the person to the Republic of Rwanda, providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.”

Surely any reasonable Government would want to ensure it had the power to do that?

There is still time for the Government to drop this horrendous Bill. I urge them to do so. I also urge all Members across the House who care about the rule of law, our international reputation, and the seriousness with which we should address our international responsibilities, to support the amendments from the other place and vote against the Government’s motions tonight.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I think this is a disgraceful Bill and I want to oppose it at every opportunity. However, to follow on from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), we have to accept that at some stage the Bill will go through, and it is the normal run of things in these matters that the Government will have compromised on a number of issues, usually by this time. For the life of me I cannot understand why we have not reached that compromise so far, particularly on this amendment.

As the right hon. Member said, if the system was working at the moment, we would not be finding the cases that we have got. The situation in Afghanistan in particular is deteriorating at the moment. For example, I am dealing with a woman who is now in this country but who campaigned for women’s rights in Afghanistan. The Taliban are now arresting and torturing her family, just because she stood up for women’s rights. If anyone is associated with the British Government in any form, that makes matters even worse. I had a constituent asylum seeker in one of the hotels whose family simply rented out property to the BBC and some of the British authorities. The family got out, but they still have a connection, and they showed me videos of the Taliban turning up and beating, almost to a pulp, the staff who were working in those premises.

The situation is deteriorating and the existing system is not working. People who are in any way associated with the British Government, and British forces in particular, are targeted, and their families are targeted. They are not just abused; they are tortured. I think we have a debt of honour, and that compromise has to be done tonight. The amendment cannot be seen as a wrecking amendment in any way; it is simply a logical conclusion to the debate that we have had in both Houses. I urge the other place to stand firm on this amendment, because I think the British public support it. Indeed, I think that perhaps a majority in this House want to support it too. I urge the Government to think again, because this has gone beyond the normal process. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) asked what there is to gain for the Government by continuing this process. If they think it is about demonstrating their bravado and commitment, and trying to milk some publicity out of it, it is going the other way. At the moment, the general political and public mood is that, for goodness’ sake, accept that when a compromise is offered we should seize it, particularly on this issue.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I hear impatience and irritation from the Conservative Benches that we are still here debating this, but I respectfully point Members towards the impatience, irritation, and even outrage on the part of my constituents at the fact that the Government are wasting vast amounts of their money on something that they know, and the Government know, will not work. If there is a one-in-200 chance that an asylum seeker might be sent to Rwanda, it will clearly not be a disincentive. What might be a deterrent would be to process the applications that we have, and remove that 25% of asylum seekers who turn out not to be genuine, but we will never know that if we do not have the competence to process them. It would also be sensible to set out safe routes, so that people are able to bypass and therefore undermine the model of the evil people traffickers.

That outrage from my constituents is also due to knowledge of what could be done with the money that has been spent on this nonsense scheme so far. It is the equivalent of 5.7 million GP appointments, if the Government had the priorities that the British people want them to have. The two amendments are entirely sensible. I do not need to repeat all the arguments for them, but we should have independent verification, rather than simply declare that a place is safe despite the lack of evidence, which is nonsense. As an aside, if Rwanda is a safe place, why would it be a deterrent? If it is not a safe place, why would any decent Government send anybody there?

I support the Lords in pushing their amendments 3G and 10F.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

I will not give way, because we are about to finish and it is unfair on others.

Lords amendment 10F guarantees that those who have risked everything to protect and serve our servicemen and women in Afghanistan cannot be betrayed by this or a future Government. That is basically a simple and decent thing to ask for. Whatever motivations the Government ascribe to those pressing the amendment, it is clearly totally reasonable, and a reasonable Government would accept it.

To finish, I will address the Conservative party’s irritation that we are still here. I gently encourage Conservative Members present to imagine a time—sometime in the future maybe—when they are in opposition. Let us imagine a time when a Government of a different colour ignore the rule of law, bypass the courts, think themselves above the law and then try to use their numbers in Parliament to steamroller through something that was not in their manifesto and for which they have no mandate. An honest answer to that question would lead to this Government yielding. This is awful legislation. It is cruel, inept and expensive. We should vote to keep the amendments, the Lords should keep going, and the Government should concede.

[Michael Tomlinson]

With the leave of the House, may I address directly my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who both addressed Lords amendment 3G? It does not do what they are looking for. They are looking for a parliamentary moment, and this amendment would merely produce a statement. I invite them to imagine a scenario whereby what we have been discussing would not produce an urgent question or a moment for a Secretary of State to make a statement in the Chamber of the House of Commons in any event. I repeat to them: this amendment does not meet the challenge they have set. I encourage them to be with the Government in a few short minutes.

We must get on and put an end to this. We must pass this legislation to stop the boats. Perhaps in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I urge this House once again to send a clear and unambiguous message to the other place.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3G.