Braverman tells MPs appeal court ruling is 'disappointing for majority of British people'
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is making her statement to MPs about the court of appeal ruling on the Rwanda policy.
She says she visited Rwanda in March, and signed an update to the memorandum of understanding with the country to bring it in line with the illegal migration bill.
Rwanda has the capacity to process thousands of asylum seekers, who will receive “excellent care” before they move on.
She says a legal challenge halted the first flight to Rwanda.
The high court said Rwanda was a safe country, she says.
Today the court of appeal “unanimously found in the government’s favour” on most aspects of the appeal, she says.
And it found that it was lawful for the government to relocate asylum seekers to a safe third county.
But two of the three judges were concerned that there were deficiencies in Rwanda’s processes that meant there could be a breach of the European convention on human rights.
She says the court did not say Rwanda itself was not safe. It said there was a risk that asylum countries in Rwanda might be sent back to countries where they would not be safe.
This is a “disappointing judgment”, she says. The government will seek leave to appeal, she says. She says she hopes this will happen quickly.
She goes on:
This judgment is disappointing for the majority of the British people who have repeatedly voted for controlled immigration.
Plans to build a national memorial to the Holocaust have moved “one step closer”, Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, said today.
Speaking after MPs approved the Holocaust memorial bill yesterday, Gove said:
We are privileged in this country to have survivors of the Holocaust who have been willing to share their testimony. Sadly, this living testimony will not be with us forever.
The government is absolutely determined to complete the Holocaust memorial at the very heart of our national life to preserve the memory of what happened for ourselves and for all future generations. MPs from all sides of the house have expressed their support to get the memorial built and I am pleased yesterday’s vote brings it a step closer.
The memorial will be located in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to the Houses of Parliament.
The bill will now be debated by a select committee. It has been classified as a “hybrid” bill, meaning bodies directly affected by it will be able to petition for parts of it to be changed.
Nadine Dorries rejects criticism from privileges committee, saying they should 'grow up' and 'stop crying over hurty words'
Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, has hit back at the Commons privileges committee over its report saying she and other Boris Johnson supporters sought to undermine its inquiry into the former PM.
In an interview with TalkTV, where she presents a show, she said:
First of all, they need to grow up and put on their big girl and boy pants and stop crying about hurty words. This is a democracy we live in where free speech reigns …
In the words of Lord Cruddas, if they don’t want to be accused of being a kangaroo court, they should stop hopping so much. I find it absolutely bizarre that I would be accused of coordinating it. There was absolutely no coordination. I did put out a few tweets, and I have made a few comments but there is something much more substantial that’s going on here.
I am not sure how interested the public are … but if they are I think they will see this for what it is, which is an attempt to close down critical comment or freedom of speech in the House of Commons which is the mother of all parliaments and our democracy.
The Rwandan government is very supportive of its asylum deal with the UK, and defended it again in a statement this morning (See 10.44am.) But, as Ignatius Ssuuna reports from Kigali, that is not a universal view. Frank Habineza, an MP and opposition party leader, said there were not enough jobs for Rwandans, let alone refugees. He said:
The UK government is violating the rights of asylum seekers by forcing them to come to Rwanda when they don’t want it. We don’t have employment opportunities here. What will the refugees do when they arrive here? Even nationals don’t have jobs. As green party, we oppose this policy and today’s ruling has vindicated us.
The Braverman statement is now over. Sir Bill Cash rises to make a point of order, and asks for an assurance that, when MPs debate the illegal migration bill as it returns from the Lords, they won’t be banned from raising issues on sub judice grounds, because of the case going to the supreme court.
Dame Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, tells him the sub judice rule does not apply to debates on legislation.
Braverman refuses to say what government might do if Rwanda option proves unworkable
Kerry McCarthy (Lab) asks what the government’s plan is if it cannot send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Braverman says the legal action is not over yet. So the question is premature, she says.
McCarthy was raising a point highlighted earlier today by the Migration Observatory, a research organisation based at Oxford University. Peter Walsh, one of its senior researchers, said:
The ruling on the legality of the Rwanda scheme has important ramifications for UK asylum policy and in particular the illegal migration bill.
The bill currently going through parliament is predicated on the idea that the UK will remove asylum seekers to safe third countries. Even with a Rwanda deal in place, it has never been clear how easy this would be.
If there are no safe third countries accepting the UK’s asylum seekers, the core idea behind the policy can’t be implemented. In essence, all the eggs are in one basket and this basket is looking fragile.
Stella Creasy (Lab) says most of the people in the boats are Iranians and Afghans, and their asylum applications have a 98% success rate. She asks how much money has been allocated for this policy.
Braverman says last year there were 12,000 Albanians arriving on small boats.
She says the vast majority of people on the boats are young men, paying to come to the UK. That is not what humanitarian protection is all about, she says.
Danny Kruger (Con) asks if the government will seek further assurances from Rwanda about asylum seekers not being returned to countries where they will face prosecution, in the light of what the appeal court said about the risk of this happening. (See 3.25pm.)
Braverman says Rwanda is a safe country. But she says the government is always willing to review its arrangements with the country.
Braverman says UK should not be allowing small boat arrivals to continue 'in name of phoney humanitarianism'
In her opening statement Suella Braverman, the home secretary, said it was madness for governments in the west to be “lining the pockets of people-smugglers and turning our seas into graveyards, all in the name of a phoney humanitarianism”.
Labour’s Oliver Blake put it to her that the term “phoney humanitarianism” was “deeply offensive”.
Braverman said she favoured the UK offering refuge to people fleeing persecution. But she said she did not see why people should be coming to Britain from safe countries like France.
Mark Francois (Con) says Suella Braverman’s instincts on this are right. (He seems to be talking about her opposition to the ECHR.) He says the government is right to appeal. But this will take months, he says. What can be done to speed this up? And wasn’t Sir Edward Leigh right to say the UK needs a derogation from the ECHR?
Braverman says Francois speaks “very powerfully”. She says the court of appeal wants submissions on appeals by 6 July. She says the summary judgment acknowledges the need for speed.
She does not address the question about a derogation from the ECHR.
The SNP’s Patrick Grady told Suella Braverman that he thought she was secretly pleased with the ruling, because she actually wanted a fight with the judiciary. He said that her dream was not for flights to Rwanda to take off, but for them to be blocked so the government would have a reason to withdraw from the European court of human rights.
How lord chief justice thought talk of Rwanda taking thousands of refugees from UK was 'hyperbole'
Here is the quote from Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice, suggesting talk of Rwanda taking thousands of asylum seekers from the UK is “hyperbole”. It is from Burnett’s dissenting judgment (Burnett was the only one of the three judges hearing the case who thought Rwanda should count as a third country).
In much of the political hyperbole which surrounded the announcement of the Rwanda policy there was talk of Rwanda, within a few years, being a destination for thousands of asylum seekers who arrived irregularly in the United Kingdom. The UNHCR evidence questions whether Rwanda can cope with the volumes apparently contemplated. Yet the evidence before the divisional court was that the physical capacity for housing asylum seekers in Rwanda was limited to 100; that of the 47 originally identified for removal the Home Office expected in fact to remove about 10; and that the starting point for any removal under the agreement was for the two governments to agree who would be sent to Rwanda.
She says today is a bad day for the British people, but a good day for people-smugglers and a good day for Labour. Cooper is pleased about the ruling, she claims.
She claims the current system is “rigged against the British people”. And that suits Labour, she claims.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, is speaking now.
She starts by saying the ruling shows the government’s policy is failing. (See 12.05am.)
She asks Braverman if she agrees with the lord chief justice, who said in his judgment that the notion that thousands of asylum seekers would be sent to Rwanda was “hyperbole”.
She also points out that the report about foreign national offenders today (see 3.53pm) amounted to a “damning indictment of the Tory Home Office”.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion