Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Patrick Grady and Suella Braverman

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

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 11, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), which commands the support of 60 of my colleagues. I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and I would like to respond to some of them in the course of my speech.

We are here to fix a problem. It is the problem that we are all seized by, which is stopping the boats. This is our third attempt to fix this problem. We passed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, we passed the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and we are here again in 2024, the third time round, with the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. The British people are fed up. They have run out of patience and they have run out of time, and this is our last chance to get it right.

Amendment 11 seeks to remedy a fatal flaw in the Bill, which is that, as currently drafted, it will lead us directly to a rerun of the scenario that we saw on 14 June 2022, when the Home Office and the then Administration had identified a cohort of illegal migrants and filled a plane ready to take off to Rwanda, but at the 11th hour, pursuant to an opaque process, a decision was made by a still unidentified judge in a foreign court that had the effect of blocking the flight—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) have something to say?

[Patrick Grady]

I am not sure why we have to be frightened of foreign courts. What exactly is wrong with a foreign court?

[Suella Braverman]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman where we have a problem with a foreign court. In that scenario, when English courts had refused injunctions by the migrants to get off the flight, the foreign court overrode English judges, overrode the will of the Government and overrode the will of the British people to control our borders and stop the boats. That is the problem with a foreign court, and that is the problem that we are trying to fix.

When that flight was grounded in June 2022, it was because of rule 39 interim injunctions. Those orders are not contained in the European convention on human rights, and they are not a product or a content of the original convention. They are a creation of the Strasbourg court and the Strasbourg judges, and they have evolved over time pursuant to the living instrument doctrine that is espoused by the Strasbourg court and that has inflated and expanded its remit over decades, beyond anything conceived by the original drafters or any intention set out in the original versions of the European convention.

I believe that no one here disagrees with the aspirations and the content of the European convention on human rights. I do not disagree with anything set out in that document, which contains noble, vital and fundamental human rights that we are all proud to defend fervently and fiercely: against oppressive regimes; against authoritarianism; against genocide; against mass killings; and against some of the worst atrocities history has seen. That is the context of the European convention’s genesis.

To respond to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the problem we are dealing with is the Court. It is the Court that has become politicised. It is the Court that has become interventionist. It is the Court that does not follow the traditional common-law rules of precedent to which the English courts subscribe. The Strasbourg Court and its judges have distorted the original European convention on human rights into something that bears no reflection to its original intention.

That has been exacerbated by Labour’s Human Rights Act. In recent decades we have seen a rights culture and litigiousness around immigration, asylum and many other areas. Public sector decision making has been stymied, thwarted and undermined by a heavily resourced, activist legal industry that is undermining Government decision making, stymying policy making and undermining law enforcement and public safety.

I have a few examples. Take the case of OO, a Nigerian national who was sentenced in 2016 to four years in prison for offences including possession of crack cocaine and heroin with intent to supply. He pleaded guilty to battery and assault in 2017. Those are serious offences. In 2020, the first-tier tribunal allowed his appeal against deportation on the grounds that he had very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria that outweighed the public interest in his deportation. Despite the seriousness of his offending, and despite the risk he posed to the public, his article 8 rights, interpreted in a vastly elastic way—a distorted, illogical way—operated to stop him being deported.

Article 3 was invoked in the case of D v. UK. We can all agree with article 3, which prohibits torture and inhumane or degrading treatment but, in this case of a non-UK national who was convicted of dealing drugs, the Strasbourg court held that the effect of discontinuing his medical treatment, available in the UK but not in his destination country, amounted to inhumane or degrading treatment under article 3. Why should a convicted drug dealer be entitled to public services here and not be deported?

[Suella Braverman]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that point. Article 3, and a stretched interpretation of it originating in the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, by politicised judges pursuing a political agenda, has led to a perception that here in the UK we have an international health service, not a national health service.

Lastly, let us consider the case of AM (Zimbabwe) in 2022, thanks to which it has now become law that states that want to remove someone have to prove that medical facilities available to the deportee in their home country would remove any real risk that their lifespan would be shortened by their removal from NHS facilities. That is exactly the point that my right hon. Friend has made: the UK Government now have a duty to establish that foreign health services are sufficient before we deport people who may well pose a risk to public safety and, in some cases, national security in this country.

Those are the overall problems with the Court—not the convention, but the Court. Rule 39 is another symptom of the problem that we have with the Court and the judges, which is why the amendment is vital. It will make it clear that rule 39 orders are not binding and that it will be for the UK Government to make the decision on deportation, not a foreign court—an unidentified judge somewhere far away who does not have the same ambition or aspiration as this UK Government to stop the boats. That is why I will support the amendment enthusiastically today.

Let me conclude by saying that this is our last chance to fix this problem. We have stretched the patience of the British people. This comes down to a simple but profound question: who governs Britain? Is it us, the democratically elected representatives who have been directly sent here on behalf of the British people, on a clear mandate and with a clear instruction of what to do, and whose laws are passed by a clear and transparent majority, to which we can all be held to account at the ballot box? Or is it an opaque forum many miles away, in a different country, that is distant, outsourced, foreign and does not share our values—

[Patrick Grady]

rose—

[Suella Braverman]

I will not give way.

Is it a forum that does not share our values, that has made decisions time and time again that are odds with what the British people have indicated they want and that has operated to undermine our public safety, national security and good governance?

It is the operation of the Strasbourg Court—we can call it the Strasbourg Court or a foreign court, and we can argue about semantics—the European Court of Human Rights, that we are concerned with here. That Court is currently controlling this country’s ability to stop the boats. That Court and its jurisprudence are preventing this Government from delivering for the British people. We made a vow to the British people that we would stop the boats. That was a solemn vow that I took incredibly seriously. It was what people voted for in 2016 in the Brexit referendum by a majority. I know that most Opposition Members do not want to believe in the majority, still live in denial and do not want to accept the facts. It is what people voted for by a huge majority in 2019: to control our borders and to stop the boats. We made a promise.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership

Debate between Patrick Grady and Suella Braverman

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The Home Secretary says she is disappointed by the High Court’s decision, but is she not being a bit coy? Is she not delighted? Is this not exactly what the Government wanted all along? A fight with the judiciary, a fight with the House of Lords and triangulating the official Opposition, does this not play straight into their dog-whistle agenda? The human rights of people fleeing war, oppression and famine are simply an afterthought.

The economic impact assessment finally dragged out of the Government last week shows the eye-watering potential cost to the taxpayer of the Rwanda scheme and the wider implications of the Illegal Migration Bill. On top of the £120 million that the Home Secretary has already paid to Rwanda, why is she now determined to put even more cost on the public purse by further appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court? Or has that also been part of the plan all along? She says that her dream is of planes full of refugees taking off for Rwanda, but is she not actually dreaming of the opportunity to take the UK out of the European convention on human rights?

Scotland wants no part of the Tories’ hostile immigration environment. Despite the ludicrous claims of the Minister for Immigration earlier in the week, Glasgow and communities across Scotland are proud to welcome refugees. We need immigration to help develop our economy and enrich our society and culture, and we want to offer refuge to those who need it most.

While the Government refuse to devolve immigration powers to Scotland, they need to accept the court’s ruling that their illegal migration policies are themselves illegal. It is time to establish instead safe and legal routes for people who are fleeing wars, famine and climate change. At the very least, the Government need to pay attention to the amendments passed and about to be passed in the House of Lords. The Home Secretary urgently needs to respond to the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee, which has found incidents of inhumane and degrading treatment of asylum seekers at the Manston facility. Ultimately, the message from the Court is clear: enough with the language of, “Stop the boats”, it is time to stop the Bill.

[Suella Braverman]

As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, I disagree with pretty much everything he has just said. In particular, I want to make it clear that I have the utmost respect for the Court of Appeal. Senior judges considered this appeal in the right and proper manner. We maintain our respect for the judiciary, but it is entirely legitimate for us to disagree with points they have made in certain findings. That is why we have made it clear that we disagree with some of the findings delivered today in the judgment, which is why we are seeking permission to appeal against them.

Let us be clear: the SNP is interested in asylum seekers only if they are housed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Just last week, the SNP Government and the Labour leader of Edinburgh Council conspired to oppose our using a vessel to accommodate asylum seekers in Leith—that same vessel, in the same berth, had until recently housed Ukrainians—despite this having been value for money, despite being offered more cash to help and despite Edinburgh taking fewer than its fair share of asylum seekers. It is staggering to witness the stench of hypocrisy that hangs heavy over the SNP’s fake humanitarianism.

Illegal Migration

Debate between Patrick Grady and Suella Braverman

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I ask the hon. Member whether she has even read the High Court judgment that looks extensively at our agreement with Rwanda. It looks in detail at our arrangements with Rwanda and concludes emphatically that our agreement is lawful and that, when it comes, for example, to article 3—the kind of claims she is talking about—there is no issue with the treatment of asylum seekers if they were to be in Rwanda. So I encourage her to do her homework before she makes gross misassumptions about Rwanda.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Home Secretary keeps talking about achieving value for money for the taxpayer. Has she made a calculation of what the net gain to the Treasury would be if asylum seekers were granted the right to work? They would then be able to pay for their own accommodation and pay taxes into the system, instead of taking money out.

[Suella Braverman]

I disagree with the hon. Member’s ingenious proposal because the reality is that the right to work would act as a magnet. It would act as a pull factor in this very complex issue that we are trying to stop. We want to disincentivise people from coming here, not incentivise them with the right to work.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Patrick Grady and Suella Braverman

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend puts it very powerfully. That is what Labour’s policy is: uncontrolled immigration, open borders, an amnesty for asylum seekers and a total disregard for what the British people want.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

How can we know if someone is a genuine asylum seeker or not, unless they are allowed to make a claim and that claim is fairly and independently assessed? When was the last time the Home Secretary actually met another human being who had come here on a small boat? Has she ever listened to their stories of what they have gone through and what their hopes for the future are? Or does she just look them in the eye and tell them they are not welcome here?

[Suella Braverman]

The reality is that we need to all work together now to find a pragmatic, compassionate and fair solution to this problem. That is why I have introduced these measures today and why I encourage all Members to support them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Patrick Grady and Suella Braverman

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

T6. On 14 December, the Home Secretary said to the House regarding people who are smuggled into the UK,“they are coming here unfairly and illegitimately. That is not the right way to come to the United Kingdom and they are not welcome.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 1123.]When I meet with asylum seekers and refugees in Glasgow North next week, if it transpires that some of them have come to the United Kingdom on small boats or in the backs of lorries, at what point in the meeting should I tell them that the Home Secretary says they are not welcome here?

[Suella Braverman]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is living on another planet if he thinks that everybody who is coming to this country on a small boat—breaking our laws, putting themselves at risk, and paying huge amounts of money to unlawful and criminal people smugglers—is welcome. Those people should not be taking that journey, and there will be a robust response from our laws if they continue to do so.

Migration and Economic Development

Debate between Patrick Grady and Suella Braverman

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend speaks not only for the people of Doncaster but for the people of Britain in expressing the sentiment that the British people are tired and want this problem to be fixed. It is only this Government who are going to do it.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

How many of the people who were pulled from the channel last week does the Home Secretary think should be sent to Rwanda?

[Suella Braverman]

The incident last week was tragic. People died. Precious human lives were lost. People had been exploited and took a journey that was unlawful, lethal and, in the end, tragic. That is what we want to bring to an end.