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.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

I strongly urge the Government to note the sheer anger and frustration demonstrated in opinion polls and public concern that we get this Bill right and make it work. If not, this anger will continue up to and including the general election. Would it not be wise for the Government to reflect on the position and see that it would be better and wiser to come forward with their own amendments and use our majority, in line with our manifesto, as granted to us by the general election in 2019? That would be in the national interest and for the sake of all Conservative Members of Parliament whose seats would be so at risk if we did not do that.

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

I start by raising my concerns with the Government about using a Committee of the whole House for this part of the scrutiny of the Bill. We had this with the Illegal Migration Act 2023. In that case, there were hundreds of amendments and the Minister just got to speak at the end for a short time. When we are debating and scrutinising such Bills, we need to do so line by line, and we need to debate and hear the argument from the Minister and the argument from the proposers of amendments. The process we are going through does not allow Parliament to conduct that effective scrutiny that we all want to see when passing laws in this place.

Turning to the Bill, when the Home Affairs Committee published our report on channel crossings 18 months ago, we were clear about the potential problems posed by the Rwanda scheme. As I have highlighted on several occasions in this Chamber, we said that the small boat crossings are an issue on which “no magical single solution” is possible and that:

“Detailed, evidence-driven, fully costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change”.

We warned that the Government risked

“undermining its own ambitions and the UK’s international standing if it cannot demonstrate”

that the scheme was

“compatible with international law and conventions.”

We said that aspects of the scheme carried

“significant reputational risk for the UK”.

The amendments we are debating today contain provisions that are incompatible not only with the UK’s obligations under international law, but with basic principles of liberty and freedom under common law. The amendments’ implications are therefore profound and affect every single one of us. Despite what the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said, I take in all sincerity the Rwandan Government’s view on the importance of upholding legal obligations. We can conclude that some of the amendments would prove fatal to the implementation of the Bill. Indeed, yesterday, the UN Refugee Agency declared that the Rwanda treaty and this unamended Bill are

“not compatible with international refugee law.”

I will speak to amendments 2, 3, 10, 56 and 57 and then focus my comments on amendments 19 to 22. Amendments 2 and 3 would prevent any claim based on risk derived from individual circumstances being considered until the person in question had arrived in Rwanda. That would effectively exclude the very narrow possibility for suspensive claims that the Bill currently allows, and it could result in the person being exposed to the risk on which their claim is based—including claims based on fear of persecution and torture—before it is even considered. The European convention on human rights requires

“independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3”.

It also requires that the person concerned should have access to a remedy with automatic suspensive effect. The amendments would therefore be inconsistent with that requirement of the ECHR.

Amendment 10 would extend the notwithstanding provision to apply to all the Bill and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. It would effectively prevent a claimant relying on any pre-existing legal protection to prevent or delay their removal to Rwanda. The amendment would expressly allow removal to Rwanda, despite that removal otherwise breaching domestic law and despite that removal being in breach of international law. That includes fundamental human rights from which we know no exception or derogations are permitted, such as the prohibition on torture. Needless to say, the amendment is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under international law and risks undermining our international standing.

Amendments 56 and 57 would provide that courts and tribunals would not be permitted to consider a claim on the grounds that Rwanda is not a safe country where the claimant has engaged in activity or made serious allegations that have brought into question the safety of Rwanda, or colluded or conspired with others who have done the same. Worryingly, the amendment appears to exclude people who have made serious allegations about the safety of Rwanda from asylum and human rights protection. That would be inconsistent with rights to asylum and humanitarian protection under international law and could also be inconsistent with freedom of expression as guaranteed under article 10 of the ECHR.

Amendments 19 to 22 have profound implications for us all. They would prevent any individual set to be removed to Rwanda from arguing that they could not be sent there on the basis of their own circumstances. In the inevitable absence of absolute certainty that no risk to any individual could arise in Rwanda, that would mean that legitimate claims based on a real risk of persecution and human rights violations would not be heard, and that those people whose claims are unheard would be removed to face the persecution and human rights violations in Rwanda on which their claims are based. That is clearly inconsistent with the refugee convention, the ECHR and the other international legal obligations cited by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment.

Amendment 22 would prevent the courts from reviewing not only the asylum claims of individuals being sent to Rwanda, but also claims for unlawful detention, for assault in the course of removal or for discriminatory treatment in the course of the removal process. To be clear, denying those claims would be inconsistent not only with human rights law, but with fundamental principles of liberty and freedom under our common law that have been protected for centuries, including by the writ of habeas corpus. All Members who do not want to see habeas corpus sacrificed today can surely not support these amendments.

Finally, I add my support to amendments that would make sensible and logical revisions. Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to monitor whether Rwanda remains a safe country. New clause 6 places conditions

“on when the classification of Rwanda as ‘safe’ can be suspended in accordance with material conditions and/or non-compliance with obligations”.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Lady will know that under this Government and previous Governments of all political colours, many people who came here illegally have been deported from this country. When that happens, it invariably does so notwithstanding claims they make about their circumstances. Sometimes, those are claims about their personal circumstances; sometimes, those are claims about the place they are being deported to and from where they come. On the basis of her speech so far, she would deport no one.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I do not know whether I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because that is clearly not what I am saying. What I am talking about—the Home Affairs Committee is clear about this—is the rule of law, recognising the international obligations that this country has freely entered into, and doing things properly and legally. That is what I am questioning, because some proposals tabled by Conservative Members go to the heart of our common law, our belief in the right to go before a judge and our belief that if one is detained, it cannot be indefinite. Those are important matters that are before us today.

I want to get a couple of other things on to the record. Going back to amendment 1 and new clause 6, while the Government have determined in the Bill that it is possible to stipulate in law that Rwanda is safe—as we know, that is to the contrary of a finding of fact by the Supreme Court—it does not seem sensible for the Government to propose that that status should be fixed forevermore, which would, by extension, make Rwanda the only country on Earth in which nothing can ever happen or change. As such, amendment 1 and new clause 6 have merit; I hope the Minister will consider them.

Amendments 35 and 37 would allow the courts to consider the risk of refoulement in decisions on removals to Rwanda. Given that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Rwanda policy was unlawful precisely because there were substantial grounds to believe that refoulement could take place, those amendments also have merit.

I understand from media reports that when the Minister gets to his feet, he will give some undertakings about increasing the number of lower level judges—or, I should say, moving lower level judges up to the upper tribunal—to hear any appeals. That is apparently to deal with some of the concerns of Government Members. The Home Affairs Committee is concerned generally about the lengthy delays in court cases. In particular, in one of our recent reports on the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences, particularly rape, we were worried about how long it was taking for those cases to be heard.

I am concerned about the Government’s initiative—perhaps I am prejudging what the Minister will say, but it is being reported in the press—given the amount of resource and finance that will have to be put into training up 150 judges. It strikes me that they seem to be using an enormous amount of political time and resource on this policy. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about increasing the number of judges when we have so many other problems in other parts of the court system that they have not so far been able to deal with. That concludes my remarks on today’s amendments.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I rise to speak to amendments 28, 29 and 30 tabled in my name. Although they would amend clause 9, they relate to the operation of clause 2; hence their selection for debate today.

It is important that we focus on what clause 2 actually means, what its effect is and what the changed reality is with regard to the position in Rwanda—and, indeed, the position between the United Kingdom and Rwanda—since the decision of the Supreme Court in November and since the facts on which it based its decision, which relate to the spring and early summer of 2022. There is no doubt that matters have moved on significantly. We have not only a treaty between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, which was signed late last year, but an indication in the form of a policy document published by the Government, and indeed further information, as to the hard and fast changes that the Rwandan Government will be making to, in effect, answer the questions asked of it by the Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court decision really was not about the law; it was about the evidence. When we look at what the Supreme Court justices decided, we see that it was very much narrowed down to whether refoulement was still likely, bearing in mind the position of Rwanda. The Court decided that it was, and that is the sole reason why the policy was held to be unlawful. Other grounds were tendered in that case, including one on retained EU law. A specific ruling of the Court was that that did not apply; the law was clear that that part of retained EU law had fallen with our departure from the EU. Other aspects of the appeal were not ruled on by the Court. The decision was not, for example, based on compatibility with the ECHR. Importantly, the decision was not based on a challenge, which was upheld, to the legality of the removal of people to third countries.

In my view, it is neither illegal nor immoral to seek third-country assistance when it comes to this unprecedented challenge. Indeed, other European countries either are doing it or wish to do it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was right to say that other countries are looking to what happens here and to the precedent that we might set.

In setting precedents, we have to tread carefully. That is why the amendments that I tabled are very much focused on the factual reality and the need to ensure that Rwanda does indeed carry out its policies. When we look carefully at the policy statement, we see that particular tasks will need to be completed, including new operational training for decision makers in Rwanda—I think the latest figures show that over 100 people have now been trained to implement the deal—and the need for clear standard operating procedures with regard to the reception and accommodation arrangements for asylum seekers, the safeguarding of their welfare and access to healthcare.

Of course, there needs to be strengthened procedural oversight of the migration and economic development partnership agreed in 2022 and the asylum processes under it. That means that bodies have to be set up—the new MEDP co-ordination unit and the MEDP monitoring committee of experts. The involvement of experts is needed, certainly in the early days of the decision making to be made by the new body, which will be set up by the Government of Rwanda. There will be a new appeal body that consists of panels of three judges, with subject-matter experts, including Rwandan judges and judges from other Commonwealth jurisdictions. All those details are important, because they go towards answering the question, which I think will be answered in the affirmative: that individuals in the scheme will not be at risk of refoulement and, therefore, there will not be a breach of the 1951 convention.

That reality has to match the deeming provision. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be anxious to ensure that deeming provisions do not either perpetuate or encourage legal fictions. This is difficult law, but it is not unprecedented. Deeming provisions are used often in tax legislation. The leading authority is fairly recent: Fowler v. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs back in 2020 in the Supreme Court, in which Lord Briggs made it clear that deeming provisions creating statutory fictions should be followed as far as required for the purposes for which the deeming provision was created, but the production of unjust, absurd or anomalous results will not be encouraged. That is clearly somewhere that the courts do not wish to tread or to encourage, and neither should we as a Government or a Parliament.

We must dovetail the coming into force of the deeming provisions with the reality on the ground in Rwanda, so that we create not a statutory fiction but a series of facts reinforced by statute. That degree of care does not have to take ages—it can be done in weeks, bearing in mind the quick work that has been done already. That would go a long way to satisfying the natural concerns that many of us have about the use of such provisions. We understand why they have to be made, and we do not oppose the principle of their use, but I simply caution that we take care to make sure that we get that co-ordination right.

Many of us have been down the road of discussing ouster before, and it can take many forms. There have been examples where ouster proceedings and clauses have clearly not worked, and they are not the sole province of this Government. Previous Labour Governments tried to enact bold and sweeping ouster clauses, only to find that their efforts fell flat either before the Act became law or as a result of court intervention. I think of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, when Labour tried to be too extensive and expansive.

Experience has taught us that where we have clearly defined reasons—and, importantly, limited exceptions—ouster clauses will work. We had a recent example of that in the removal of the Cart jurisdiction in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, where my hon. and learned Friend the Minister finished the job that I started. In the consultation on the judicial review, my noble friend Lord Faulks and others embarked upon those provisions at my direction. That worked—it has been tested not just in the High Court but in the Court of Appeal in the Oceana case, and it is held to be sound and watertight. Why? Because there was a clear rationale behind it, and there were limited exceptions. Herein lies the danger posed by the otherwise well-intentioned amendments by my right hon. and hon. Friends: without those limited exceptions, we are setting the Bill up to fail. That is what history has taught us.

I am a strong believer that it is from this place that the core of our constitution comes. It is from Parliament that our constitutional authority is derived. To contradict the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who in many respects couched his remarks well, we do not have a separation of powers constitution. We have a checks and balances constitution, where each part of the body politic respects each other. I do agree with him that restraint is an important principle.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

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

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

This has been a very interesting Committee, ranging from the metaphysical to MPs feeding each other baked beans, and from a constitutional tour of the history of Scotland to the case of John Hirst, who lived in Hull. He put an axe through his landlady’s head, went to prison and fought a campaign for prisoners to have the right to vote—we have discussed prisoners’ right to vote in the past.

We have also heard a lot of criticism of lawyers, but I have to say that some of the best speeches we have heard this afternoon have been from lawyers. I do not know whether they count as leftie lawyers, as they were sitting on the Conservative Benches in the majority of cases.

I am conscious that this is not Second Reading, but I refer the Committee to the report on small boat crossings produced by the Home Affairs Committee 18 months ago:

“There is no magical single solution to dealing with irregular migration. Detailed, evidence-driven, fully costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change that deters journeys such as dangerous Channel crossings.”

We also said that the No. 1 issue the Government needed to address was the backlog, on which I am pleased there has been some progress. The backlog is still about 90,000, but that is an improvement on where we were last year.

I am concerned about amendments 11 to 18 and 23 to 25, tabled by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), because if they were accepted, they would put the United Kingdom on a collision course with international law. I also want to speak to amendment 36 and new clause 7 in relation to the cost of the Rwanda policy.

Clause 3 disapplies the Human Rights Act, and amendments 11 to 18 would extend this disapplication, thereby extending the permission this Bill grants for public authorities to act in ways that are incompatible with human rights. Specifically, amendments 11 and 12 appear to extend the disapplication of the Human Rights Act to anything done under the Illegal Migration Act relating to the removal of a person to Rwanda. This could potentially include a person’s detention and treatment prior to removal, meaning that not only would no legal challenge be possible under amendment 22, which we discussed yesterday, but there would be no specific legal obligation on public authorities to act in compatibility with human rights. Extending the disapplication of sections 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act to all immigration legislation, as it relates to a person’s removal to Rwanda under this Bill or the Illegal Migration Act, would raise serious concerns about unforeseen consequences and unintended human rights violations.

It should also be noted that amending the Bill to disapply section 4 of the Human Rights Act, which has never been done before, does not have any clear legal purpose. It would simply prevent the courts from telling the Government and the public their view on the law. As the Secretary of State has already said on the face of the Bill that he is unable to say that it is compatible with convention rights, no one could reasonably presume that a statement of the same from the courts would have any impact at all, which is why I am querying these amendments.

The former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark, opened the debate with amendments 23 and 25, and he talked about taking the pin out of a grenade. Clause 5 concerns interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights, stating that it will be for a Minister, and only a Minister, to decide whether the UK will comply.

At this point, let me again pay tribute to the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), for their clear explanation of the current situation on these interim injunctions; for setting out clearly what the UK’s involvement with that Court is and our long-standing commitment to it; and for setting out that a review is taking place on those interim injunctions, which is very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

In respect of the judges themselves, it was very positive to hear from other hon. Members who have been part of that process, because we know that, contrary to what has sometimes been said, there is a two-stage process: for someone to be a candidate to be a judge, they have to meet the requirements for international judicial appointment in terms of both legal qualifications and relevant experience, and they are then put forward for election by the politicians who place them on the court. Their decisions, certainly in respect of the so-called pyjama injunctions, seem to be very little different from those that magistrates such as I and others across this country will be asked to take on matters of judicial warrants. We are asked to make a decision to enable an intervention to happen at a moment of urgency, and then in due course there is a longer period of opportunity for that to be considered by the courts and all others who may have a stake in it.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am so pleased that we are hearing this very clear explanation of the court and the judges; after what has been said in this debate, it is very refreshing to hear. I thank the hon. Gentleman, who I also think is a lawyer—I do not know if he is a lefty lawyer, but I think he is a lawyer.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I am not a lawyer, but I served as a magistrate in this country. It is always my pleasure to say that I belong to that even more despised race of human beings, the Tory MPs, and that I was formerly a banker.

I think we are right to have some degree of concern in respect of what is said in the Bill and the amendments about the Human Rights Act. This House needs to strike the correct balance. It is a fundamental principle of British justice, which dates back at least as far as the Saxons, that people may not be subject to a penalty unless they have had the opportunity to be brought before a court, a properly composed judicial authority. Therefore, we should be concerned at the idea that in the United Kingdom we would exempt a group of people from access to our law on the basis of the method of their arrival here.

However, we need to balance that against the fact that people are dying in the English channel, drowning in cold water, and gangs are profiting hugely from that, which is fuelling all kinds of other types of crime. To an extent, we are a victim of our previous success in that the improved security in northern France has created and massively exacerbated the problem we face. That, for me, balances up the risk to a loss of human rights: we need to ensure that we have a really effective deterrent in place to address the problem that has arisen from that earlier success.

It is and remains my view, which I expressed in the debates on the then Illegal Migration Bill, that the point at which we will establish full control of our borders is the point at which we add an asylum visa to all the other types of visas we have, so that there is a single safe and legal route, controlled by the British Government and the rules set by this House, and if people arrive on our shores to claim asylum without having gained that permission first, they are automatically ineligible regardless of their method of arrival. That would mirror the process we already have in place for people who want to come here to work, to study, to marry or to invest in the United Kingdom. We still have not yet put in place an effective process and system that would enable us to do that.

It is clearly crucial, as the weather will soon begin to improve, the smugglers will soon be looking to invest in their stock boats and more people’s lives will soon be put at risk, that we keep our eyes on the objective of returning to something more like the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which was described by the UNHCR as a “gold standard” of international refugee resettlement. That is the model on which we based our Afghan resettlement scheme, whatever logistical problems that experienced, and this House has recognised it as the way in which the UK wishes to play a part in refugee resettlement around the world. However, we need to ensure that we deal with the specific problem that arises: small boats in the channel. For all the debates and well-intentioned arguments that we have heard, the Bill, in its unamended form, strikes the best balance available to address that particular problem and ensure that no one else dies en route to seeking asylum here in the United Kingdom. For that reason, I will support the Bill, unamended.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

I wrote to the Prime Minister many months ago and sent him a paper of seven pages of breaches of international law by countries from all over the world, including in the European Union—France, Denmark, there were so many of them. It was not seven pages of arguments; it was seven pages, each line of which contained breaches of international law by the legion, so what are we worrying about? Get on with it! We must make sure that we reject this amendment and do not allow the Lords, if they come back again on ping-pong, to think that they are going to get away with it. We want to be very firm about this. We have a dualist system. We have sovereignty of Parliament, and we have an elected Parliament. We have our voters’ wishes to take into account and we should stick by them and do nothing else.

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

It is almost two years since the Rwanda scheme was first announced by the then Home Secretary in April 2022. This is now the third piece of legislation connected with that scheme. When this Bill had its Second Reading in the Commons at the end of last year, I noted that the challenge of stopping dangerous boat crossings was real and, despite what the Minister says, I think it is one that every Member of this House wishes to address.

The Home Affairs Committee’s report on channel crossings was clear:

“There is no magical single solution to dealing with irregular migration.”

Instead, our report recommended:

“Detailed, evidence-driven, fully costed and fully tested policy initiatives…to achieve…incremental change”.

It also recommended:

“Close co-operation with international partners”.

Those remarks are still relevant, and it is interesting to note the new tone of the Home Secretary in saying that this policy on Rwanda is now only a part of the solution to small boat crossings. As we know, however, it is very expensive and uses up a huge amount of time in this place and a great deal of political capital.

In the absence of any pre-existing evidence that the UK-Rwanda partnership will deliver on its primary objective to deter small boat crossings, the need for careful, considered and responsible planning and lawmaking is even more acute, and that is what the amendments under consideration today seek to address. I remind the House that the Lords as a revising Chamber have an important job to do in scrutinising legislation and improving it where necessary, and I think it is helpful for this House to see what improvements the other place is suggesting to legislation from this place.

Amendment 1 adds a requirement to maintain

“full compliance with domestic and international law.”

I note that the Minister today and the Minister in the other place have argued that the Bill is already compliant with the rule of law and that it is predicated on compliance with international law in the form of the treaty. The Government commented:

“The treaty sets out the international legal commitments that the UK and Rwandan governments have made consistent with their shared standards associated with asylum and refugee protection.”

This is the same treaty that the House of Lords agreed a motion not to ratify on 22 January. It is the same treaty for which the Government refused to allow time for Members of this House to debate and reach a view on, despite a request from the Home Affairs Committee.

The time period for objections is over and the Government can ratify the treaty as long as they lay a statement setting out why they are doing so despite the decision of the Lords. If the Government want us to accept their assurances that the treaty is itself evidence of compliance with international law, they should really have given this House the opportunity to debate that treaty. In the absence of such an opportunity, amendment 1 would provide the reassurance of compliance with domestic and international law. As the Government insist that the treaty and Bill already satisfy the criteria, it stands to reason that there should not really be any issue with the amendment.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am going to carry on. The hon. Gentleman spoke at length, and I want to get through a number of amendments.

I turn to amendments 2 and 3, which also relate to the treaty. In the other place, Lord Hope argued that Rwanda being declared a safe country should be dependent on the arrangements provided for in the treaty being “fully implemented” and “adhered to in practice”, with amendment 3 setting out what that would actually look like and giving the independent monitoring committee a significant role in reporting on this. In response, the Minister in the Lords set out that the Government would ratify the treaty only

“once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2024; Vol. 836, c. 1358.]

As we know, the Bill will come into force only once the treaty has been ratified. Again, it would have been helpful and beneficial for this House to have had the opportunity to debate the treaty, yet scrutiny of its provisions did not happen in the Commons, just as financial details of the UK-Rwanda partnership had been held back from Parliament until very recently. As highlighted in last week’s estimates day debate on asylum and migration, the Home Office repeatedly refused the Home Affairs Committee’s requests for basic financial information about the scheme, and disclosed some of the costs only after our Committee joined forces with the Public Accounts Committee to request a National Audit Office investigation.

We now know that the core costs are very expensive: £370 million for the economic transformation and integration fund, an additional £20,000 per individual relocated, a further £120 million once 300 people have been relocated and, on top of all that, £150,874 for each individual relocated to Rwanda. There is a direct cost to the Home Office of £28 million by the end of 2023-24, with £1 million per year in staff costs and £11,000 for the flight cost of each individual relocated, and I still do not know whether the Home Office has been able to enter into a contract with an airline to deliver the removals to Rwanda. Crucially, though, we still have not been told the costs for implementing the provisions in the treaty, such as a new asylum appeals body. Is there money available, and has it been allocated to pay for that?

We already know that the Home Office budget is under acute pressure. On 1 February this year, the Home Secretary requested an emergency drawdown of £2.6 billion from the reserves, because the Department had run out of money before the supplementary estimates had been approved. With serious questions still to answer about how the Government will fund the implementation of the treaty, and about its practical implementation, I believe that the amendments help to provide some necessary assurances that the Government have hitherto failed to provide to Parliament.

Amendments 4 and 5 would make it possible to argue that Rwanda is not a safe country on the presentation of “credible evidence to the contrary” and would allow appeals to be brought on that basis. Responding on behalf of the Government, the Minister in the Lords said:

“We have been clear that the purpose of this legislation is to stop the boats, and to do that we must create a deterrent that shows that, if you enter the UK illegally, you will not be able to stay.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2024; Vol. 836, c. 1378.]

The Home Affairs Committee has repeatedly asked both Ministers and senior officials what evidence there is for the deterrent effect of the Rwanda scheme. The permanent secretary, Sir Matthew Rycroft, required a ministerial direction for the scheme, because there was no evidence that it would provide value for money. When he gave evidence before the Committee last year, he said that this was because

“the value-for-money judgment depends on the amount of deterrence that the policy will produce.”

He noted that although the number of people crossing the channel is falling, it

“is very hard to tell how much of that is the possibility of being relocated to Rwanda, particularly, as you suggest, before the first flights to Rwanda have taken off.”

The truth is that we actually do not have any idea whether the policy that this Bill facilitates will have the deterrent effect that the Minister cites. As I highlighted in Committee of the whole House, it does not seem sensible for the Government to propose that the status of Rwanda as a safe country should be fixed for ever more, which would, by extension, make Rwanda the only country on Earth in which nothing ever happens or changes. Amendments enabling the presentation of evidence relating to those changes and their implications for safety in Rwanda therefore seem eminently reasonable and, indeed, necessary.

Amendment 6 deletes clause 4 and introduces into the Bill a new clause that allows much wider grounds for legal challenge. The Home Affairs Select Committee has always recognised that appropriate legal challenge is a necessary part of any functioning asylum system. Amendment 7 disapplies section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, meaning that people claiming to be children could appeal against a decision that they are over 18. The noble Baroness Lister, who tabled that amendment, explained that it was intended to

“minimise the risk of any unaccompanied child being sent to Rwanda”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2024; Vol. 836, c. 1577.]

During the Home Affairs Committee’s channel crossings inquiry, we heard multiple examples of safeguarding processes failing across various parts of the asylum system, including cases of children being mistaken for adults. Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act refers to the process of age assessment in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee’s channel crossings report noted that that Act contains a number of provisions relating to age assessment, including a new national age assessment board and powers for the Home Secretary to make regulations specifying scientific methods for age assessments. Our report notes:

“The provisions are controversial because there is broad consensus that age assessment should not rely exclusively, or for some stakeholders, at all, on analyses of the skeleton or the teeth.”

I am concerned that without the amendment tabled by Baroness Lister, the Bill could produce a situation where a child is wrongly assessed as being an adult and sent to Rwanda.

[Mrs Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am going to carry on, because I want other Members to be able to speak.

Amendment 8 relates to the timetable for removals under the Illegal Migration Act. It would require the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament a statement setting out all the individuals whose asylum claims have been deemed inadmissible since that Act received Royal Assent. The statement would have to include the number of individuals due to be removed to Rwanda and the timetable for those removals, as well as the arrangements for those individuals not being removed to Rwanda.

Again, that is information that the Home Affairs Committee has already tried to glean from the Home Office. Indeed, when the Home Secretary appeared before the Committee in January, I asked him how many individuals whose asylum claims had been deemed inadmissible since the Illegal Migration Act received Royal Assent would be sent to Rwanda. He replied:

“That will depend on which other countries we have returns agreements with.”

Despite pressing him several times on that point, our attempts to ascertain any further information were unsuccessful. As the noble Lord Coaker said when moving his amendment, this is a subject on which it would be good to have some facts. That is why his amendment has significant merit.

[Mrs Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady is trying to get in, so I will give way, but I am keen to finish.

[Mrs Elphicke]

I am grateful to her for giving way, because I was hoping to intervene on the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), on a similar point.

When it comes to facts, I am concerned that those being presented are slightly selective, particularly in relation to age assessment. In the House of Lords, the evidence that was brought before their lordships was that—as the right hon. Lady knows—the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee, the expert committee that is independent and has been set up independently, has proposed that the accuracy of age assessment will be improved in multiple ways: not just using one biological method, but a range of methods alongside the existing one. I am concerned that partial evidence about age assessment is being presented in today’s debate, and I would be very grateful for the right hon. Lady’s confirmation that she supports the inclusion of those important methods of age assessment that the committee has recommended, in order to support accurate age assessment for safeguarding children.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Very briefly, I am reporting what the cross-party Home Affairs Committee decided and put in our report on cross-channel small boat crossings. We produced that report nearly two years ago—this matter has been going on for some time. I am reporting our concerns, which are widely shared among all members of the Committee, about the problems that exist. It is very difficult to assess the correct age of a person who claims to be a child, so it is worth reflecting that this is not easy, and the Home Affairs Committee is mindful and concerned about it.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that we have just over an hour left for the remainder of this debate. I hope that we do not have to have a time limit, but if speeches are about seven minutes or so, everyone will have an opportunity to make their points. Speeches so far have not been too long—they have been perfectly reasonable—but I would like to keep to around seven minutes each, please.

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

We are now on the final stages of the legislative journey of the Rwanda scheme announced two years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said from the Front Bench. What we do know is that £370 million is already committed to the Rwanda scheme, no individuals have yet been sent to Rwanda, and the Rwandan Government reportedly want to pause the scheme after the first tranche of removals. The question of how this policy will meet the Government’s objective of deterring small boat crossings remains pertinent, especially because, as we have heard, a record number of individuals have made the dangerous channel crossing in the first three months of this year.

I will turn to each of the Lords amendments, but I also say to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is not in his place, that when I went along to the other place to hear the debate on the Bill, I was impressed by the debate and the points being raised. To say that the House of Lords needs to calm down a bit and that these are ridiculous amendments is doing a huge disservice to what the revising Chamber can provide for this part of Parliament. When the House of Lords thinks we have made mistakes and that things need to be looked at again, it gives us the opportunity to do that.

Lords amendment 1B is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 1. The original would have added a requirement to maintain full compliance with domestic and international law. Lords amendment 1B, which the other place has proposed in lieu, sets out a requirement to have

“due regard for domestic and international law.”

In moving Lords amendment 1B on 20 March, Lord Coaker said:

“We have put this forward because the Bill that your Lordships are discussing now explicitly disapplies aspects of domestic law and disapplies aspects of international law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 213.]

As I made plain in the previous debate on Lords amendments, if the Government are so confident that the Rwanda scheme will be fully compliant with domestic and international law, they should have no objection to this amendment.

Lords amendments 3B and 3C, which relate to treaty implementation and monitoring committees, are modified versions of the original Lords amendments 2 and 3 respectively. Lords amendment 3B, like the original Lords amendment 2, states that Rwanda

“will be a safe country when, and so long as, the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and for so long as they continue to be so.”

The wording has changed slightly. There is no longer a reference to the arrangements in the treaty being “adhered to in practice”, but the effect is the same. Lords amendment 3C, like the original Lords amendment 3, sets out what full implementation should look like and would give the independent monitoring committee a significant role. Unlike the original Lords amendment, there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the monitoring committee every three months. Instead, Lords amendment 3C states that the treaty

“will cease to be treated as fully implemented if Parliament decides, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.”

In moving Lords amendment 3C, Lord Hope of Craighead said that it was an attempt to respond to a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) in the Commons debate on 18 March. He said that

“my Amendment 3C in lieu does my best to make it clear that the authority lies with Parliament and not with the committee.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 227.]

The Home Affairs Committee has argued that the House of Commons should be given an opportunity to debate the treaty prior to ratification, in the light of how critical its implementation is to the Rwanda policy. Given that this opportunity to scrutinise the treaty was denied, Lords amendment 3B would at least provide some reassurance to Members that its provisions will be implemented and applicable to anyone relocated to Rwanda. Lords amendment 3C would enable Parliament to review the treaty’s implementation and respond to facts on the ground if they change.

These Lords amendments speak to the practicalities of implementing the Rwanda policy and how, sadly, too often the Government have sought to skate over them. Take the airline issue. In order for this policy to function, the Government must be able to transport people to Rwanda, yet Ministers have still not confirmed that they have secured an airline, with Rwanda’s state-owned airline reportedly declining a request to use its planes. Then there is the issue of where migrants will live if they are sent to Rwanda. Recent reports suggest that the majority of homes on a new Rwandan housing estate initially earmarked for migrants relocated from the UK have been sold to local buyers. Those are not moot points; they are the kinds of practical details that will determine whether the scheme works, and works safely. In the absence of prior scrutiny of the treaty, the House of Commons must be allowed to assess its implementation and act on the findings.

Lords amendment 6B relates to legal challenge. It is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 6 and, like the original, it would delete clause 4 of the Bill, allowing much wider grounds for legal challenge. Like the original amendment, it states that a court or tribunal may prevent or delay the removal of a person to Rwanda, but unlike the original, it adds

“providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.”

The Home Affairs Committee has always recognised that the opportunity for appropriate legal challenge is a necessary part of an effective and fair asylum system. That is why the amendment has significant merit.

Lords amendment 7B is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 7. The original amendment would have disapplied section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in its entirety, meaning that people claiming to be children could appeal against a decision that they are over 18. Lords amendment 7B instead would insert a new subsection into section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act. In moving Lords amendment 7B, Baroness Lister explained:

“This amendment in lieu is much more modest and in effect meets the Commons’ formal objection to the original amendment. It would permit an age-disputed child to be removed to Rwanda with a pending challenge on a limited basis, but only if a proper age assessment has first been carried out by a local authority.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 252.]

During its channel crossings inquiry, the Home Affairs Committee heard examples of safeguarding processes failing across various parts of the asylum system, including cases of children being mistaken for adults. That is why I believe the Government must look again at this amendment.

Lords amendment 9 on modern slavery would add a new clause to the Bill to create an exception relating to the removal of victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. The new clause states:

“A person with a positive reasonable grounds decision from the National Referral Mechanism…must not be removed from the United Kingdom on the basis of the Rwanda Treaty until a conclusive grounds decision has been made.”

It also states:

“A person with a positive conclusive grounds decision…must not be removed…without a decision-maker considering whether such removal would negatively affect the physical health, mental health or safety of that person”.

The Government have proposed amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 9. It requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of the Act

“as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty”.

The Home Affairs Committee’s recent report on human trafficking expresses our concern that the Government are prioritising irregular migration issues at the expense of tackling human trafficking. Human trafficking is not an immigration offence; it is an exploitation offence, and the two must not be conflated. Lords amendment 9 would provide a vital safeguard for victims of human trafficking, and I hope the Government will look at that.

Finally, Lords amendment 10B is a modified version of Lords amendment 10. Like the original amendment, it would provide an exemption for people who supported our armed forces overseas or who have otherwise been agents or allies of the UK overseas. Lords amendment 10B includes a new subsection, which states:

“A person seeking to rely upon the exemption…must give the Secretary of State notice as soon as reasonably practicable to allow prompt verification of available records”.

In moving Lords amendment 10B, Lord Browne of Ladyton said:

“we are told that men who braved death, courted injury and are forced into exile as a result of assisting our Armed Forces in fighting the Taliban are to be punished for arriving here by irregular routes—even where, owing to wrongful refusals on our part or possible malfeasance on the part of the Special Forces, they have been compelled to take these routes in the first place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 254.]

We know that families from Afghanistan who helped our armed forces and subsequently fled to Pakistan are at imminent risk of deportation back to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. That is despite ministerial reassurances that a route for eligible separated Afghan families to come to the UK would be established.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
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.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

May I start by agreeing with what the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), said about there being nothing new to say? The trouble is that he then spent 14 minutes saying nothing new. He said that the amendments do nothing to stop flights getting off the ground, but the fact that we are still having to debate amendments is preventing the legislation from going through, which would allow the scheme—literally—to get off the ground. Now it is time to get the Rwanda legislation done.

On the remaining amendments, many people have had days, weeks and months to make their points. The Government have given undertakings, and we have heard further undertakings about the treatment of Afghan refugees today. The Bill does not oblige the Government to return anybody from Afghanistan; there are explicit schemes to protect them.

When it comes to declaring Rwanda a safe country, the only reason why the legislation states as such is that a court declared it not to be, based on limited and snapshot evidence. The Government have a white list of countries that are deemed not to be safe—the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office issues guidance about where it is safe to travel—but what constitutes “safe” in the eyes of those courts? Is Spain safe to a Catalonian dissident who is in exile because they have taken issue with the Spanish Government? Is it safe to go back to France? Some of the refugees I have met in the Napier barracks claim that they are beaten by French police, and that it is not safe for them to go back to that country. Indeed, in the eyes of some court judgments, is London safe for a person who is “openly Jewish”?

Plenty of safeguards are given in this Bill: it will bring people back to the UK if Rwanda is deemed not to be safe or appropriate. Plenty of international legal scrutiny has now been added into the Bill. The issue of refoulement, which was the Supreme Court’s major complaint, has been dealt with, and legal assessment is available for those sent to Rwanda. I will say it again: when the Home Affairs Select Committee went to Calais last year, we were told by all those who were in charge of the policing system on the beaches that when the Government announced the Rwanda scheme the previous May, there was a surge in migrants around Calais approaching the French authorities to try to regularise their position in France, because they did not want to risk being sent to Rwanda.

It is disgraceful that, time and again, those behind these amendments—the Labour party, continuing this ping-pong—have not come up with a single solution to the really important question of what we do with asylum seekers who have come to this country illegally, who have no credible case to be in the UK, but who it is practically impossible to return to their own country. It is also absolutely disgraceful that just this morning the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), made it quite clear that a Labour Government would abolish the Rwanda scheme, whether it is working or not. They are saying to people on the other side of the channel, “Just wait a few months, and then you can come in your droves.” That is the truth of the matter, and these amendments need to be beaten again.

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

Although at times I agree with quite a lot of what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) says, the point he has just made about Labour’s policy is absolutely incorrect. I am very pleased that the Minister stated at the beginning of his remarks that the other place absolutely has the right to act as a revising Chamber and give its advice to this Chamber.

Lords amendment 3G was tabled by the noble Lord Hope of Craighead, a former deputy president of the Supreme Court. It states that

“Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country for…the purposes of this Act until the Secretary of State has obtained and laid before Parliament a statement from the independent Monitoring Committee”

confirming that the treaty provisions have been implemented. It also allows the Secretary of State to rescind the confirmation if the treaty stops being adhered to, rather than the nonsense position of claiming that Rwanda is safe for evermore. This is a sensible and measured amendment to deal with the facts, allowing that they may change.

On the day that the Prime Minister has stated that some asylum decision makers and judges have been trained, the joint monitoring committee has been set up and the president of the new appeal body has been selected, we still do not know whether all the other provisions of the treaty have been fully implemented or whether a sufficient number of officials are in place. With the Prime Minister insisting that flights will begin in 10 to 12 weeks, Lords amendment 3G provides a vital safeguard, ensuring that everyone sent to Rwanda will be protected by the implementation of the treaty provisions. I think that is entirely reasonable, and I agree with what the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said.

Lords amendment 10F, tabled by the noble Lord Browne of Ladyton—a former Secretary of State for Defence—provides an exemption for people who supported the UK armed forces overseas, or who have otherwise been agents or allies of the UK overseas. Anyone seeking to rely on that exemption would need to provide notice to the Secretary of State

“within one week of arrival in the UK”.

Ministers have sought to reassure Members that they are reviewing the position, and will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined to be ARAP-eligible. However, I must note that, when responding in the House of Lords, the noble Lord Browne dubbed that assurance to be “worthless”. We should all be conscious of the strength of feeling among those former senior armed forces personnel who support this amendment. When individuals risk their lives to support British troops overseas, we must honour our commitment to provide sanctuary, not outsource it. That is why I support Lords amendment 10F.