Illegal Migration Act: Northern Ireland

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department if he will make a statement on the High Court judgment in Belfast of 13 May 2024 disapplying the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in Northern Ireland.

[The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)]

Let me start by expressing the Government’s disappointment at this judgment. We continue to believe that our policy is lawful, that our approach is compatible with international law and, specifically, that the Illegal Migration Act proposals are compatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework. The Government will take steps to defend their position, including through an appeal. We have consistently made it clear that the rights commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended and not expanded to cover issues such as illegal migration.

This judgment changes nothing about our operational plans to send illegal migrants to Rwanda this July or the lawfulness of our Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. We continue to work to get regular flights off to Rwanda in the coming weeks, and nothing will distract us from that or from delivering to the timetable I have set out. We must start the flights to stop the boats.

The Government have consistently applied immigration law on a UK-wide basis. It is important to remember that those who have been served a notice for removal to Rwanda are being considered under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Safety of Rwanda Act. This judgment relates to the Illegal Migration Act and so does not impact our operations or planning for Rwanda.

Preparations to begin flights within weeks are continuing at pace. As the Prime Minister made clear, “nothing will distract us” from the job of implementing the Rwanda policy. We must start the flights to stop the boats. That is the fair thing to do, it is the right thing to do for our country and it is the humane thing to do. Our conviction that the Rwanda scheme is lawful and necessary is unchanged. We are acting in the national interest and we will not be deterred.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful for that response, and I thank the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for being present today. But we need not be here, as the issues elucidated yesterday by the High Court in Belfast were fairly and thoroughly explored in this House, and in the other place, during the passage of both the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda Act. When my colleagues and I raised these concerns here in Parliament, we were told by the Government that we were wrong, yet the High Court in Belfast said yesterday that we were right. The only difference between the encroachment on the application of our sovereign immigration policy in Northern Ireland, as of the rest of the United Kingdom, by the Illegal Migration Act is that a case was advanced on the basis of that Act, yet a case on the Safety of Rwanda Act has not yet been considered. However, the Government will know that the rationale outlined yesterday by the High Court for the Illegal Migration Act will similarly apply to the Safety of Rwanda Act as well.

It need not be so. Although the Government chose to dismiss the concerns we outlined in this House, and that our colleagues outlined in the other place, they had an opportunity to put this issue beyond doubt. I tabled an amendment to new clause 3, along with my colleagues, giving the Government the opportunity to put the issue to bed, in order to maintain the integrity of this country’s sovereign immigration policy and the integrity and protection of our borders, but they chose not to do so. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated his willingness to appeal, but when they had the opportunity to put the issue beyond doubt, why did they not do that? Do they recognise that in not doing so they have significantly impaired the uniformity of the UK’s immigration policy?

In 1922, long before the EU was envisaged, and long before the UK joined and then departed, the islands of Great Britain and Ireland had an integrity in immigration policy: the common travel area applied. What steps are the Government taking to get a British Isles solution to immigration, outside the control of the EU and outside, as it is, the Schengen area? Finally, what steps will the Minister and his Government take to assert Parliament’s sovereign will to protect the borders of the United Kingdom?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone as he eloquently makes his case. I note the narrative that he has advanced. The Government are considering judgment very carefully, as you would expect, Mr Speaker, and we are taking legal advice. I can reconfirm, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that the Government intend to appeal the judgment.

We have consistently made it clear that the rights commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended, and not expanded to cover reserved issues, such as illegal migration. We are equally clear that immigration is a reserved matter that has always been applied uniformly across the UK. We do not accept that the Good Friday agreement should be read so creatively as to extend to matters such as tackling illegal migration, which is a UK-wide issue and not in any way related to the original intention of the Good Friday agreement.

On the specific point about the common travel area, all immigration legislation provides a UK-wide framework for legal and illegal migration. We continue to have a constructive working relationship with the Irish Government when it comes to ensuring that abuse of the common travel area is robustly and appropriately tackled. On the specific point about asserting Parliament’s sovereign will around these matters, I would argue that the recent Safety of Rwanda Act clearly asserts Parliament’s sovereign will. While the latest judgment relates to the IMA, we are committed to appealing it.