Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and William Cash

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.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and William Cash

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

Counter-terrorism

Debate between Diana Johnson and William Cash

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I know that when we discussed the primary legislation around the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, it was reported that the chief economist at the Home Office did say what I suggested, so the Minister has not refuted the statement I made. We now know from the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill that there has been recognition that the Prevent agenda matters and needs to be supported.

Yesterday, of course, the Home Secretary went even further, talking about introducing a counter-extremism strategy, although I understand that such a strategy has not been published and there is not much detail about it. Today, however, the Home Secretary has made several claims. She first promised to work with communities in a way that different parts of different communities around the country have been requesting for some time. She promised that she would be very clear about distinguishing between Islam and Islamic extremism. All that is very welcome and, I have to say to the Minister, about time too.

The guidance in front of us does not, however, go as far as it should in meeting the pledges the Home Secretary made yesterday, but I do want to say some positive things about it. As the Minister knows, the original guidance was put out to consultation over the Christmas recess period, and I think improvements have been made to it. The document is less prescriptive throughout, so it can plausibly be said to be introducing the risk-based approach that the Government said they wanted from the outset. I welcome, too, the introduction of a clear set of commitments on what the Home Office will do to support the implementation of the Prevent agenda. This has been clearly lacking, I think, since the Prevent agenda was re-launched in 2011.

Let me briefly mention Scotland. It is good to see the inclusion of the Scottish organisations. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the consultation with the Scottish Government and the inclusion of the various Scottish organisations, but I should like to ask him a question. There is separate guidance for the Scottish organisations, but I understand that it was not issued for full consultation. The Minister said earlier that there was a targeted process for the consultation. Will he explain what he meant by that?

[Sir William Cash]

Would the hon. Lady be good enough to tell us to what extent, if any, she has taken the opportunity to discover the views of the Scottish nationalists on this question? Has she had any indication of their views? They are not even here, but I am sure that she can provide us with a fairly good guess as to what they might think. We did hear Alex Salmond suggest the other day that they would be putting their foot down on matters that they thought were important to Scotland, in their own terms.

[Diana Johnson]

During the Bill’s passage, as the hon. Gentleman will know, members of the Scottish National party made a great deal of fuss about the involvement of the Scottish Government in consultation about the public institutions in Scotland that would be affected by the Prevent agenda. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the level of consultation that had taken place with the Scottish Government. I may be presuming too much, but perhaps the absence of members of the Scottish National party this afternoon means that they are fully content with what is being proposed. Obviously we must wait and see, but there is no one here to put an alternative case.

Let me now deal with some of the areas in which the revisions of the guidance have not addressed some of the shortcomings that I considered to be present in the first draft of the document. I believe that they have been raised both here and in the other place, and also in the responses to the consultation. The Minister said that there had been more than 1,700 responses, which is a very large number.

The first of those areas is the definition of extremism, which remains unchanged in the guidance. It is still defined as, basically, “an opposition to British values”. The failure to define extremism is central to other problems that the Prevent agenda encounters, as was recognised in the 2011 Prevent review. Front-line professionals do not properly understand what extremism is. There is considerable evidence of that poor understanding. A survey conducted for the Department for Education in 2011 revealed that 70% of schools felt that they needed more training and information in order to build resilience to radicalisation. That was picked up repeatedly in the consultation responses, and it is also a clear issue in relation to the Prevent agenda. We know that only 20% of the people who have been referred to the Channel programme have been accepted. The overwhelming majority are incorrectly referred, because front-line professionals have misunderstood the nature of the issues involved.

It was a failure of the Government not to fulfil the commitments made in the 2011 Prevent review to improve front-line understanding of extremism, and it is disappointing that they are repeating their mistake by failing to include in the guidance either a detailed explanation of what constitutes extremism, or an explanation of how a risk assessment for extremism should be conducted. In Committee, I gave the analogy of child abuse: we will combat the issue only when we fully recognise it for what it is.

The failure to define extremism properly also means that the guidance fails to live up to the promise that the Home Secretary made yesterday to distinguish clearly between Islam and Islamic extremism. The definition of Islamic extremism is limited: an Islamic extremist is described as someone who is angry with the west and resents western intervention in wars in Muslim countries. The guidance talks of a “them and us” rhetoric. That ignores the fact that the majority of the victims of Islamic extremists are Muslims, and the fact that those who are most likely to encounter it in the United Kingdom are Muslims. There is still nothing in the guidance about intra-Islam sectarianism, such as involving Wahhabis, Salafists and those with other views that have been specifically connected to ISIL, in particular Salafism. There is no discussion of that important matter in the document. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 was supposedly a response to that rising threat from ISIL-related terrorism. Does the Minister think more can be done in recognising that intra-Islamic sectarianism is not properly addressed in the guidance?

Those British people who have been leaving the UK to join ISIL are not generally joining a war against the west. They are joining a war against other Muslims, mainly Shi’as. This document should recognise the changing nature of this threat, and the need to recognise the degree of sectarian division related to groups such as ISIL within the UK.

In addition to this thematic problem within the guidance, I want to highlight some of the practical issues. The consultation highlighted confusion over what exactly was expected of non-Prevent-priority local authorities. Given that the Government seemed to be confused about exactly what a Prevent-priority area is, I am not terribly surprised that this is not addressed properly in the revised guidance. There is existing confusion about the role of central Government and the division of responsibilities within central Government. For example, how exactly is the burden of oversight shared between the body specifically charged with inspection of implementation—for example, Ofsted for schools—the Government Department with responsibility for that public body, for example the Department for Education, and the Home Office? What about the role of Departments, such as the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government, in sharing good practice?

Several different bodies raised concerns about this in the consultation. It will be helpful if the Government publish a clear strategy as to how they will help promote best practice in relation to Prevent. Some of the obligations on certain bodies are unclear. Neither the guidance, nor the Minister in the other place yesterday, have been clear as to exactly what is expected of a nursery or childminder in terms of their responsibilities under Prevent. So I ask the Minister again today to set out exactly what this guidance means in practice for a childminder.

An issue raised in the consultation, which I also raised during the passage of the 2015 Act, was why the only NHS bodies to be included in the guidance are hospital trusts and foundation trusts. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 many more services are now going out to the private sector. Are those private companies going to be covered by the obligations under Prevent? Why are clinical commissioning groups and other commissioning bodies not included? General practitioners at the front line may come across people who are vulnerable and who may perhaps have mental health issues; should GPs also be under some of the Prevent duties set out in the guidance, and if not, why not? On the health and wellbeing boards that the Government established, I assume that because they are part of a local authority, they also have a Prevent duty.

On the provisions for universities, I am glad the guidance is less prescriptive than before. The new guidance has dropped the requirement that all academic presentations have to be submitted and vetted two weeks in advance, which was both absurd and unworkable. However, it is bizarre that the third paragraph of the guidance relating to universities states that further guidance will be issued to cover extremist speakers on campuses. As the Minister will be aware, that was one the most contentious issues. Yesterday the Minister in the other place did not seem to be able to explain why this was or how the issuing of updated guidance would work. I heard what the Minister said about the new guidance being a matter for the next Government, but I wonder whether he can answer the following questions. First, does he think the requirement for all speeches and presentations to be submitted two weeks in advance will be included in the new guidance?

Secondly, can the Minister explain how the external speakers guidance will be implemented? Will it require a separate statutory instrument and, therefore, approval by Parliament? Will the rest of the document have different implementation guidance from the external speakers guidance? Will there be a separate consultation?

[Diana Johnson]

That is very helpful, and I thank the Minister for his straightforward response.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary announced that compliance with the Prevent agenda would be a requirement for universities in order that they may sponsor international student visas. Will the Minister explain whether this is Government policy that will actually happen, or whether it is a Conservative party pledge for the election? I am drawing this distinction because I understand that the coalition Government are not speaking with one voice on counter-terrorism issues these days, and I want to be clear about whether that is Government policy or not.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Lady has alluded to questions that might arise between the Conservative party and the Liberal party on terrorism. Would her party be in favour of putting terrorism on a par with or ahead of human rights? We have heard suggestions recently that human rights should trump terrorism.

[Diana Johnson]

That question opens up a whole new debate. We are dealing here with two specific statutory instruments. I know that there has been some tension in the coalition, particularly in the Treasury, with the Chancellor delivering his Budget and a separate Budget being delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I wanted to be clear about whether this particular proposal was Government policy or just Conservative policy. I was seeking guidance on that.

The focus on external speakers could create the risk that we ignore internal extremists. Where in the guidance is the specific reference to that threat? What would happen if a university’s Sunni society was agitating against the university’s Islamic or Shi’a societies? Have the Government considered the implications of such a situation for a university’s best practice?

While we are talking about universities, I also want to ask about the IT requirements. The guidance seems to imply that all universities should introduce the filtering of internet access through the university. Can the Minister explain the degree of filtering that would be involved? Is he confident that software exists that can do the job accurately? In the past, the platforms most commonly associated with extremism have been Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Would students be prevented from accessing YouTube? Does the Minister expect this provision to apply in accommodation provided by the university, such as halls of residence or other housing provided to accommodate students? Can he confirm that the provision will not extend to a requirement for universities to collect data on internet sites accessed by their students?

We know that the Oxford and Cambridge unions, both of which are private institutions that have a history of giving a platform to high-profile racists and extremists, are excluded from the terms of the guidance. Why did the Government choose not to specify in either the Bill or the Prevent guidance that those organisations should be covered by the duty?

There are measures in the guidance that we very much welcome. We recognise that it has been significantly improved since the draft guidance was published over Christmas. Most importantly, we recognise that it is an extremely important document. Counter-extremism is a vital part of our counter-terrorism strategy. But there are some flaws, which I have identified, that show that the Government are playing catch-up at the end of this Parliament for neglecting counter-extremism for their first four years. Because of that, we are not where we should be today.

I wish briefly to discuss the second statutory instrument before us, which sets out the procedural rules of judicial hearings in relation to temporary exclusion orders. Thanks to the Opposition, the 2015 Act contains judicial oversight for TEOs. I welcome the provisions in the Act and in these regulations today, which will enable judicial proceedings to hear sensitive and confidential information. It has always been the Opposition’s position that strong powers, such as TEOs, require strong checks on this power, and these regulations will enable those strong checks. Of course, the need to protect sources and sensitive information will impinge on the operation of the courts, but, as we have seen with control orders and subsequently TPIMs, that does not mean the courts cannot provide an effective check on Executive power. We think these regulations will be able to do that. We would add a slight caveat: the regulations are complex, as are the proceedings they are covering. We hope the Government will commit to keeping them under review and will be prepared to come back to this House with amendments if issues do arise during court proceedings that require the passing of further legislation.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Diana Johnson and William Cash

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential to ensure that girls at risk are also protected?

[Diana Johnson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Research undertaken by Dexter Dias QC with survivors of FGM from around the country highlighted the need for measures to tackle the encouragement of FGM, whereby parents can be put under extreme pressure to cut their girls. Not only are parents told that their daughters will never get married, but whole families can be ostracised and isolated as unclean. We need to support those seeking to change the culture in affected communities that they are part of and send out the message that this practice is against the law. That is why Labour has proposed adding a new offence of the encouragement of FGM to this Bill. As I say, it was tabled in Committee and we feel it is important that we have brought it back today.