Rwanda Plan Cost and Asylum System

Debate between Robert Buckland and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I know that a letter was sent to the permanent secretary. I could not find a reply—the Committee may not have had one—and I suggest that civil servants in the Home Office need to respond with expedition to the Committee to furnish them with information. That is how we could have proceeded. The Opposition Front Benchers have missed a trick by not couching their resolution in more specific terms, with the consent that I am sure would have been forthcoming from the respective Chairs of the Select Committees. But that is not the motion that we have before us.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

As deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, let me inform my right hon. and learned Friend and the House that the Committee has some of the most sensitive information available in a private reading room capacity, so there is no reason at all why we should not hold that information.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend, a parliamentarian of great experience. He is absolutely right to make that point. I urge consideration of that course upon my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) at the Dispatch Box, to consider whether that could be a way forward.

When Labour has a policy, it should be outlined in the form of an Opposition day motion. When it does not have much of a policy, it relies upon process arguments and Humble Address motions. That is what we see today. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) put it extremely powerfully in his remarks a moment ago that Labour is a party still in search of a coherent and cogent approach to this most serious of issues. It is all very well coming up with ideas that are already being deployed by the Government, or saying, “We’ll do it the same but a bit better,” but that is not up to the level of the events that face us. With climate change and conflict, mass migration of peoples out of harm’s way, or indeed for economic reasons, is a challenge not just for the United Kingdom but for the entire western world. These challenges face Governments of all stripes and colours.

I am glad to say that it is this Government who, through their arrangements and agreement with Albania, have achieved singular success in the past year in reducing those unacceptable numbers of small boats coming across the channel. It is this Government who are painstakingly working their way through bilateral agreements with key countries to speed up the process of returns to ensure that we can clear our prisons of foreign national offenders, rather than having to hold them in immigration facilities after the expiration of their sentence.

This Government are seeking, in an honest and realistic way, to answer the question of, “What on earth do you do with individuals who have had their applications determined, who have failed in their applications, but whose country of origin refuses even to recognise they exist?” I am afraid that is the big question—the $64,000 question, although perhaps I should adjust that for inflation—that needs to be addressed and faced up to. I know my hon. Friend the Minister is grappling with that problem, as have his predecessors.

There is nothing wrong in law or in principle with seeking to work with third countries to process asylum claims. I will reserve my remarks for next week’s two-day debate on the Floor of the House, when I will ask that question, but it is interesting that the Rwanda scheme is different from other schemes, such as the Australian scheme, in that we are not using UK law to determine these applications, but are outsourcing the whole thing to Rwanda. That sometimes is not fully understood, and I have to say that that has been a bit of a glass jaw, and it was quite broken by the Supreme Court in its judgment in November. Having said that, we are in a position now where the Government are seeking to try and deal with a position, and the Opposition are saying that even if Rwanda works, they will not do it. I do not think that sort of extreme approach is what the British people want to see, and it is not what this policy debate needs. We need an acceptance that what was being looked at by the previous Labour Government on third-country solutions is the right approach. Only by taking that particular line will we manage to crack this most difficult of problems.

Human Rights Violations

Debate between Robert Buckland and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the key importance of an independent judiciary. So many countries do themselves a disservice by not guaranteeing free and independent legal processes. They damage their own trade prospects by not giving businesses the confidence that any dispute with which they might become involved can be resolved properly by an independent judiciary. That challenges the viability of contract law, and we know plenty of examples of other countries that use English contract law, with its long reputation for integrity and reliability, as the way to do business. That is great for this country, commercially as well as politically, but other countries will do well to adopt the principles that for so long have applied in countries such as ours.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his thorough report, and I urge those who have not read it to do so. The excerpts from the report that he has drawn upon in his speech today are heartbreaking, and illuminate what goes on in the rest of the world.

Has my hon. Friend thought about the fact that the United Nations was set up in the wake of the second world war, to try to prevent such enormous atrocities as happened in that war from ever occurring again? Has he also thought about the fact that some of the UN’s institutions are not as effective as they might be—in particular, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which often has principal members who themselves have pretty dubious human rights records? What more could our Government do to urge the UN to be more effective? Many of my hon. Friend’s recommendations involve human rights resolutions.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right. The answer that I would give him today is that I think that the United Nations has brought together Governments but perhaps has a long way to go to bring together other levels of society. For an organisation such as the UN to make true progress, more work must be done at differing levels of society, more effectively to bring together professional organisations, for example. We are lucky in the United Kingdom to have organisations, such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, with international relations committees that do a lot of this work, by working with lawyers in other countries to spread best practice, share principles of freedom and justice and encourage other societies to work in a similar way. Without the support of member Governments of the United Nations, and of the institution itself, that work will always be too ad hoc to have universal application. That is my view about how the United Nations should now develop, nearly 70 years after its foundation in San Francisco in 1945.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for The Cotswolds for their interventions. Reference has been made to the integrity of contract law and to the rule of law, and that brings me on to the final area that we considered: the difficulties faced in many countries by people who are trying to carry out business or are in some way involved in representing people in business. I have made the fundamental point that threats to the integrity of business practice threaten not only freedom, but the commercial and financial viability of many countries. In particular, we looked at what is happening in Russia, and we are gravely concerned that the Russian state is either condoning or actively taking part in endemic corruption. There are two cases that we consider to be examples of the baleful effect of state corruption on the lifeblood of an economy.

The Sergei Magnitsky case has been well documented and the subject of debates, not only here but in countries across the world. A debate in the House some months ago highlighted the continuing concerns of both Government and Opposition Members about the role of the Russian state in the killing of the lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. Putting it simply, Mr Magnitsky was arrested, imprisoned and ill-treated, and he died for having blown the whistle on the massive theft of tax revenue from the Russian state by its own officials. A simple recitation of those facts underlines the seriousness of the position that the Russian state now finds itself in and the danger to freedom that such cases reveal.

We believe that in recognition of the unique position of London as a destination of choice for many senior Russian officials, the Government should, as soon as possible, introduce measures publicly to restrict visas and to freeze the assets of Russian officials involved in serious corruption and human rights abuses. We were delighted by the reference to the issue in “Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report”:

“Where there is independent, reliable and credible evidence that an individual has committed human rights abuses, the individual will not normally be permitted to enter the United Kingdom.”

That statement is particularly important in the context of a recent development in Russia: the decision by the authorities to withhold the identities of all 12 prosecutors involved in the posthumous—yes, posthumous—trial of Sergei Magnitsky. The man not only suffered indignity in life; he now faces it in death. The reason for withholding the identities, it seems to me, is simple. If legislation, which is being considered by the United States Congress among others, is passed, those individuals would face losing visa rights and having their assets frozen if their identities were revealed. That lamentable state of affairs further reflects the difficult and troubled situation that we face with human rights in Russia.

The other Russian example that we looked at was the Khodorkovsky case. Without going into the full details of that troubled history, the individual remains in prison, after eight years, and the case has still not been satisfactorily resolved. We regard it as yet another example of double standards being applied, rather than equality under the law, which has to be a basic tenet of all countries that hold themselves out to be free. That is important, because bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and Russia has been growing by an average of 21% every year since 2001. In 2010, exports from this country to Russia increased by 51% to nearly £3.5 billion, which shows the importance for British business of the integrity of the financial and business systems in countries such as Russia. Without that integrity, there is a direct threat to British business and the integrity of trade between our two nations. That is why, at a practical level, it is important that the British Government’s message to regimes that indulge in such practices is clear.

We urge the Government to introduce measures to support civil society in Russia, by encouraging and facilitating British professional bodies to engage with their Russian counterparts. We emphasise that Russia’s membership of European and global organisations such as the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the World Trade Organisation carries a significant responsibility to operate according to international rules.

A foreign policy that involves not only the use of political pressure to achieve change but investment in developing professional skills and capacity, with the direct input of British professional organisations in sharing best practice and providing training, will do much to help build a freer and more stable world.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I sense that my hon. Friend is coming to his peroration, but has he considered how our international development assistance might be used to persuade countries that have a less than perfect human rights record that they need to improve their performance?

[Mr Buckland]

Yes, I have. I firmly believe that the role of our international development programme is not only to give direct monetary help, where appropriate, but to facilitate and allow professionals and professional organisations to spread best practice and train professionals in emerging countries, by providing the appropriate funding for those programmes to exist.

As a country, we produce thousands of qualified professionals every year, and this is not an easy time for many of those professionals to go immediately into full-time practice because there is a lot of competition in the market. I believe that there is a great opportunity for some of our younger professionals and, indeed, for professionals who wish to take a mid-career break to put something back into the society from which they have benefited. What better way to do that than by embarking upon properly funded, properly structured programmes in countries with poor human rights records to spread good practice and freedom?

Our greatest invisible exports are freedom, the rule of law and freedom under the law. Let us ensure that fellow professionals in other countries can genuinely enjoy the freedoms that I and other professionals have enjoyed in this country so that they, in all their walks of life, can operate without fear or favour.

High Speed 2 (Heathrow)

Debate between Robert Buckland and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am very grateful, Dr McCrea, for the opportunity to speak, and I apologise in advance for not having notified you of my wish to do so. However, bearing in mind the time that we have, it is important that a wide spectrum of opinion on this issue is heard.

As you know, Dr McCrea, I represent South Swindon, which my constituents and I regard as the hub of the Great Western Railway. Swindon is very much a town that looks outwards in terms of its opportunities for growth, jobs and investment. One of the main concerns of businesses in Swindon, the town I have the honour to represent, is connectivity with Heathrow airport. In many cases, that is a more important issue for my constituents than connectivity with the centre of London, which is why the announcement last week by the Department for Transport about the creation of a western connection from Heathrow to the Great Western line was welcome news indeed. Of course, we understand that the control period is up to 2021, but a commitment of just under half a billion pounds is a significant shot in the arm for the economy that I represent. It potentially brings Swindon within 55 minutes of Heathrow airport, if the line from Reading through Maidenhead and Slough to Heathrow is constructed. Electrification would bring greater flexibility and, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) has said, we hope to see a direct service from Swindon and the west to Heathrow airport.

However, the debate today is somewhat more long-term. It is quite a common mistake that we all fall into as politicians in failing to appreciate the amount of time that a lot of these big projects take. We must remind ourselves that the High Speed 2 project is a project that will take 15 years or longer, rather than something that deals with the here and now. Although it is always important to look at the raw facts when it comes to the current operating success of Heathrow, that does not mean that in the medium to long term that position will remain the same. It is important to remember that when we consider this debate and where we are going. We are talking about a long-term future for Heathrow and long-term connectivity and capacity. That is why it is important that the case made so strongly by my hon. Friend is considered very carefully indeed.

I accept that many different permutations and options have been put on the table in the long debate about how we connect Heathrow airport with our rail network. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was careful to make that point and he is absolutely right to say that neither he nor anybody else has a particular monopoly of wisdom when it comes to the precise nature of such a scheme.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

None of us have.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend says, “None of us have”, and I reinforce that message. However, it is very important for people like me to make a strong plea for the Government to look to the long term and to understand that it is only by achieving direct connectivity to airports such as Heathrow that we will acknowledge the fact that, with the exponential and welcome increase in the use of our railways, the demands upon our network will only become more stringent.

My worry is that we will be standing or sitting here in Westminster Hall in 15 years’ time, and looking back and realising that we have missed a great opportunity to rectify an historical anomaly when it comes to an airport of the significance and size of Heathrow. There it was, having been constructed in the post-war era, and it expanded to meet the huge demand placed upon it, and yet there were no direct rail links to it until many years later, when there was the link to Paddington. Now we have more development, which is welcome indeed. However, those poor rail links to Heathrow are an anomaly of history that we are duty-bound to try to rectify.

That is why it is absolutely vital that, in understanding the potential of HS2 to unlock the north, we must not forget the west. That is the plea I make today, that in any future development of HS2 priority is placed upon the need to connect the major airport for our country with the rest of England and the wider UK. Central London is, of course, an important destination, but the businesses that I represent tell me time and time again that it is Heathrow airport that is crucial to their future success. The importance of businesses’ ability to link with Heathrow should not be underestimated.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am sorry to keep intervening on my hon. Friends’ speeches; both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) have made very good points.

The reason that I called this particular debate today was that once the planning gets too far down the line—excuse the pun—and particularly when the hybrid Bill has gone through this place, it will be much more difficult to consider alternatives than it is now. Now is the time that we must urge the Minister to stand back, pause and consider whether there are any better alternatives; there may not be, but she should look to see if there are.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. When I looked in detail at a map of Old Oak Common—and I am delighted that it will become an important part of this network—one thing struck me very forcibly that I had not realised before, and that is how close the Euston line runs to the Great Western Line. In fact, there is a connecting spur now that allows trains to move between the two networks.

That spur is a metaphor for the debate that we are having today. We are within an ace of getting things right in terms of judging future demand, not only for rail capacity but for the future of our principal airport. As I have said, it would be a missed opportunity, as well as a tragedy, if we were within an ace of getting things right and we then missed the opportunity that, as my hon. Friend says, the hybrid Bill presents. He is right to say that once we proceed down the line of legislation, it will become more difficult to add on various concepts or indeed to get the basic concepts right in the first place. So this debate today is timely, I welcome it and I congratulate him on securing it. I wish to add my voice on behalf of both the west of England and south Wales—let us not forget that region—and the whole growing economy and growing population that need support and proper connectivity with what will continue to be our principal airport for many years to come.