Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Michael Shanks Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to a priest in my constituency for recently bringing to my attention the film “A Man for all Seasons”, which I confess I had never seen. A quote from it is very relevant today:

“Some men think the earth is round, others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?”

The proposition before us today asks us to accept that Government can simply define “facts” as facts, even if they are not so. The attempt to bend our entire legal system to fit the will of Government is a high price to pay for some meagre political cover for a party that promised to deal with this genuine issue—Members from across the House would agree that it is that—and has singly failed to do so. We see, as we have seen in the past five and a half hours, the Prime Minister appeasing his right flank with promises of amendments later in order to bring some people on side, while others are debating how those very amendments would pull them away from supporting the Bill. A complete mess is playing out before us.

What a distance this Tory party has come. Its former leader, now brought back from the wilderness as Lord Cameron, said only a decade ago:

“I believe that immigration has brought significant benefits to Britain...this is our island story: open, diverse and welcoming, and I am immensely proud of it-”

From that, we get to the repugnant rhetoric of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), in one of the most appalling speeches I have ever heard—he is not in his place, but his was a shameful speech; to the spectacle of the Immigration Minister resigning from his post, not in protest at the Government’s novel policy, but because it does not go far enough; and to speech after speech by Government Members criticising the Bill, but then saying they are going to support it.

Perhaps more important than any of the legal challenges is the moral case for why the Bill must be blocked. I take issue with the idea that we should not think about the morality of these issues. We talk about planes, boats, targets and backlogs, and forget the human beings who are seeking shelter and a better life. The Home Office’s own statistics show that at least six out of 10 of those who made the dangerous channel crossing will be recognised as refugees through the asylum process. Given that many are fleeing extreme situations to embark on one of the most dangerous routes possible, how can the Bill possibly stand as any kind of deterrent?

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who support refugees in our country deserve our respect and should be commended by the House for their excellent work in local communities up and down this land?

[Michael Shanks]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Over decades, immigrants have contributed so much to the country that we enjoy today, not least to our public services, and we should give them immense thanks.

Instead of thinking of other solutions to deal with the criminal gangs that are causing such misery and death as they smuggle people across the channel, the Government have decided to hold firm to a course of action that has already cost us hundreds of millions of pounds and, as we have heard throughout the debate, will cost us even more. Instead of challenging the criminal gangs at source and building better co-operation with our European neighbours to tackle them, we have a Government fixated on a plan that the Home Secretary himself does not seem to be particularly convinced by. And for what? For a law that is unlikely to succeed in even the aims it has put forward.

The assumption made in the Bill is not that Rwanda is a safe country but that all decision makers must treat it as such. In other words, they have to put aside any reality they may know and accept that Rwanda is a safe country for the purposes of decision making. There will be neither recourse to appeal on the basis that someone removed to Rwanda may be sent to another country, even if it could be demonstrated that that was a genuine possibility, nor recourse to appeal on the basis that a person may not receive fair consideration of their asylum claim, because the Government have decided that these things are all safe.

The provisions mean that only in exceptional personal circumstances would an individual have a means of legally challenging the decision. It is a deeply unsettling proposition that the Government are removing one of the key components of constitutional democracy—the right of any citizen to test any law in an independent court. Never could that be more important than on an issue of human rights.

The question of parliamentary sovereignty has already been clarified. Lord Hope stated:

“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute. It is no longer right to say that its freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever.”

The Bill leaves open the possibility of individual challenge to the ECHR and, as we heard from a number of Members, we might be back here, a few months from now, discussing that very issue as the Government seek to withdraw us from the ECHR.

Until a few months ago, I was in the classroom teaching pupils how to identify truth from sources of information, among other things. We told young people that there is such a thing as objective truth, and yet here I am, in the so-called mother of Parliaments, faced with a morally reprehensible and legally questionable farce—a charade that even most of those who will, I suspect, eventually be persuaded to walk through the Aye Lobby do not actually endorse. At the heart of the issue is the idea that a Government can simply state what is true, even if the evidence points the other way. It is for this House to challenge the Government’s shoddy attempt to do that and to do the right thing by voting down the Bill.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Michael Shanks Excerpts

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

I have spoken for plenty long enough, apart from to say that amendments 56 and 57, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), are also eminently sensible and would close another potential loophole. I hope upon hope that colleagues will be able to see the wood for the trees on these issues, understand that entirely taking away the right of appeal would be an affront to our legal framework, and not obstruct the Bill any further.

[Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow a contribution that was slightly more rational than those we have heard from a number of Members on the Conservative Benches during today’s debate. This is my first Committee of the whole House, and it has been an interesting experience. We have had 17th-century constitutional and political lectures, analysis of the US constitution and, really interestingly, the suggestion from a number of Conservative Members—which slightly lets the cat out of the bag—that this policy is all about the upcoming general election and how quickly we can get flights off the ground before that happens. We have heard very little about whether the Bill actually contributes to an effective immigration strategy.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 6. I have spoken in various other debates on this legislation and outlined my objections. It is a fundamentally ridiculous proposition that is becoming increasingly ridiculous as we see the Tory psychodrama playing out in front of us—slightly less dramatic this time than it was in December, but I am sure that will change—and pulling the Bill in two completely opposing directions while the Government still claim that it is an entirely workable policy. It has the dubious distinction of being a policy that is both utterly immoral and completely ineffective, at the same time as costing an extraordinary amount of money. It is seemingly not even supported by the Prime Minister, yet here we are, debating amendments that will take the Bill even closer to breaching international law—if it does not already—and further diminish Britain’s standing in the world. The Bill should be voted down on Third Reading, and from the looks of the Tory chaos it might well be, but for now we have an opportunity to try to make it a little better with some safeguards.

In my view, new clause 6 should be completely uncontroversial. If the Government genuinely believe that Rwanda is a safe country—if they believe it is able to meet all the expectations placed on it in the Rwanda treaty—why should there be any hesitation at all about putting the monitoring committee on a statutory footing? That would ensure that Rwanda’s status as a safe country can be suspended if the facts change—if we uncover additional evidence that perhaps it is not a safe country, if the political situation changes, or if the Foreign Office changes its travel guidance. Surely those are basic things that would lead us to question the safety of Rwanda.

It is on that evidence base that I will focus my remarks. As has been discussed, clause 2 of the Bill is an attempt to replace facts with legally binding fiction. The Bill might be said to legislate for a lie—to make something that is not true on the evidence we have seen true in the eyes of the legal establishment. It was Orwell who wrote:

“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it…the very existence of external reality…was tacitly denied by their philosophy.”

We are in that situation now: “Forget the evidence to the contrary. Just take our word for it: this is fact.” Through new clause 6, we have an opportunity to ensure that if evidence of human rights abuses or the mistreatment of migrants were to emerge, there is a mechanism to suspend the Government’s alternative truth and make legal decisions in our courts on the basis of reality.

It is risible that this is even debatable. Given the security situation near the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi, which the Foreign Office, in its own international travel guidance today, says makes Rwanda “unstable”, is it not a sensible precaution to introduce a protection saying that if the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office were to advise against travel to Rwanda, the statement that Rwanda is a safe country for migrants should be suspended? Otherwise, we have a Bill that the Government seek to make into law that simply says that in perpetuity, no matter what, Rwanda is a safe country.

The 137 pages of the Home Office’s information note on human rights, which it published this week, make for interesting reading. I spent some time reading all 137 pages, and I encourage Members to do so, although I wonder how many have. In some ways, when I was reading it, I was surprised that the Government had actually put it on their website, given the litany of evidence it presents on why Rwanda cannot in all seriousness be declared a safe country. It details examples of the state prosecuting political opponents, deaths in police custody, unofficial detention facilities, police torture, ill treatment and torture in custody, the recruitment of child soldiers as recently as last year, and countless other breaches of human rights law. It also covers the questionable strength of Rwandan Government institutions to challenge those breaches, so I do wonder whether the Government have read their own evidence pack.

To add to that, this week the UNHCR has provided further evidence, updated just yesterday, that the UK-Rwanda scheme does not meet the required standards relating to the legality and appropriateness of the transfer of asylum seekers. It states that the scheme is therefore

“not compatible with the international refugee law.”

It cites numerous concerns about fair and efficient procedures in Rwanda for handling asylum applications and the continued risks of refoulement, and it concludes that this

“undermines the universality of human rights, has implications for the rule of law both domestically and internationally, and sets an acutely troubling precedent.”

The evidence is clear on the Government’s own website that Rwanda cannot be defined as a safe country, but even if we were to accept that it is a safe country, surely new clause 6 gives scope in the future should circumstances change—even if it is the Government who decide that—to suspend the idea that it is a safe country and allow the courts to make their own decisions.

Although voting down this entire Bill on Third Reading is the right course of action, we should at least try to do what we can to make it slightly more sensible—to oppose some of the amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would take us even further towards breaching our international obligations, and to support amendments that seek to make it slightly more sensible. New clause 6 is a sensible amendment that I would encourage Members to vote for.

This Bill must be defeated and the policy it seeks to enact must be abandoned. It is hugely costly and it is ineffective. With the news this week that, as Members have said, five more people have been tragically killed in the freezing cold waters of the channel trying to make their way to this country, it is time to move beyond these gimmicks and the appeasement of the extremes in the Conservative party and to deliver some workable policies.

[Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I rise to speak in support of the amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who I believe has shown considerable political and personal courage during the course of this legislation to date.

I want to open my remarks by saying how strongly I believe in the principles of the Rwanda scheme. It is imperative that we break the business model of the people smugglers in a way that means the trade is not merely dented but ceases. We have heard platitudes, I fear, from Opposition Members about how if only we worked a bit more closely with the European law enforcement agencies, everything would resolve itself. Of course, would that that was so.

I can testify not only from my own time in Government but from having spoken to Ministers in the Home Office both currently and previously that a litany of work is under way to make sure that we bear down on this evil trade, and it has had some success. Crossings are down by approximately a third on their peak in 2022, and there has been enforcement action ranging from the French coast right through to dinghy sales in Bulgaria, which testifies to the fact that the UK is working at pace with our partner agencies to try to end these crossings. However, unless we address the root causes, we will always be left dealing with the consequences of the problem. That, I am afraid, is not acceptable to me and, much more importantly, it is not acceptable to my constituents or to the people of this country.

Just this weekend we had, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) said, a tragic reminder of the human cost of allowing this trade to persist. Clearly it also has serious consequences for the United Kingdom. It makes a mockery of our border security and damages social cohesion. The accommodation costs alone of our asylum seeker population are somewhere in the region of £8 million a day, and that is before the through-life costs of these people being in this country. It also compromises our security, as the awful murder in Hartlepool a few months ago made clear. We do not know—we cannot know—who is coming into this country, and that is a serious and substantial risk that it is incumbent on us to acknowledge.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark alluded to, the test that faces us as legislators is simple: will this legislation work? It is not, “Is this legislation the strongest ever?”, although for the record it is, but it is still likely to prove insufficient. Still less is the test, “Is this as far as the Prime Minister is willing to go?” There is a crisis of faith in our politics. That boils down, as it has done for a number of years, spanning the Brexit debate and the causes of that, to whether we as Members of Parliament mean what we say. Is our word worth anything? Are we capable as a country of asserting our national sovereignty? Are we as a country capable of policing our borders?

I welcome the fact that the Government have decided that we now need to derogate from parts of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is welcome, brave and commendable. We now need to follow that logic to its conclusion. As amendment 10, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, sets out, we should set out clearly and unambiguously that this Act will have effect notwithstanding the Human Rights Act. We must also close the loopholes that regrettably remain in the legislation. We have proposals to do so, with an accompanying legal opinion from John Larkin KC, the former Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark set out eloquently a few hours ago, we must in particular strengthen provisions against individual claims, as opposed to the general principle of the safety of Rwanda. It is welcome that we are asserting that, but it will be critically undermined unless we can stop the profusion of individual claims that will materialise, not least with the help, I am afraid, of the creative legal fraternity, if we do not close off that route.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Roberts) said a few minutes ago, we are not excluding appeal rights entirely. If, for example, someone is seriously ill, they will not be eligible for removal to Rwanda under the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. However, we must make it clear that we will not tolerate the abuses—and they are abuses—that we witness day in, day out under the current system.

We must also make clear in the Bill that rule 39 interim injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will not have automatic binding effect. That is something that I think many of us regarded as a settled issue. Anyone who watched the Prime Minister’s appearance on the Kuenssberg show on the BBC just 10 days ago will have seen that he was unable to offer that guarantee. He was unable to offer it in good conscience, because here we enter the contested territory of what the Attorney General is prepared to sign off and what the ministerial code will allow. That goes to show precisely why the issue is so pressing. If we do not assert it as a sovereign Parliament in the Bill, it is highly likely that the issue will rear its head again in the months ahead.

Failure to close the loopholes will mean that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, we will face pressing operational problems that will significantly impair, and perhaps totally frustrate, our ability to pursue what this side of the Committee wishes to deliver. Our court system will be overwhelmed, our detained estate for asylum seekers will be overwhelmed, and the public’s patience will be exhausted. We have marched the British public up this hill not once, but twice already and failed both times. This is our third attempt. The Government’s own estimate, as we know, is that as we stand today, the Bill’s best chance of success can be rated at around 50:50. That is simply not adequate.