Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are introducing an eight-minute limit straightaway. I am hoping to get the Minister on his feet to respond no later than 7.50 pm. Clearly, if we finish before then, the Minister may have more time.

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

This Government remain in disarray for all the wrong reasons over this horrendous Bill. I applaud the noble Lords in the name of decency and humanity for bringing forward these amendments. The decision to force those seeking refuge here on to a cramped barge, the Bibby Stockholm docked at Portland port, was rightly condemned by human rights groups as inhumane and dangerous, and it has already seen at least one suicide. Yet this Government want to outdo themselves in their contempt for human rights and life by sending vulnerable asylum seekers, who have already been through a living and torturous nightmare to get here, to a country that our Supreme Court has ruled cannot be considered safe.

The Government are now resisting amendments from the other place that are clearly designed to prevent injustice and to stop the Government exploiting the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to truncate the process of forcing refugees to a country that does not become safe simply because it is called safe. That is how profound the Conservatives’ contempt for justice and the rule of law is. The idea that Rwanda becomes safe simply by declaring it so is self-evidently nonsense. It is nothing more than a manoeuvre to scrape for votes by pandering to racism. If the Government declared tomorrow that Gaza is safe—a safe destination—would that mean no more bombs, bullets or starvation there? It seems that the Government think they can make juggling knives safe simply by declaring it safe; presumably any fingers chopped off would be someone else’s fault—anyone else’s—as long as our Government get their way.

As the Lords amendments make clear, the Bill remains clearly at odds with human rights law and our commitments under international conventions. Thus, the Lords amendments are an attempt to mitigate some of the worst harms of a manoeuvre that shames our nation. It is one that in effect tries to opt the UK out of international human rights law by saying that the courts cannot take it into account, all while the Prime Minister tries to save face by saying that the UK will not actually be leaving those international agreements. Amnesty International has rightly condemned this assault on human rights as

“callous, immoral and an attack on the basic protections that keep us all safe.”

It is also a hugely expensive one. This wicked scheme has already cost the UK £240 million in payments to Rwanda, with at least another £130 million to come. The Bill fails to understand that there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, and that safe and legal routes are needed to better protect all asylum seekers.

This Bill is ridiculous and toxic, racist and cruel, and it shows contempt for our legal system. The Government would have us believe that such attitudes reflect British values, but surely the people of this country stand for something better than stoking fear and hate towards desperate refugees alongside disdain for our legal system. I believe this whole Bill should be rejected, but I support all the amendments sent from the other place, as they go at least some way towards reducing its poison.

--- Later in debate ---

Nor does the Bill oust the jurisdiction of the courts. That is another misapprehension. Judges will be able to consider human rights claims and judicial reviews; they will just do so after people have been sent to Rwanda—unless, of course, claimants can prove that they will face a real risk of serious harm in Rwanda, in which case they can stay in the UK while the appeal is heard.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could mention the amendments now and again, that would be very useful.

[Sir Michael Ellis]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

That arrangement is entirely reasonable—and, as I said at the beginning, the amendments are relevant to this whole concept. If one comes to this country illegally, one should not have the ability to repeatedly prevent one’s removal, at vast expense to the taxpayer. However, because of Labour votes that were no doubt whipped by the Leader of the Opposition, the House of Lords defeated the Government 10 times on amendments, seeking to neuter the Bill and ensure that no one was ever sent to Rwanda. They did not vote down the Bill, and did not vote for these 10 amendments, because they want it to work; they did so because they do not want it to work.

What none of those peers on the Opposition Benches did was provide an actual alternative to the Rwanda partnership. None of them could say how they would deter people from getting into overloaded dinghies on the beaches of northern France, or prevent the deaths that will surely follow. In voting against the Bill, the Lords were therefore constitutionally, legally and morally wrong, and I urge the House to overturn their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The Democratic Unionist party supports the Bill, wishes it to come to fruition, and hopes that it achieves its objectives. I will not rehearse all the reasons why, which have been given plenty of times in other debates, but we must tackle the criminal gangs. We cannot go on with the pressures and costs that mass illegal immigration puts on society, the Government and the taxpayer. For that reason, we will oppose most of the Lords amendments. As the Minister and other speakers have pointed out, many of the amendments are designed to weaken the Bill, undermine it, and ensure that it does not work, so that we remain with the old, flawed system that we have been trying to put aside.

The Minister said that the Government oppose the Lords amendments because they do not want the Bill weakened, and he is right, but the Bill is already weakened in respect of one part of the United Kingdom. I seek assurances from him; how does he come to the conclusion that pushing the Bill through will safeguard all parts of the United Kingdom against illegal immigration that is being channelled through different parts of it? The Government promised in “Safeguarding the Union” that the Bill will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, but that was written in full knowledge that following a court judgment in Northern Ireland, the Bill could not apply there because of section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and article 2 of the Windsor framework. Two more court judgments since then have made it quite clear that because of article 2, the Bill cannot apply to Northern Ireland, where the full weight of EU law and the full protections of the European convention on human rights and the European charter of fundamental rights apply. That means that many parts of the Bill will be disapplied in Northern Ireland. There are three court rulings on this.

The Government know what is in the Windsor framework, the withdrawal agreement and the withdrawal Act, yet they continue with the argument that, despite all that, the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. I would like to hear from the Minister where that assurance comes from, given that he knows the terms of the legislation and the Windsor framework, and about the three court judgments—from October, February and the end of February.

If Northern Ireland becomes the weak spot, the policy becomes meaningless. People think, “The boats aren’t going to come from France across the sea to southern Ireland on a 24-hour journey, and people will not come up through to Northern Ireland,” but it must be remembered that of 77 cities in the United Kingdom, Belfast already has second-highest number of illegal immigrants per 10,000 of population. There is already a channel through the Republic into Northern Ireland and then, of course, into England. That needs to be addressed, because a promise has been made in a Government deal, and because of how that could undermine the whole immigration policy. Of course, if Northern Ireland does become that channel, the real danger is that we finish up not just with a border for goods, but with passport controls for people moving from Northern Ireland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Could you mention some of the amendments as well?

[Sammy Wilson]

Yes, I am doing so, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I was making was that we will support the Government in rejecting Lords amendments 1 to 6 because they weaken the Bill, but the Government must recognise that their own inaction is also weakening the Bill.

I am surprised at the attitude that the Government have adopted to Lords amendment 8. Since the policy is designed to assure people that the Government have got on top of illegal immigration, I would have thought they would have welcomed the opportunity to publish daily the number of people who have been removed from the United Kingdom. In fact, I would have thought they might have done a Ken Livingstone: put a banner on the building across the river and published daily, “This is how many people we have removed.” Is the reality that the Government know that the Bill will not have the wanted effect, and that the publication of such information would be an embarrassment? We support that amendment, because we believe that there should be a very public way of judging the success of the policy.

I really cannot understand the Government’s attitude to Lords amendment 10, either. We have a duty to those who served with the Army in Afghanistan at difficult times, putting their life in danger, and who are now in danger of losing their life under the brutal Taliban regime, which wants to take revenge. It is not that people could use such a provision to sneak their way into the United Kingdom; we have good records on those who served the Army. They and their families are at risk, and surely we have a duty to them.

I remember speaking to people from Northern Ireland who served in Afghanistan. They spoke glowingly of the folks who interpreted for them, and the folks who gave them background knowledge, supplied them with information, went out with them on patrol daily and so on. We have a duty to those people. I cannot understand why the Government would resist Lords amendment 10. We will certainly be supporting it, because we believe we have that obligation. I would like to hear from the Minister how the promise made in paragraph 46 of the “Safeguarding the Union” deal will be delivered in Northern Ireland, given that courts have judged and ruled that the Bill cannot apply in Northern Ireland. If it cannot apply in Northern Ireland, are the Government aware of the consequences for Northern Ireland of being further isolated from the rest of the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

We have all heard the admonitions about speaking to the amendments, but it is worth reflecting on the absence of any amendments in lieu on the amendment paper. During earlier stages of the Bill there were star chambers, the five families, propositions to strengthen the Bill and all kinds of dark mutterings about what might happen if it was not strengthened sufficiently, but the Bill cleared this House without any amendment. Now consensus appears to have broken out on the Conservative Back Benches that the Bill does not in fact need any further changes and should remain unamended—so it does not need strengthening after all. Perhaps that is because this is a Bill that nobody really wanted. All it has done is create problems for the Government and the Prime Minister that did not have to exist in the first place.

The Bill creates significant new precedents, undermines established principles and conventions, and moves the UK away from a framework and structure of international law that has protected our freedom and human rights for nearly 80 years since the end of the second world war. It is not really the Safety of Rwanda Bill; it is the safety of the Prime Minister Bill. It has all been designed to try to keep certain elements of his Back Benches happy, and on that test it seems to have failed, just as it has failed in practically every other criterion it could be assessed against. The evidence of that is before us in the 10 amendments that have been made on a cross-party basis by Members of the House of Lords. As we have heard in all the Opposition speeches today, many of these are completely reasonable, sensible tests and requirements. If the Government were genuinely confident about the effectiveness of their policy and the safety of Rwanda as a place for the deportation of asylum seekers, they should be able to accept the Lords amendments without difficulty.

The amendments to clause 1, proposed by Lord Coaker and Lord Hope of Craighead, simply lay out the criteria by which Rwanda should be judged safe, and on the Government’s own terms based on the treaty that they have signed. I agree with the points made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the significance of Lord Hope adding his name to the amendments—I declare an interest because, many years ago, he conferred an undergraduate degree on me when he was chancellor of the University of Strathclyde.

The amendments to clause 4 in some way get to the heart of the debate and the issues at stake in the Bill. The debate is not really about whether Rwanda is safe in general terms. As I said on Second Reading, I visited Rwanda, as have a number of Members who have spoken, in 2018 with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is a beautiful country with huge potential. Its people have had to live through incredibly difficult circumstances. For wealthy tourists who fly in, go on safari and stay in nice hotels—or those who go on Select Committee or CPA visits—Rwanda is a safe and welcoming country. However, citizens who speak up too loudly with questions about the regime, who ask why international observers have been unable to report that presidential elections have been free or fair, or who belong to the LGBT community in that country, or Rwandan citizens living in London under the protection of the Metropolitan police because they are being stalked by their country’s intelligence services, might not find Rwanda quite as safe and welcoming.

The question is not whether Rwanda is generally safe, which is how the FCDO official travel guidance describes the country—it will be interesting whether it will update that guidance on the basis of the Bill. The issue is whether it is safe for asylum seekers and, even then, not for asylum seekers generally as some amorphous mass but every individual asylum seeker who might be sent there. Everyone’s personal circumstances are different; everyone’s story is unique. As the Refuweegee charity says, “We’re all fae somewhere.” Lords amendment 6 recognises that and provides for consideration and review of individual claims and cases. Those kinds of checks and balances ought to be expected in any kind of decision- making system, especially ones that make fundamental choices about the lives of the individuals concerned, but Ministers do not like to individualise the issue. They have lost sight of—or perhaps they have never really cared about—the wellbeing of the human beings at the centre of this debate.

Last week the Minister kindly accepted an invitation to visit Glasgow—something none of his predecessors has been prepared to do. I hope that when he comes, he will meet and listen to some of my constituents who are supported by the Maryhill Integration Network, Refuweegee, Glasgow Afghan United and other organisations that work with refugees and asylum seekers to make them welcome in the city. He will see how people who have come here on small boats, on the backs of lorries or through other irregular means have not done so for purely economic reasons. They have come fleeing war, climate change, persecution and many other situations barely imaginable to many of us who live in relative comfort and safety in Scotland and in the UK. All they want is to be safe and to be able to contribute to their new community and society.

There is nothing good about the Bill. It should be scrapped in its entirety. It is unnecessary, unworkable and unloved by all sides of the Conservative party and the House. The Lords amendments provide something in the way of mitigation, and the House should support each of them tonight. I hope that it has the chance to divide on each of them, too. The Government, their Back Benchers and everyone else who supports the Bill ought to be made to work for it. If they think walking around the Lobby for two hours is tough, they should try getting on a small boat or on the back of a lorry and see how they feel about that.

If the Government use their majority to send the amendments back, the Lords ought to think carefully about how their amendments in lieu might achieve similar aims, and not simply cave at the end of the first round of ping-pong. The Bill was not in the Government’s manifesto or even in the King’s Speech, so there is no convention, principle or anything else stopping the Lords from continuing to insist on versions of their amendments. We on the SNP Benches are not supporters of an unelected second Chamber, but if Members on the Government Benches—and, more pertinently, on the official Opposition’s Benches—think that an unelected House of Lords is a good idea and has a role to play in the UK constitution, they ought not be prepared to see the Lords simply cave in on this kind of legislation; Opposition Members should ensure that their colleagues in the House of Lords continue to hold the Government to account in the way that they think the UK constitution ought to work.

In reality, all this is getting us further away from the SNP’s vision of an independent Scotland with an open and welcoming asylum and immigration system—and the more that the Government and the official Opposition continue to push that divergence, the closer that independent Scotland will come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I intend to call the Minister to wind up at no later than 7.50 pm. I expect 10 votes, starting at 8 pm or before. Those who have participated in the debate should make their way to the Chamber now. Mr Shannon, I am not putting the clock on you, but I ask you to resume your seat by 7.50 pm.