Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I will be brief and focus entirely on Lord Coaker’s amendment 1D, which I have already mentioned in interventions. The problem with the wording that he put forward in debate is one of disingenuously mixing apples and pears. I want to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is also behind the amendment, because it is much more substantial than its predecessor. It is actually a change in Labour policy as well. The noble Lord Irvine, Tony Blair as Prime Minister and Jack Straw all agreed that the sovereignty of Parliament, where words are clear and unambiguous, prevails.

The bottom line is that that is exactly what we are dealing with here. I applaud the idea of maintaining international law—I have never taken a different view—but in his speech Lord Coaker compared what is going on in the middle east to the illegal war in Ukraine and the Houthis in the Red sea. He fails to appreciate that those situations are separate to this issue, and I am raising this as a matter of principle and constitutional propriety. Those are exclusively matters of prerogative, whereas in this instance we are dealing with an issue of sovereignty and the clear and unambiguous words that appear in statute, as Lord Hoffmann made clear when he distinguished between treaties and statutes in relation to the case of Regina v. Lyons, which I have referred to previously.

The position is basically and simply this: I stand by what I have said on this subject in the past. I sincerely trust that the Court will agree that these words are clear and unambiguous.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Government’s motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1D is a motion to disagree with the Government’s obligation in relation to the Bill to have due regard for international law and the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015. If the Government are confident that the Rwanda scheme will be fully compliant with international law and the aforementioned domestic law, I do not understand why they are rejecting this amendment again.

The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 3E would scrap the requirement inserted by the Lords that Rwanda be treated as a safe country only if and when protections contained in the treaty are judged by the independent monitoring committee to have been implemented and to remain implemented. Surely Lords amendment 3E is an entirely proper and legal amendment if the Government deem that the measure in their own treaty is necessary? Given that Members had no opportunity to debate that treaty prior to ratification, the amendment would at least provide some reassurance that the protections it contains will be put into practice.

The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 6D is a motion to deny individual grounds for legal challenge that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons, or that there is a real risk that Rwanda will remove or send those persons to another state. The Home Affairs Committee has always been clear that there has to be the opportunity for appropriate legal challenge as a necessary part of our fair asylum system.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s assurances about the specified category that could be used in the future, but amendment 10D sets out very clearly why such provisions should be included on the face of the Bill and our obligations to those who have helped us and our armed forces overseas. That amendment would be the right thing to add to the Bill.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

As I was watching Aston Villa smash Arsenal on Sunday, my thoughts turned to today’s debate because, as Aston Villa fans will know, the Emirates stadium is of course sponsored by the Visit Rwanda scheme, and Arsenal play with those words emblazoned on their shirts.

I strongly support the Government’s position as set out by the reasons articulated by my right hon. and learned Friend the excellent Minister for Countering Illegal Migration. More than that, though, behind all these amendments, this ping-pong, the Reasons Room, and this process, which is quite baffling to my constituents, lies a simple question: is this Parliament sovereign or not? I believe I was sent to this Parliament to make laws in the interests of my constituents in Redditch. They are a generous people—we have accepted refugees from around the world and given them a warm Redditch welcome—but in the interests of stability and security, and protecting those British values and the culture that we all care about, they also ask that we enact measures to enable our country to control our borders. This whole debate is really summed up by the question of whether or not we in the west are able to control our borders, because we all know that this is going to get much worse. Some 100 million people are on the move.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), talked about having more grown-ups in the room and talking more nicely. Perhaps the people smugglers will listen to that and stop putting people in small boats, but somehow I doubt it—it is complete and utter nonsense. We are sent to this place to make hard choices, not emote and do things that make us feel good in the moment. We have to stand on one side, with the sovereignty of this Parliament and the people of Redditch, and this Bill is the way to do so. Let us get Rwanda done. We will stop these boats and make our country safer.

Angiolini Inquiry Report

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s statement. I hope that we will get a full response to the report from the Home Secretary very quickly. May I also associate myself with the comments of the Home Secretary and other right hon. and hon. Members today? Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard.

I wish to ask the Home Secretary again about this issue of indecent exposure, which is highlighted in the report and which he has talked about a little. In my constituency, we had the horrific case of Libby Squire, who was raped and murdered by a man who had been stalking women and roaming the streets of Hull for 18 months prior to murdering her. He had been exposing himself and committing acts of voyeurism. People did not report his actions, because they did not think that the police would take them seriously. Libby’s mum, Lisa Squire, has been campaigning on this for the past few years. She has recently given evidence at a hearing of the Home Affairs Committee. I wondered whether the Home Secretary would meet her, because it would be interesting to know his view. What more can be done now to encourage people—women in particular—to come forward when such things happen to them? I would also say that almost every woman I know has had this happen to them at some stage in their life. This problem is endemic.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for raising this point. I will of course seek to find an opportunity to meet the Squire family about this matter.

There needs to be a cycle of increased confidence. I hate some of the phraseology that has been applied, and I choose never to apply it about this issue, because there is the implication that these matters are less serious. But the sad truth is that, when we see reports of serious sexual violence, we can look back through the case history and often see plenty of examples of criminality leading up to that. Therefore we do absolutely need to take this seriously. Women who have been the victims of these kind of crimes—this kind of behaviour—need to feel confident about reporting them and they need to feel confident that their reports will be taken seriously. The more they see the police taking action, the more confident they will be in coming forward. Therefore, we need to develop a virtuous circle. We are not there yet; indeed, we know that we are a long way from that. We have seen this happen in the Couzens case. He was known to have committed these crimes, and that should have triggered a much more robust response. But it did not, and we must address why that was the case. We have to ensure that leadership and policing understand that, collectively, this House and the Home Office expect them to take this matter more seriously and send the signal that these crimes are not trivial and should not be ignored.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Last week, the Home Secretary fired the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration after losing confidence in him when he went public with his concerns. As the Home Office failed to publish 15 reports from the inspector despite an agreement that it would publish them within eight weeks of receipt, and with matters of border security at stake, is Mr David Neal actually a whistleblower?

[The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

As the right hon. Lady knows, Mr Neal’s appointment was terminated after he breached the terms of his appointment and lost the trust of the Home Secretary in relation to the reports that she mentions. As she would expect, reports and recommendations are always considered carefully by Ministers, and they will be published in due course.

Antisemitism in the UK

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows, the Home Affairs Committee has been carrying out an inquiry into the policing of protests. We have been particularly appalled to hear evidence of the huge increase in incidents of antisemitism perpetrated in the wake of the 7 October terrorist attacks. The CST has recorded that 43% of antisemitism incidents last year explicitly referenced the Israel-Palestine 7 October attacks and the conflict in Gaza. Attacks on Jewish and Muslim communities here in Britain in response to overseas conflicts are never acceptable. What more can be done to stop the exploitation of such overseas conflicts and the effect that it has on community cohesion in this country?

[Chris Philp]

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee asks a very good question. It disturbs me deeply, as I am sure it does many Members, to see conflict occurring elsewhere in the world playing out on our own streets and leading to tension, to put it politely, and to a lot more—often hatred—being incited domestically. As I said, there is no excuse whatsoever for the events in the middle east, in Gaza, to lead to antisemitic hatred on the streets of the United Kingdom. That is completely unacceptable, and I am disturbed to see people engaging in that kind of behaviour.

Across the House, we as political leaders need to make it clear to our communities that that behaviour is not acceptable and not consistent with British values, and that our laws will be rigorously and robustly enforced. We have values here of tolerance and mutual respect; we abhor terrorism, violence and intimidation. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we do not want to see that anywhere on our streets, and no one—no matter how strongly they feel about what is happening in Gaza—should behave in a way that is intimidating or incites racial hatred. If we all, across this House, speak unanimously with one voice on that topic, it will be heard by all communities in this country.

Protest Measures

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly why the Home Secretary has already been speaking with police chiefs in the United Kingdom about the powers that will be provided. The police chiefs themselves have asked for the powers. He is also absolutely right that the level of antisemitism we have seen on our streets is simply vile and completely unacceptable, and it is also true that some of the symbols that are being carried and some of the flags that are being displayed are themselves radicalising, so action against them is so important. It is quite noticeable how many of the symbols that people claim should be culturally normalised in the UK are absolutely not tolerated in Muslim countries across the world, for the very clear reason that they do not speak for Muslim people—either in the UK or around the world—but are trying to speak for a narrow Islamist fringe that is utterly hateful and has no place in our society.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister knows that the Home Affairs Select Committee has been carrying out an inquiry into the policing of protests after the horrific attacks of 7 October. I join both Front Benchers, the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) in thanking the police for the work they have done, keeping people safe on demonstrations and also upholding the law.

We on the Home Affairs Committee have taken evidence from the police, and although people should of course have the right to protest, we were very concerned about the effect that the number of protests is having on the number of rest days that are being cancelled for police officers in the Met, for example. More than 4,000 rest days have been cancelled, and the cost to the Met of policing those protests up to the end of December has been £18.9 million.

Will the Minister explain how these new laws will be supported with any additional resourcing that the police need? What more can be done to support the wellbeing of officers who are either deployed or abstracted to ensure that these protests can go ahead? In the light of Home Secretary’s comments this week about neighbourhood policing and how important that is, can the Minister reassure the House that resources will not be taken away from neighbourhood policing to deal with the policing of protests?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady’s work on the policing of protests. Her Committee has already had some important evidence sessions, which I have listened to in part, not in whole—forgive me. We will no doubt be seeing the work she pulls together at the end of that inquiry, and I shall read it with great interest.

It is worth saying that the pressure on policing across the United Kingdom from these protests has been significant. We recognise that, and we have been looking to support police forces, where appropriate, in whatever way is appropriate. It is certainly true that many police forces have been able to manage only because of the uplift in police numbers they have seen in recent years. Sadly, London, as the right hon. Lady knows, has not managed to use that uplift, which is a great shame. Frankly, I am sure that that is something the people of London will consider in the polls in May. Sadly, in Scotland as well, police numbers have fallen, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom they have by and large risen. These are areas in which I know she will encourage people to make decisions according to how they have been governed, not just policed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Last week, The Times reported that there are 10,000 hotel beds going unused, at a cost of £1.5 million a day—that is in addition to the 3,500 buffer of empty beds held as a contingency in case of Manston being overwhelmed. Are those figures actually correct?

[Tom Pursglove]

The right hon. Lady will recognise that it is of course important for there to be a buffer, to make sure that operationally we have the bed spaces required in a contingency situation to be able to respond to any surges and particular challenges. That is a difficult area but one that we are looking at carefully. Within the hotel estate, we are of course maximising the use of bed spaces wherever possible, which again helps us to get on and close the hotels, in a way that I think she would like to see.

Tackling Spiking

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her typically wise question. She is right to mention the vape issue, which I was not previously aware of. That proves the point that whatever legislative changes we make will have to be fit for the future and envisage how the crime might evolve and develop over time. She makes a good point about perpetrators. That was exactly what Thames Valley police told the Home Secretary and me on Friday: a critical part of the VAWG strategy that it and the police nationally focus on is perpetrator behaviour. As part of licensing conditions, the police increasingly work with bar staff, who make a note to establish who is behaving in a certain way in the bar, and who is often on their own or looking to isolate people. Using CCTV can be a critical first step in the police identifying the perpetrators, where they are working, which locations they frequent and who poses the greatest risk to women in a local community.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s statement and pay tribute to all those who have campaigned for changes in spiking law. But it is almost 20 months since the Home Affairs Committee produced our report, and more than seven months since the statutory deadline for the Government to publish their own report on the issue was missed. The report tells us that the Government are still considering many of the Committee’s recommendations, including the gathering of vital data on crime recording and perpetrators, options for the delivery of a training programme for the night-time economy and options for joint communications on spiking, including working with festivals ahead of summer events and engaging with universities over freshers week. As the report is late, can the Minister explain why it has not accepted the clear, full recommendations on all these points, and why there is still consideration going on in the Home Office?

[Laura Farris]

I pay tribute to all the right hon. Lady’s work individually and as part of the Home Affairs Committee. I do not want her to be left with the impression that there is a lack of complete commitment on this issue. As I hinted at in the statement, and for the purpose of brevity, some training happens already for bar staff. There is probably a gap with how much those working on the doors know, and they are critical first responders to these cases, which is why I mentioned them. She should not interpret anything in this report as evidence of a lack of ambition by the Government. My statement today is to assure her that we have given this issue our full commitment.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

May I start by expressing my condolences following the news of the death of an asylum seeker on the Bibby Stockholm barge this morning?

It is now almost one year since the Prime Minister pledged to “stop the boats”. No one here is arguing against that goal—we all want to see an end to people risking their lives by getting into small boats and crossing the channel—but, as we in the Home Affairs Committee stated clearly in our report last year on channel crossings, there is no silver bullet to end small boat crossings. We said that it would take the adoption of a variety of policies, including safe legal routes and additional cross-border policing to go after criminal gangs. We made many other recommendations; we even suggested the innovative idea of piloting the processing of asylum claims in reception centres in France, a system that would be similar to the juxtaposed border controls arrangement that we already have with France.

In April last year the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), announced the Rwanda scheme, and since then an extraordinary amount of financial and political capital has been poured into this policy. While we accept that progress has been made on some of our recommendations, including clearing the legacy backlog and developing work with France and Belgium, the eyes of the Government have been locked on the Rwanda policy and its implementation. The underlying assumption of the policy is that the prospect of being sent to Rwanda will act as a deterrent for those thinking of crossing the channel.

Let us not forget, however, that the Rwanda policy required a ministerial direction to the Home Office permanent secretary to get the scheme under way. Why? It was because the permanent secretary was not convinced that the scheme constituted value for money. There was—and there remains—no clear evidence that the deterrent effect would work, which cast doubt on the scheme’s value for money. Likewise, the Home Affairs Committee felt that although the policy was good at generating headlines, it lacked a clear evidence base and full costings. The Committee has been attempting to scrutinise the policy ever since, but we have been struck by how difficult it has been to obtain facts and information from the Home Office on the details of the scheme. That has undermined our ability to perform our scrutiny function.

We knew that an additional £120 million had been paid at the start of the agreement, and that there would be an additional payment for each person sent to Rwanda to process their claim and to enable successful claimants to receive up to five years of support from the United Kingdom. We subsequently learnt that a further £20 million had been provided as a down-payment on the initial costs for processing asylum seekers, so we knew that a total of £140 million had been paid. We repeatedly sought information, but were met with claims of commercial confidentiality whenever we asked questions about additional funding.

It was with some surprise, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and I received a letter from the permanent secretary last Thursday evening informing us that an additional £100 million had been paid to the Rwanda Government in April 2023, and that a further £50 million would be sent in 2024. However, on 29 November the Committee was unable to establish from the permanent secretary the cost of sending each person to Rwanda. The impact assessment for the Illegal Migration Act 2023 had estimated £169,000 per person, but Home Office officials could not confirm that in November.

Given that we are being asked to support the Bill today, it is essential that we know the costings, whether the Bill policy represents value for money, and whether it will work. Parliament is being asked to assess whether the Bill will deliver a scheme that constitutes an appropriate use of public money, without the Government’s telling us how much public money is due to be spent. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm exactly how much money has been spent, pledged and budgeted for in respect of each year of the UK- Rwanda memorandum, and now the treaty, and that he will commit himself to giving quarterly financial updates to Parliament.

Let me now deal with the specific provisions in the Bill. As we all know, the aim is to ensure that irregular migrants arriving in the UK are quickly sent to Rwanda, with very few legal opportunities to appeal and with clause 3 expressly disapplying several parts of the Human Rights Act. The Committee noted in our report last year that

“The Government risks undermining its own ambitions and the UK’s international standing if it cannot demonstrate that proposed policies…such as the Rwanda partnership now being legally challenged, are compatible with international law and conventions.”

As we know, clause 2 would require all decision makers to accept Rwanda as a safe country for removals, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court. As a very distinguished former Solicitor General, Sir Edward Garnier KC, has said,

“It’s rather like a bill that has decided that all dogs are cats.”

Indeed, the Bill does not resolve any of the issues raised by the Supreme Court, whose decision was based on evidence that Rwanda had previously violated international human rights treaties. The Bill is not a magic wand that will suddenly make that evidence disappear. I also question the need to legislate that Rwanda is a safe country. If the treaty says that it is safe, should not the Government be confident that the courts will now reach a different view and also conclude that it is safe?

The Bill will prevent the courts from carrying out independent and rigorous scrutiny of any claim that there are substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of refoulement or treatment contrary to article 3 of the European convention on human rights. I understand that that would be incompatible with the UK’s international obligations under the refugee convention and the ECHR. Is the Minister concerned about the Bill’s impact on the UK’s international standing, particularly given the absence of an evidence base for its deterrent approach, and is he concerned about the possibility that by effectively reversing through statute a Supreme Court judgment on the facts, the Bill could undermine the constitutional role of the judiciary?

Let me now turn to some practical questions. According to the treaty, seconded independent experts will be supporting asylum decision making for the first six months, and asylum appeals will be made to a new appeal body. It also refers to free legal advice and representation from legal professional members of the Rwanda Bar Association. All these things will take time to develop and will need investment, so I wonder whether there is an additional cost that the Minister might like to tell us about. I have no doubt that the Rwandan Government have entered into this treaty in good faith, but the question of whether it has been entered into in good faith by both parties is beside the point. What matters is whether Rwandan officials will recognise and comply with their obligations, and whether there are sufficient resources and adequate capacity in the group to enable this to happen. Neither of those can be guaranteed by the treaty or by the Bill, so I hope that the Minister will provide evidence today that capacity building and attitude change have taken place, thus addressing the Supreme Court’s concerns.

The challenge of stopping dangerous boat crossings is real, but so is the challenge of clearing the backlog, ending the use of expensive hotels, and delivering an asylum system that works. All that warrants serious, evidence-based solutions, with full costings.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

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.

[Dame Diana Johnson (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?

[James Cleverly]

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.

Legal Migration

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary will appreciate, the Home Affairs Committee is keen to scrutinise the policies of the Home Office. At our meeting last week, that proved difficult because we could not get information about, for example, the cost of the Rwanda policy, asylum backlogs or the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children still missing from hotels. Can we please have an assurance from the Home Secretary that when the Immigration Minister appears before the Committee next week, we will have the full evidence base and economic impact for the policy announcements made today?

[James Cleverly]

I have no doubt that the Immigration Minister, who is hugely experienced in this portfolio, will come fully armed with facts and figures at his fingertips.