Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Miriam Cates and Lia Nici

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

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson). She made a fantastic speech and got to grips with the heart of the issue.

I rise to speak in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). In particular, I want to speak to amendments 19 to 22 to clause 4, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark. Taken together, they will prevent individual migrants blocking their removal to Rwanda by using the UK courts to make claims over months and even years. The Bill already blocks claims relating to the general safety of Rwanda in particular, but it does not stop individual challenges like those that stopped the flight in June 2022, which ended up with the case that went to the Supreme Court last year.

As drafted, the Bill states that for an individual to avoid deportation, there must be compelling evidence that they would come to serious and irreversible harm if deported to Rwanda. That sounds like a very high bar, but in reality all that would be required is a doctor’s certificate certifying mental health problems if they were taken to Rwanda. Indeed, that is what happened in June 2022 to a couple of dozen people sitting on the flight on the tarmac. Nothing in the Bill materially changes that fact in terms of individual claims.

Even if claims are eventually not accepted, they still clog up the courts. They can still end up on appeal and, as we have heard, that can be for a matter of years. The Government said last night that they will increase, I think by about 150, the number of judges on the tribunals. All that shows is that the Government expect a large number of individual claims. If the Bill, as drafted, blocks individual claims as the Government suggest, why would they need additional judges to move through the courts? The questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke), about where the judges would come from and what impact that would have on our wider courts system, are very valid.

If individual claims clog up the courts for months or even years, then even if they are not ultimately successful they will automatically weaken the deterrent effect of the Bill. The whole purpose of the Rwanda plan is to be a deterrent, and deterrents only work if the same action is always followed by a consistent response. It is the same with the criminal justice system and the same with parenting. Effective deterrents are by definition fair, because they treat everybody equally. Some of those opposing the amendments are normally highly in favour of equality. The amendments make it equal: everybody who arrives here illegally will be detained and deported. That is how we create an effective deterrent.

I readily admit that the Government have made progress and I warmly welcome all the progress that has been made: the deal with Albania, the upstream work with Bulgaria, and the attempts to help the French prevent more boats from launching in the first place. But to actually stop the boats, which is the Prime Minister’s pledge and the pledge we as a party have made to our constituents, migrants in Calais and the international criminal gangs must know beyond doubt that anyone arriving illegally in the UK will swiftly be detained and deported.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East is absolutely right; criminal gangs and migrants have smartphones. They can tell instantly which routes are available, where the boats are, how much they have to pay, what different countries’ asylum systems look like and what different countries’ benefit systems look like. They have an instant trade in information. A deterrent can only work if everyone knows beyond doubt that that is exactly what will happen to everyone who lands on our shores.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for all the work that she has been doing in this regard. Does she agree that the reason we need to strengthen these clauses—this is why I will support the amendments—is that the whole purpose of the majority of people who come here illegally is to claim asylum in order to prevent the possibility of deportation? The Home Office’s own figures show that when that process has happened, 70% of those people abscond. We need to stop that now.

[Miriam Cates]

I entirely agree. The problem is that Britain has become known as a soft touch, partly because of the delays in our courts, partly because of the generosity that has led to the housing of migrants in hotels, and partly because our acceptance rate is very high compared with those in other countries. If the Bill is to serve as an effective deterrent, we must remove the limitations of the current scheme by ensuring that everyone who arrives here illegally is swiftly detained and then deported.

The amendments argue that individual migrants should not be able to make suspensive claims—they should not be able, in British courts, to claim against deportation—but should retain those rights when they arrive in Rwanda. We are not talking about removing those individual rights to claim asylum, or even to be sent back to the UK in some circumstances. However, it is essential for that process to happen offshore, in the third country of Rwanda, because it is the deportation that is the deterrent. That is why the amendments are so necessary for all individuals, except those who are unfit to fly or in respect of whom obvious mistakes have been made. Of course they should not be put on planes to Rwanda, but the amendments would make it consistent for all others to be sent there.

As I have said, the point of this is a deterrent, but there is strong opposition to the amendments—on the Opposition Benches, obviously, but also among many on these Benches. Let me draw their attention to a poll published last night in The Telegraph, which showed that in nearly every constituency swift detention and deportation is the most popular way of dealing with illegal immigration. It is the preferred option for a large proportion of the general public. While various interpretations of international law and its application may be strongly contested in Westminster, as we have heard today, the need for secure borders is not a contested idea in the country as a whole.

The British people are generous and compassionate. They support managed schemes to welcome refugees, as we have seen over the past few years. However, when they see tens of thousands of mostly able-bodied young men coming from France, which is a safe country, taking physical risks to cross the world’s busiest shipping lane in dinghies, and then being housed in hotels at great expense to taxpayers—and when they see some of those people absconding and some committing horrific crimes, and then hear Westminster commentators saying that because of international conventions we cannot deport them—they ask, “Are you serious?” Are we, indeed, serious in saying that we cannot do that?

Most ordinary people in this country do not lie awake at night worrying about our standing among elite international lawyers. They lie awake at night worrying about security, crime and the cost of housing, all the issues that are made significantly worse by the abuse of our asylum and immigration system—because, without doubt, our system is being abused, and will continue to be abused unless the Bill is strengthened to limit those suspensive claims so that all the people arriving on our shores illegally are treated in the same way, and are detained and deported.

The fact is that weaknesses are always exploited. That is a sad fact of history and human nature, and those who do not believe it are, I am afraid, naive. We must deal with the reality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) put it very well: many of us would behave in exactly the same way in these circumstances, if we saw what was available in the UK and compared it to a life in another country, and if we knew that it was easy to come here, tie up the courts for a long time and, potentially, abscond. Many would do the same, because that is human nature. The reality is what we have to deal with.

This is a matter of responsibility. The responsibility of the British Government is the safety and welfare of the British people. It is not our responsibility to rehouse everybody in the world who would like to leave their own country and come to ours. We can absolutely sympathise with their plight as individuals, but it is simply unrealistic to say that the UK has a responsibility to any asylum seeker anywhere in the world who would like to come here. We have a responsibility for our constituents; other Governments have a responsibility for theirs. If they are not engaging with that responsibility correctly, that is not our fault.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Miriam Cates and Lia Nici

Report stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Miriam Cates]

I was coming on to that—absolutely.

The advantage of introducing this measure in the other place is that we can widen the scope to all appropriate child safety duties beyond clause 11 and perhaps tackle pornography and child sexual abuse material as well. We will have a groundbreaking Bill that will hold to account powerful executives who knowingly allow our children to be harmed.

There are those who say—not least the tech companies —that we should not be seeking to criminalise tech directors. There are those who worry that this will reduce tech investment, but that has not happened in Ireland. There are those who say that the senior manager liability amendment will put a great burden on tech companies to comply, to which I say, “Great!” There are those who are worried that this will set an international precedent, to which I say, “Even better!”

Nothing should cause greater outrage in our society than the harming of innocent children. In a just society founded on the rule of law, those who harm children or allow children to be harmed should expect to be punished by the law. That is what new clause 2 seeks to do, and I look forward to working with the Secretary of State and others to bring forward a suitable amendment in the other place.

I offer my sincere thanks to the NSPCC, especially Rich Collard, and the outstanding Charles Hymas of The Telegraph, who have so effectively supported this campaign. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); without his determination, knowledge and experience, it would not have been possible to achieve this change. He has been known as Mr Brexit, but as he said, even before he was Mr Brexit, he was Mr Child Protection, having been involved with the Protection of Children Act 1978. It is certainly advantageous in negotiations to work with someone who knows vastly more about legislation than pretty much anyone else involved. He sat through the debate in December on the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and while the vote was taking place, he said, “I think we can do this.” He spent the next week in the Public Bill Office and most of his recess buried in legislation. I pay tribute to him for his outstanding work. Once again, I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to this, and I think this will continue our Parliament’s proud history of protecting children.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

I fully support the Bill and pay tribute to the work that Members have done over months and years to get us to where we are. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for Stone (Sir William Cash), because these are the right things to do. We cannot have—effectively—illegal advertising for illegal activities on platforms. We would not allow it on television, so why would we allow it on other easily accessible platforms? With regard to content that is harmful to children, why should we not focus the minds of senior managers in those hugely rich organisations on the idea that, “If I do not do my job properly and protect children, I may go to prison.” I think that threat will focus those individuals’ minds.