Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The front page of this tawdry, pathetic piece of unworkable legislation says, in the name of the Home Secretary:

“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”

It is another illegal Bill that will not work and will not fix the problem. It is a Bill for which the Government have no mandate. The 2019 Conservative manifesto said:

“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”

Nothing about flights to Rwanda, nothing about extradition, nothing about ripping up people’s fundamental human rights. Since then, there have been two unelected Prime Ministers, four Home Secretaries and no mandate for this Bill.

The UNHCR’s assessment of the Bill states:

“It maintains its position that the arrangement, as now articulated and the UK-Rwanda Partnership Treaty and accompanying legislative scheme, does not meet the required standards relating to the legality and appropriateness of the transfer of asylum seekers and is not compatible with international refugee law.”

Rwanda has been clear that it does not want to sign up to an agreement that breaches international law. The Bill breaches international law. That is very clear. It is very dangerous that the Government are going down this road. We cannot make a country safe simply by legislating that it is so. This Government are engaged in a fantasy. More dangerous than that, they ask the courts, public servants and all of us to engage in that same fantasy. It becomes upside down and topsy-turvy—right is wrong and wrong is right. All those things make no sense. We cannot make a country safe simply by legislating it so.

We know that the Bill is no deterrent, because the supposedly harsh Bills that came before it have not been a deterrent either. It has been 181 days since the last tough, harsh and difficult piece of deterrent legislation was passed, and measures are not yet even in force from the Government’s previous tough, difficult harsh Bill that was supposed to be a deterrent, so we cannot believe them now.

We also find that the tiniest number of people will sent to Rwanda anyway. Less than 1% of those crossing this year will be sent to Rwanda. What happens to the rest of the people left in immigration limbo to wander the streets of these islands? The Government cannot say, they do not know and they have no idea what they will do when people have no rights and are out looking for assistance.

The Bill amounts to nothing more and nothing less than state-sponsored people trafficking. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to hear it, but it is the truth. I will explain to them exactly why. They should listen to my description and see what they think. Far from dismantling criminal gangs, this Government have become a criminal gang, breaking international law and moving vulnerable people across the world without legal process—no right of appeal and no concern for the safety or human rights of asylum seekers—to a country they do not know, involving money and involving profit. It involves people this Government will never meet and never look in the eye. They will never sit across the table and watch them in tears because they cannot be safe.

Robert Burns, that great humanitarian of Scotland, said:

“Man’s inhumanity to man

Makes countless thousands mourn!”

I mourn what this Government are doing to human rights, and the undermining of international law and international principles, and I give this assurance: when Scotland gets its independence we will take our place in the world, we will take our responsibilities seriously, and we will play our full part in the world as an independent nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Home Office’s knee-jerk policy to raise the threshold and its sudden partial reverse ferret to bring it slightly back down again caused a huge amount of distress to people up and down these islands who now do not know what the future holds for them and their families. What equality impact assessment has been carried out on the policy which, as well as affecting Scotland, will disproportionately affect women?

[Tom Pursglove]

When he announced the changes, the Home Secretary made a commitment to lay the information on the projected volumes in the House Library. It seems that the hon. Lady is criticising the Government for not taking the steps that we have taken to say clearly that the changes will not be applied retrospectively. We think that that is the right thing to do and that it has provided reassurance to people. Ultimately, we need to get net migration under control and we think it is a pragmatic and sensible package to take forward.

[Alison Thewliss]

That does not answer the question that I put to the Minister at all. What equality impact assessment has been carried out on this policy? What recognition of wage levels in Scotland has there been in relation to the policy? He cannot tell me.

One of my constituents tells me that they are worried about their spouse, who works as a legal administrator, coming over from Australia. Also, a man is worried about his nephew and partner who will never be able to return from Canada if they want to come back to live in Scotland, and there are many more who are guilty only of falling in love with somebody of what the Government consider to be the wrong nationality. Will the Minister apologise to them for the chaos that these policies have caused?

[Tom Pursglove]

The position is as I have set out. We think the number of people coming to the country in this way is not sustainable and that we are taking forward a pragmatic, balanced package. As I have said, the measures will not be applied retrospectively, so they will not affect existing applications that have been lodged.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I wish to speak to the reasoned amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends.

Before I do so, I want to remark on the tragic news that has emerged that an asylum seeker aboard the Bibby Stockholm was found dead this morning. We do not know yet what the cause was, and we sympathise for that person and everybody who loved them, but what I do know is that our words and our policies in this place have consequences. We should all reflect on that in the debate.

The UK’s approach to migration, both legal and illegal, has been nothing short of chaotic, with poisonous rhetoric swirling around the plight of the world’s most vulnerable at the channel on a stormy night. Let me take a moment to reflect on how the Tories have brought us to this parlous state. A former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), doubled down on Labour’s hostile environment policy in a speech 11 long years ago. She promised to make life really difficult for those who came to our shores, deporting first and hearing appeals later. The Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016 fostered a toxic culture of suspicion and disbelief in the Home Office, turning health staff, employers and landlords into border guards. That led to the Windrush scandal, the test of English for international communication scandal, and lives fractured and still not put back together. It led to “Go home” vans and the highly skilled migrants paragraph 322(5) scandal. It led to people being forcibly removed despite having done nothing wrong. It led directly to the dehumanisation found by the Brook House inquiry and to the rampant spread of covid and scabies in Napier barracks.

The Tories tightened up on the lorries, and then we had small boats. The talk got ever tougher. The cry of “Stop the boats” went out, and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 came and went. The boats kept coming. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 was passed and, oddly enough, did not prove to be much of a deterrent, either. Today, we have the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill before us, which the Tories claim will be the one to do it. Well, they think that the third time is the charm, so maybe it will or maybe it will not. I am not terribly convinced, but the permanent secretary told a Committee yesterday that there is no evidence that it will be a deterrent, either.

This is policy in a death spiral, tougher and tougher, turning the screw and threatening people with rendition flights to Rwanda. It will not work, because nothing the Government have done before has worked. Why? Because it does not deal with the reason why people are coming here.

People will continue to put themselves in small boats because they feel there is no alternative. They come to reunite with family because of historical ties and because of the English language. It is all too easy to dehumanise, to speak of scourges, swarms and hordes, to speak of those who try to come here with no papers as somehow wanting to cheat the system and skip the queue. As the MP with the highest immigration caseload in Scotland, I see many of those people referred to by Ministers at my surgeries week in, week out. I have to look them in the eye, as I know so many Tory Members do not have to. I have 138 outstanding immigration cases—would the Home Secretary care to look at his inbox once in a while?

I will speak instead briefly about some of my constituents. I will call the first constituent Mohammed, to protect his anonymity. He came here from Sudan and got refugee status. He applied for his wife to come and, after nine months of waiting for that application, he came to my surgery in March. In April, conflict broke out in Sudan. His wife’s family fled to Egypt, but, because her paperwork was in the closed visa application centre, she could not go. In May, I was told that the case was allocated to a decision maker but that the visa application centre in Khartoum was still closed. By October, the case was still with a decision maker, but there was no timescale for a decision, I was told.

On Friday, Mohammed came to my advice surgery to show me pictures of a gunshot wound to his wife’s leg and video footage of those who had been killed in the same incident. I ask Tory Members what they would do if it was their wife. There is no safe and legal route from Sudan, and the family reunion route is demonstrably not working in the face of an ongoing conflict. Would they advise her to sit tight and wait for a year and a half for the appropriate paperwork, or should she try to cross international borders, by whatever means, to get to her husband and to safety in Glasgow? She is not wanting to skip the queue; she just wants the paperwork done by the Home Office.

How about the constituents who I will call Mr and Mrs R? They were unlucky enough to be visiting family in Afghanistan with their five children when it fell. With significant difficulty and scant assistance from UK officials, they were eventually able to return to Glasgow several months later, yet they contact me regularly about the family members they had had to leave behind. Despite the much-touted Afghan schemes, there is no route for them. Their relatives fled to Pakistan and had to leave everything behind, including their paperwork. The Government of Pakistan are now sending people back to Afghanistan—into the hands of the very Taliban they fled from. I ask Tory Members again: what would they advise Mr and Mrs R’s family to do? Should they ask the Taliban for a passport, wait for the Taliban to come to their door, wait for the Pakistani Government to arrest them, or should they try another route?

It is no accident that Afghans make up the greatest number of people in small boats. As Safe Passage has pointed out, in the first nine months of this year, just 279 Afghans came through official routes. For every person arriving through the Afghan schemes, 17 Afghans are crossing the channel in a small boat. This week, we have heard about how the Afghan relocations and assistance policy is leaving those who served with our armed forces at risk of execution.

I recently travelled with the Home Affairs Committee to hear more about what is happening in France and Belgium and their response to small boat crossings. The French Red Cross said that it works with the young unaccompanied asylum seekers it finds who are trying to cross the channel to reach family members in the UK. It tries to convince them of the merits of a family reunion application, but the backlog is so long and the casework so slow that they will inevitably wait for many months. Members in this place tend to forget that the channel is not the beginning of somebody’s journey but the end; it is the last leg. The channel holds little fear, given the dangerous journeys that some have already made to be here. It could not be more tempting to know that they are so nearly to safety.

If a humanitarian travel document existed, those same young people could avoid the perilous journey in a leaky rubber dinghy. They could get the same train or ferry that many millions of travellers do every year. They would not need to pay people smugglers at all—that would kill the business model at a stroke. It is the denial of that logical option that is placing people in danger. What are the Government offering instead? They are saying, “If you make that long and dangerous journey to our shores, your case will not be heard at all and you may be sent to Rwanda.”

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech and bringing real humanity to the debate. Is she aware that the people in Calais who are trying to cross the channel are homeless, poor, desperate, and often victims of war and human rights abuses, and that walking away from international law and international conventions will not offer protection to them or to any other desperate people in the world and will send a terrible message to the rest of the world that this country is turning its back on the international law that it established in 1948?

[Alison Thewliss]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Through the Bill, this country is turning its back on its international obligations. It is a pathetic excuse for policy—a foghorn signalling to the far right. It is too weak for some of the Home Secretary’s colleagues, but too harsh for a few exceptional others. For all the talk of full fat versus semi-skimmed, it is more akin to milk that has gone stagnant and sour—utterly repellent to decent people and best binned altogether, for everyone’s safety. For the SNP, the Bill is an abhorrence that undermines the UK’s international obligations and the principles of human rights. It costs a fortune and it is highly unlikely to achieve even its tawdry aims. We shall be tabling a prayer against the Rwanda treaty.

The legal experts I have heard from are appalled by the implications of proceeding with a Bill that, by the Home Secretary’s own frontispiece to it, cannot be declared compliant with the ECHR. The Home Secretary claims that he respects the Supreme Court’s decisions, but he comes here today with the sole purpose of overturning them and preventing the Court from ruling on anything ever again. For a Government to disapply human rights when it suits them, and instruct courts and public bodies to do likewise, is deeply troubling.

Liberty has stated that the Bill will

“tie the hands of every court in the UK while also abandoning the UK’s international commitments”.

Far be it from me to be concerned about the UK’s constitution or standing in the world, but I note that the Law Society of Scotland has questioned the UK’s rationale in disapplying a range of human rights agreements dating back 70 years, and the global implications of that departure from the international rights order. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Justice and Freedom from Torture say that the Bill

“sends a devastating signal to the world about the UK’s reliability as an international partner”.

The Bill also begs the question whether breaking international law is something that the Rwandan Government would accept. Minister Vincent Biruta reportedly said:

“Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.”

It is beneath contempt for the UK Government on the one hand to say, “We are presenting a treaty with Rwanda—marvel at how solid and unbreakable it is,” while, on the other, to tell us that they want to breach the human rights convention, the refugee convention, the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights, the 1984 United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings agreed at Warsaw on 16 May 2005, as well as customary international law and any other laws that might get in their way, including from the European Court of Human Rights.

International law is binding: no welching, no backsies, no keys up. The Government are supposed to adhere to it; that is why they signed up to it in the first place. This is abject nonsense. The Law Society of England and Wales goes further, stating clearly that

“domestic legislation cannot immunise the Government from the enforcement of international law. To claim it can is disingenuous”.

It also states that refusing to comply with an interim measure would be a

“clear and serious breach of international law.”

It accuses the UK Government of using law to manufacture a reality. It is the time of year that we all indulge in some Christmas magic and imagine reindeers on the roof, but this UK Tory Government have asked the entire United Kingdom legal system to engage in a far more dangerous pretence.

The UK Supreme Court sought out the facts for itself and, upon clear and substantial evidence, found Rwanda to be unsafe. That seems most likely why the Government want to ban courts from doing that again, via this legislation. The Court spoke of the risk of refoulement and of sending people back into harm’s way. Indeed, if Rwanda were safe, why would it be able to send asylum seekers to the UK as part of the deal? The Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza was sentenced to 15 years in jail for speaking out against the Rwandan Government. Despite being released in 2018, to this day she still cannot exercise her political rights. She had to criticise the deal in the international media, because she says that the local media dare not give her a platform.

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

[Alison Thewliss]

If the right hon. Member can explain how Rwanda is safe, I will certainly give way.

[Sir John Hayes]

The key thing about this whole debate is the tension that the hon. Lady has described. Is she familiar with the rulings of Lord Denning, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Bingham and, more recently, Lord Reed, all of which directly contradict what she said about the balance between international law and laws passed by this Parliament? Does she acknowledge the truth that all those very distinguished jurists say the opposite of what she said?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I acknowledge that different lawyers will have different opinions. In its briefing, the Law Society of England and Wales says that the Government are being disingenuous in what they are claiming, and I will take their word for it.

[Joanna Cherry]

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) cites various judges, but the most supreme court in the United Kingdom is the UK Supreme Court, and it was very clear in the first Miller case that, although parliamentary sovereignty might mean that the law can be changed internally, this Parliament cannot legislate its way out of its international obligations. Does my hon. Friend agree that, no matter what various judges may have said at various times, it is a recent massive constitutional case of the UK Supreme Court that we should look to on this issue?

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct, and has knowledge of many of these issues. It is important to reflect on those cases and what they actually mean, rather than what Government Members wish they meant.

The Bill declares Rwanda safe in all circumstances. In so doing, it undermines the rule of law and the separation of powers, preventing the courts from establishing their own facts and driving a sleigh and a squad of reindeer through the principle of restraint. My tortured metaphor ends here because, far from being Santa, the Home Secretary makes the Grinch look generous; he truly does have a heart that is two sizes too small.

The treaty creates new rules for Rwanda but, in reality, nothing has changed in the weeks since the judgment. Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones said that

“intentions and aspirations do not necessarily correspond to reality: the question is whether they are achievable in practice.”

The Supreme Court found that Rwanda has thus failed to meet international obligations and is unlikely to meet additional ones. There is no evidence that the long-term culture shift required is likely to happen quickly. Rwanda processed only 228 decisions on asylum claims in 2020, and rejected claims from countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran and Eritrea.

I do not want to get dragged into the merits or otherwise of Rwanda as a nation, as there is a far broader principle in play. If we start to offload our international responsibilities to a third country—any third country—we are effectively surrendering our influence over what happens next. This Government themselves have become the people traffickers, sending human beings offshore against their will as if they were some kind of waste to be processed rather than human beings alike in dignity. There are real concerns about the impact that this flagrant disregard for international co-operation could have on trade policy, the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor framework. The implications of what is happening here today could be far-reaching and long-lasting across many aspects of all our lives.

Let me move to cost. Quite typical of the way that this Tory Government run their business, there has been secrecy over the cost. Yesterday, the permanent secretary was finally forced to reveal the additional £100 million payment to Rwanda, after the figures showed up in some International Monetary Fund paperwork. That is on top of £140 million the previous year and £50 million to come next year, for a scheme that thus far has seen more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers flown to Rwanda. It will cost £169,000 per asylum seeker—significantly more than if they were processed in the UK and allowed to rebuild their lives here and contribute to society, as so many dearly wish to do.

We all know that the capacity of the deal makes it practically impossible. The estimated capacity of around 200 would mean that the probability of being renditioned to Rwanda is one in 230. If the UK Government were to remove everyone who crossed in a small boat last year, it would cost £7.7 billion. That would be an obscene use of public funds at any time, but particularly so in a cost of living crisis. Then there is the ongoing problem, which the Government are failing to address, of those people who have arrived and will not be removed. They are forever stuck in immigration limbo, with their cases deemed inadmissible. At what cost? Where will they stay? What will they do for the rest of their lives?

A further danger of the Bill is that it will force people into even riskier behaviour. The Refugee Council has stated that almost everyone who arrives in the UK does so after being intercepted by the UK coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or Border Force, and many actively contact those agencies asking to be rescued. The Bill makes it far less likely that they will do so. They will take more dangerous routes and they will not seek assistance, and the inevitable result is that many more will die in the channel or in the back of refrigerated lorries. The Bill will also leave people at the mercy of exploitative people traffickers. The Home Affairs Committee has already found that

“the fight against human trafficking is, in practice, no longer a priority for the UK Government”.

The Bill, and the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that came before it, make that worse.

The treaty also states that there is nothing to stop people leaving Rwanda once they are removed there, regardless of anything Ministers may claim. The BBC, on its visit to the Gashora refugee camp in Rwanda, found that those who had been moved there under other schemes did not wish to stay:

“Of the almost 2,000 people who have been relocated to the transit camp in Gashora since it was set up in 2019, none opted to stay in Rwanda when given the option, preferring instead to move to another country.”

So what do we have? We have endless failed policies. We have the ramping up of tensions through rhetoric. We have ineffective legislation. We have the overruling of judges. We have the abolition altogether of the asylum system. We have the undermining of human rights. It is like the TV series “Years and Years” on steroids.

It does not have to be this way. Together with Refugees published this week a clear alternative to fixing the broken system and keeping people safe. Ministers could not be less interested. The response from the right wing? To pillory Gary Lineker for having the temerity to speak his mind. The Scottish Government recently published a paper setting out an alternative in Scotland to this ineffective and failing system, ending the hostile environment and ensuring that humane, fair and compassionate refugee and asylum policies are a priority.

We should never forget the traumas and unimaginable suffering that lead people to flee their homes. They are people, just like us. Were it happening to us, we would all hope to be treated far better than those on the Government Benches would have it, and to find safety and sanctuary when we needed it most. It was on that principle that the refugee convention was created. We should stand up for that principle today and reject this cruel, unworkable and illegal Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

Throughout this plan, we have made it clear that we will remain in conformity with international law. The European Court of Human Rights does of course have an important role to play, but the point we have made is that there are many countries that are in disagreement with international courts, including the European Court of Human Rights. We are determined to do the right thing to deter the evil people smugglers, the slave traders, and those people who would seek to abuse and take advantage of vulnerable people, and to work with Rwanda, in conformity with international law, but being clear that we are not going to be deterred from acting promptly.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Humpty Dumpty said, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Just by saying that Rwanda is a safe country does not make it so. Legislating does not make it so. The Home Secretary says that Rwanda is safe, yet somehow his treaty says that we will accept asylum seekers from Rwanda—from that safe country—so it is both safe and unsafe. He says that he respects the assessment of the Supreme Court, but he is here today to override it. His treaty says that they will not remove children, but the treaty is full of provisions for what happens when children do end up in Rwanda. He says that human rights are important, but they are not there for everybody, and he seeks to disapply them.

The Home Secretary comes here today while the Rwandan Minister says:

“It has always been important to both Rwanda and the UK that our rule of law partnership meets the highest standards of international law, and it places obligations on both the UK and Rwanda to act lawfully. Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.”

So if this deal does break international law and our treaty obligations, the deal fails to exist. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary says it does not, but it is not a matter in which they can just overlook the human rights convention, the refugee convention and all those other conventions and disapply them when it suits. International law does not work that way.

This is an assault on human rights. We should not let this stand from this House, because human rights are universal and they are for everybody, not who the Home Secretary thinks they should apply to. This Bill is a dangerous distraction; it is part of a march towards fascism. Every single piece—[Interruption.] I do not say that lightly, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not say these things lightly. Does the Home Secretary believe that human rights are universal or does he not? That is the key question on this legislation, because we have been told, on every piece of legislation we have passed so far, that it would be a deterrent, yet none of them has worked. This illiberal, toxic piece of legislation today is supposed to be a deterrent, when all the others have failed.

The Home Secretary’s plans for Rwanda have been found to be unlawful. They are immoral. They are a waste of money. They should be scrapped. Scotland wants none of this—none of this—appalling legislation.

[James Cleverly]

It is a shame that the hon. Lady’s comments are clearly based on what I can only assume is a cursory and superficial skim of the legislation. She criticises it for a number of things that are not in the legislation, so I will forgive her for the fact that she did not take the time to read it properly. We are absolutely committed to human rights. We were one of the founders of the European Court of Human Rights and our commitment to abide by international law is unwavering. It underpins the relationship we have with Rwanda and I can assure her that it will remain at the forefront of our thinking throughout. And she might reflect on the appropriateness of throwing the word fascism around when we are bringing forward a Bill on which every Member of this House will be allowed to vote, because we are in a democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Did the hon. Member just swear?

[Alison Thewliss]

No, he quoted the Home Secretary!

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Please use other words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much for your statement, Home Secretary, and for answering questions for well over an hour.

[Alison Thewliss]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Accuracy is incredibly important in this House, and I would not want something incorrect to be on the record. The Home Secretary said in his statement:

“Other countries have since copied our plans with Rwanda”.

I can find no evidence that that is accurate. Can you advise on this point of accuracy, Mr Deputy Speaker, because no country is copying the plan with Rwanda?

[James Cleverly]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A number of countries are exploring third-country—

[Alison Thewliss]

So it is not true.

[James Cleverly]

I’m sorry?

[Alison Thewliss]

“Exploring” is not “copying”.

[James Cleverly]

A number of countries are exploring third-country asylum processing. The example that springs most rapidly to mind is Italy’s relationship with Albania.

[Alison Thewliss]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a point of accuracy, those who are being moved to Albania will be under Italian law. That is not the case in the Rwanda plan.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will now move on.

Draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 (Port Examination Code of Practice) Regulations 2023 Draft National Security Act 2023 (Video Recording with Sound of Interviews and Associated Code of Practice) Regulations 2023 Draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2023

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 General Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Briefly, I welcome and support the consultation with Police Scotland and, from what the Minister said, the acknowledgment of what it asked for. I appreciate that one of the statutory instruments did not have a consultation because it is minor, but is there anything more that the Minister could say about the consultation processes for the other two?

Net Migration Figures

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I wish to take a different approach from the Westminster parties to the migration statistics. On behalf of the SNP, I thank those people who have come to make their home here and to contribute to our universities, public services and health and care sector, and who have made our society and our economy all the richer for their presence. Have the Government thought this through? Who will carry out the vital tasks of those who have come to our shores if they pull up the drawbridge and send people away? The CBI has said that two thirds of UK businesses have been hit by labour shortages in the last year. Pressures on services are helped, not hindered, by those people coming here. Those pressures on services are a result of more than 10 years of austerity from the Conservatives. Under-investment in those services is the fault not of immigrants but of this Government.

Interestingly, those who have come on small boats represent only 3% of the total, which is the flimsy basis on which the Minister and his colleagues want to disapply human rights laws, pull us out of the European convention on human rights and renege on our international commitments. It is clear that Scotland has different needs and attitudes towards migration. According to Migration Policy Scotland, six in 10 Scots say that immigration has a positive impact. In Scotland we need to deal with the challenges and the pressures of emigration over many decades. Can we finally have an immigration policy that meets Scotland’s needs? If the Government will not devolve that, Scotland will need independence more urgently than ever before.

[Robert Jenrick]

Fortunately, immigration is a reserved matter, and we do not intend to leave it in the hands of the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the SNP Government. As she knows with respect to illegal migration and asylum seekers, the fine words that she says here in the Chamber are not matched by the actions of the SNP Scottish Government. For example, in June there were fewer asylum seekers in the entire city of Edinburgh than in a single hotel in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). Her humanitarian nimbyism really sticks in the throat.

On legal migration, here is the difference between us: we see that there is a reason for people to come to the UK, but we also see millions of people on welfare or economically inactive, and we care about those people getting back into the workplace. We do not want companies simply to reach for the easy lever of foreign labour. That is not a route to sustainable prosperity and productivity. That is why my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Chancellor set out major measures last week. That is our vision for this country—one that genuinely drives up GDP per capita so that we can support and protect all our citizens.

Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Border Security) Regulations 2023

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott.

The SNP will likewise oppose the regulations. We are very concerned about their impact on people’s fundamental right to withdraw their labour. Strikes, by their very nature, are supposed to be disruptive. If the Government are saying that Border Force should be no less effective than if a strike were not taking place, they would undermine the very point of a strike. The very point is that people should know that staff have withdrawn their labour, because they are concerned about their terms and conditions or the way their employer—in this case, the Government—are treating them.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is right that strikes are designed to be disruptive—that is their purpose—but they are not designed to be dangerous to the public. Strikes by Border Force are dangerous to the UK public, and that is the reason behind the legislation.

[Alison Thewliss]

The point the hon. Gentleman makes would be more correct if the Government were not determined to keep ports and airports open during strike action. That is a choice they have made. They want ports and airports to stay open, therefore they want a minimum service level. If the Government had said, “If you withdraw your labour, we will only be able to open the airports to an extent”, people would notice that. We notice when French air traffic controllers go on strike because it has that effect. It causes disruption and people realise there is an issue. If we have a service that is essentially no different when a strike takes place, the very nature of strike action is undermined.

The TUC has described the regulations as

“a draconian piece of legislation that attacks individuals’ fundamental rights while doing nothing to improve industrial ‘relations’”.

I remind the Minister that strikes have been more common under this Government because industrial relations have not been in a great place. That is why they are cracking down on people who wish to withdraw their labour and go on strike. It is a punishment for those people for having the temerity to exercise their fundamental rights.

I would also be very interested to know how the regulations will affect the Passport Office. I have a Passport Office in my constituency. I am not clear from the regulations how many people who work in the Passport Office in Glasgow will be affected because they are regarded as “mission critical” for national security. That is not defined in the regulations. The Government could say that everyone who works in the Passport Office is subject to the legislation, or perhaps it would be just a few people working on very sensitive passports. They have not defined that at all, and that is worrying for those who work in the Passport Office, because they do not know what their rights will be.

The issue is not just about security, as the hon. Member for Dartford suggests. The Government have talked about the free flow of goods. That is not national security: the free flow of goods is about commerce. Which is it? The Minister is disingenuous if he says it is only about national security.

On the consultation, I was surprised that we have not had a list of respondents. The consultation was open for just over a month only, from 11 August to 21 September, with 69 respondents, including employees of Border Force, industry partners and members of the public. I would be interested to know the exact mix. A further nine written responses were received from organisations such as trade unions, port operators and airlines. Again, it would be interesting to hear more about those responses. Is there a reason why those were not published ahead of the proceedings today? It would be interesting to learn about the balance of the responses. Were they from people saying they wanted their right to strike, or from people saying that nobody should ever be allowed to strike? We cannot tell from what has been provided to us.

The impact assessment contains a list of risks associated with the policy. It will have a disproportionate impact on some smaller ports and airports—mostly found in Scotland. Page 29 states:

“As Border Force staff numbers based at some smaller ports and airports are very low, Option 2”—

the Government’s preferred option—

“could mean that staff based at these locations are more likely to receive work notices, thus they are less likely to be able to undertake strike action, when compared with other staff.”

That seems to me to be discrimination: some people are not able to exercise their rights because they are seen as more critical in their roles than somebody at a much larger facility, perhaps. Take a small airport in Scotland compared with Heathrow. That is a huge difference in the number of people able to effectively exercise their right to strike.

The impact assessment goes on to say:

“Similarly, the requirement to maintain particular Border Force security functions during strike action could mean that officers trained in critical functions are less likely to be able to undertake strike action than those who have not taken the training. This IA has not assessed the impact…on staff willingness to be located at smaller Border Force outposts or to undergo the training necessary to carry out critical border security functions.”

Again, this becomes an issue of recruitment and retention in those specialist roles and those smaller ports right across these islands. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that might have on recruitment and retention in these roles and those locations? If there are difficulties in recruiting at those locations, that is surely much more important to national security than the sledgehammer to crack a nut that the Government are bringing forward this evening.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West referenced reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government like to bandy about that other European countries do similar things, but they are not comparing like with like. What is being removed and undermined in this legislation is the right to strike, which is protected in some countries under their legislation. We are starting from a very different point and on a very different basis. This country does not have a formalised constitution. I argue very much that in a country that wishes to be independent and to have a formalised constitution these rights should be enshrined and protected and that the right to strike should not be undermined by a Government without a mandate to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Last week, a woman and a man died while attempting to cross the channel in a small boat; others in their group were hospitalised for hypothermia. Despite the clear risks, over 400 people in nine boats were detected crossing the channel in the past seven days. They clearly felt there was no other choice. The lack of safe and legal routes is putting people at risk. Will the Immigration Minister consider a humanitarian visa, as the Red Cross has recommended?

[Robert Jenrick]

All of us across the House abhor the deaths of individuals in the channel, and we are working closely with the French authorities to investigate the circumstances of those individuals’ deaths. But those individuals, like anyone seeking to cross the channel, are coming from a place of evident safety. They are departing from France. They are in absolutely no danger. They are in a country with a fully functioning asylum system of its own. There is no excuse for those people breaking into our country, putting themselves in the hands of people smugglers. We should be united in trying to deter that.

On the hon. Lady’s second question about safe and legal routes to the UK, she knows that we have issued more than half a million humanitarian visas since 2015—more than at any time in the history of this country. If she wants to do more, after the debate she should go straight back to the SNP Government and ask them to pull their weight and provide more safe spaces for asylum seekers and refugees back in Scotland.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister is deflecting quite a lot. [Interruption.] Government Members would do well to listen because their systems are not working; they are failing people every single day. In the first nine months of 2023, a mere 279 Afghans arrived in the UK by safe and legal routes. For each one, 17 Afghans came across on small boats. Today, The Independent has laid out the story of a mother of four—an Afghan special forces soldier who served in a unit set up by Britain, trained and paid for by the British armed services—whose application under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy was denied, along with many others from commando force 333 and Afghan territorial force 444. Why is the Minister failing so many Afghans?

[Robert Jenrick]

We do not encourage anyone, whatever their circumstances, to come across illegally in a small boat. That is a criminal offence and it should not be encouraged. We have supported nearly 25,000 people to come from Afghanistan since the end of the war, which compares extremely favourably to other European countries. We have issued more than half a million humanitarian visas, which is a record we should all be proud of. The Scottish National party always wants to make the UK out to be a small country, but that is not correct. The United Kingdom is a big-hearted country, and one of the world leading countries for resettlement—

Illegal Immigration

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

We on the SNP Benches were very glad to see the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court today. It really is quite ridiculous for the new Home Secretary to come to the House today to tell us that his predecessor’s dream will never die. It has gone. Give it up! Do something else instead! Before the extremists on his own Benches start to blame the ECHR, the Supreme Court judge, Lord Reed, was very clear that this is not just about the ECHR, but about the refugee convention, the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the international covenant on civil and political rights as well as our own domestic legislation.

The Supreme Court made it clear that Rwanda is not a safe country. At the heart of the judgment today is the principle of non-refoulement, which means that people must not be sent back into harm’s way. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees provided compelling evidence of Rwanda doing so, even after it signed the memorandum of understanding with the UK, as well as in its earlier deal with Israel. The UNHCR pointed out that it had rejected claims from countries such as Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. It is absolutely ludicrous that those claims could be rejected. It also pointed to the lack of integrity in Rwanda’s own systems. It is a serious problem and one that the Home Secretary claims today that he wants to fix, but he should focus his intentions instead on fixing the multiple failings of his own Department.

What now for the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and for the people who will now be left in immigration limbo without any recourse to claiming asylum? This incompetent Tory Government cannot yeet them back to Rwanda and they will not process their claims, so what will happen to that group of people? The solution lies not in puncturing the market in rubber dinghies, but in creating functioning safe and legal routes. In the first half of the year, the largest group in small boats were Afghans. That is proof positive that the schemes that the Government claim exist are just not working.

Many people make these dangerous journeys because they have no other option. That remains the reality whoever the Home Secretary is, so I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he will stop wasting public money chasing fantasies. At least £1.4 million has been spent just on the legal challenges, never mind the rest of this incompetent scheme. When will he create a system that treats the most vulnerable in the world with the dignity and respect that they are due to rebuild their lives here in the UK?

The Immigration Minister has not even given Glasgow’s MPs the meeting that he promised to discuss the people that the Government are about to make homeless through their bulk processing. If the Home Secretary will not take seriously his responsibilities on immigration and on refugees, will he at least allow Scotland to have the right to do so, because we want to welcome people to our world?

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

OpenDemocracy recently revealed the extent of self-harm and suicide in immigration removal centres—in particular, Harmondsworth and Colnbrook, where 24 self-harm incidents occurred in March, which is more than over the three previous months combined. Emma Ginn, director of Medical Justice, has said:

“We are not confident that the Home Office considers the value of the lives of those in its care in detention as fully human.”

What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that those in Home Office immigration removal centres do not face such desperate circumstances that they seek to take their own lives?

[Suella Braverman]

As I said, the safety of all of those in our care is a priority for the Home Office, and the standard of habitation—whether that is in our asylum accommodation estate more broadly, or specifically in our immigration removal centres—is one that always, as far as the law requires, meets high standards. Those standards are rigorously scrutinised and monitored, and those who have concerns have avenues to make complaints via the migrant helpline.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am glad to hear what the drugs Minister says. The Home Affairs Committee’s report on drugs highlighted good practice in Scotland, in particular with the naloxone roll-out and the medication assisted treatment standards for same-day treatment. Academic evaluation has also found our enhanced drug treatment service, Scotland’s only heroin-assisted treatment service, to have been successfully implemented, in particular with a group with very complex backgrounds. Will the Minister visit Glasgow to hear more about what Scotland is doing to reduce harm and save lives?

[Chris Philp]

As I said to the hon. Lady at the Bar of the House last week, I am due to be in Edinburgh in early December, so I would be delighted to accept her invitation to visit the facility in Glasgow.