Cleverly says bill ‘pushing at edge of envelope’ but still ‘within framework of international law’
John Baron (Con) asks Cleverly to confirm that the government will remain within international law.
Cleverly says he is confident, on the basis of conversations with the government’s legal advisers, that what it is doing is “within the framework of international law”.
But the measures are “novel”, and “very much pushing at the edge of the envelope”, he says.
Key events
Diana Johnson, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, is speaking now. She says her committee has not been able to get the Home Office to say how much it will spend on each individual asylum seeker sent to Rwanda. She says Michael Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, should provide costings when he winds up the debate later.
Back in the Commons Sir Bill Cash, who led the European Research Group’s “star chamber” panel of legal experts who published a report on the Rwanda bill, is speaking now.
He says if parliament passes a law, the courts should apply it, whether it breaks international law or not.
He praises Robert Jenrick for his speech. And he says that he thinks the bill can be improved.
A reader asks:
The government is recalling a minister from the climate summit. Why can’t they ask the opposition for a pairing? Given the importance of Cop28 to the UK, Labour might have agreed to this … or is this more performative from the Conservatives?
The government and opposition do agree to pair MPs, and I’m sure they have done that today. But if the opposition have only got, say, 14 MPs who can’t make the vote because they are ill/away or whatever, that is all they will offer the government – even if the government wants more pairs. And the government normally has more people away because there 100-odd MPs who are in government and might be away on government business.
Alison Thewliss, the SNP’s spokesperson on home affairs, says the Rwanda bill will not work because it does not deal with the reasons people come to the UK.
She says her constituency has the highest asylum caseload in Scotland. She refers to a constituent from Sudan granted refugee status. He says he just wants his wife to join him. But there is no safe and legal refugee route from Sudan. So what would MPs do if they were in his position?
Jenrick calls Rwanda bill ‘sophistry’ because it will not stop European court of human rights blocking deportation flights
Robert Jenrick starts by saying the government has made progress tackling illegal immigration.
Small boat arrivals have been cut by a third, he says. In other European countries, illegal immigration is going up. So the PM’s plan is working, he says.
He claims Labour does not believe in border security. This will be one of the defining issues of the 21st century, he says.
He says the strongest possible deterrent is needed. And the Rwanda scheme is the only possible deterrent available in the next 12 months.
He says that, having immersed himself in the detail, he thinks the Rwanda scheme will work.
He says people don’t like having asylum hotels in their towns. Even MPs who are the strongest supporters of open borders object to asylum hotels, he says. He accuses them of hypocrisy.
If Labour were in power, there would be a decade of small boat arrivals, he says.
Turning to the bill, he says there are two main problems with it.
First, it will not stop people appealing as individuals against deportation orders. This will provide legal certainty. And it is necessary for operational reasons, too, he says. That’s because, if individual claims are allowed, the courts will be overwhelmed with claims, and detention facilities will fill up. People will have to be released, and they will disappear. That will bring the system into disrepute.
Meg Hillier (Lab) says she is a former immigration minister. At the end of Labour’s last term in government, one person was being removed every eight minutes, she says. She asks what Jenrick’s record is.
Jenrick says there has been a ten-fold increase in the pace of decision-making. He says Labour is on rocky ground.
Turning back to the bill, he says it is inevitable that the European court of human rights will impose further injunctions to block deportation flights. They have to stop that, he says.
He says the provision in the bill is “sophistry”. He says it is government policy that rule 39 injunctions are binding in international law. MPs are being asked to vote for a provision in the bill (allowing ministers to ignore those injuctions) that it would be illegal to use.
This is the point Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg was getting at earlier. See 1.03pm.
UPDATE: Jenrick said:
It is inevitable … in light of the supreme court’s judgment, that the Strasbourg court will impose further Rule 39 interim measures … we have to stop that, it is a matter of sovereignty for our country that ministers acting on the instructions of parliament do not allow those flights to be delayed.
The provision in the bill is sophistry. It is the express policy of the government that rule 39 injunctions are binding and to ignore them would be a breach of international law.
So, we are being asked to vote for a provision which it would be illegal to use.
Dame Rosie Winterton, the deputy speaker, says many MPs want to speak. She suggests an eight-minute time limit on speeches.
She calls Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, as the first backbencher speaker.
Cooper says MPs should be building cross-party consensus on this.
As Tory MPs jeer, she says they cannot even build consensus on their own side on this.
Sir John Hayes (Con) says Labour MPs think international law trumps the sovereignty of parliament, while MPs on his side believe the opposite.
Cooper says they are debating this bill not because of a judgment from a foreign court, but because of a ruling from the supreme court.
She says the Tory row is not about having a workable solution to his issue.
Sir Geoffrey Cox, a former Tory attorney general, says the past Labour government deemed a whole list of countries safe for asylum seekers.
Cooper says Cox is wrong. What the government is doing with this bill is not just deeming countries safe, but preventing courts from considering the facts. She says the government itself acknowledged in its legal guidance published yesterday that reality cannot be ignored. She quotes this passage from the advice:
Deeming clauses are used frequently in domestic law and there is a rich case law on how they are to be interpreted. In Fowler v Revenue and Customs [2020] UKSC 22, Lord Briggs, writing in a unanimous supreme court judgment, endorsed the position that: “A deeming provision should not be applied so far as to produce unjust, absurd or anomalous results, unless the court is compelled to do so by clear language. But the court should not shrink from applying the fiction created by the deeming provision to the consequences which would inevitably flow from the fiction being real. As Lord Asquith memorably put it in East End Dwellings Co Ltd v Finsbury borough council [1952] AC 109, at 133: ‘The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs.’”
Conor Burns (Con) asks how long it would take Labour to stop small boat crossings. He says Cooper should give a date to the British people.
Cooper says Burns is just highlighting how much the government has failed.
She says Labour does want to stop the boats. It will smash the gangs, get returns agreements, and go much further in terms of cooperating with France, she says.
She says the bill risks breaking international law. But that will make it harder for the UK to get further returns agreements, she says.
Cooper says under the Rwanda treaty asylum seekers who commit serious crimes in Rwanda will be sent back to the UK.
She says the UK is not accepting Afghans who helped British forces in Afghanistan. But, under this plan, it would have to accept criminals. “You couldn’t make it up,” she says.
Cooper says Labour would set up a new returns unit, with 1,000 staff, to have proper enforcment in place.
She claims this, combined with more case workers, would save the taxpayer £2bn.
This is what Aubrey Allegretti has posted on X about James Cleverly repeately muttering “What’s your plan?” at Yvette Cooper while she is speaking. (At least this is an improvement on some of Cleverly’s other recent heckles in the chamber.)
I’ve counted no fewer than 30 times that James Cleverly has muttered across the despatch box “what’s your plan” at Yvette Cooper as she’s on her feet.
— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) December 12, 2023
Cooper says Cleverly has now confirmed Rwanda scheme will cost £400m by 2026
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, is opening her speech.
She says Cleverly has confirmed that the total cost of the scheme is now £400m.
(She is referring to Cleverly confirming earlier that two further payments of £50m were due. He did confirm what Cooper was asking. But it was not clear whether he was referring to two payments in 2024-25 and 2025-26, or whether he was referring to two payments in 2025-26 and 2026-27, which is how Cooper is interpreting his comments. Cooper just asked about payments in the calendar years 2025 and 2026, not payments in the financial years. See 12.56pm.)
Cleverly wraps up his speech by urging MPs to back the bill to create a fair asylum system.
Cleverly sidesteps question about whether minister could lawfully ignore ECtHR injunction under bill
The Rwanda bill says it is up to ministers to decide whether or not they will ignore an injunction from the European court of human rights stopping a deportation flight leaving. Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, asks if the advice from the attorney general says it would be compatible within international law for a minister to ignore such an injunction.
Cleverly says he cannot reveal the attorney’s advice. But he says the government is clear that the bill is in accordance with international law.
Cleverly confirms that UK planning to give Rwanda a further £50m in 2026
Cleverly says Rwanda is introducing an even stronger end-to-end asylum system.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, asks Cleverly to confirm that the UK will give Rwanda a further £50m in 2025 and another £50m in 2026.
Cleverly claims Cooper is asking him to confirm numbers that have already been put in the public domain. He says he is happy to confirm that is the case.
(Cleverly seems to be referring to the Home Office letter published last week, but that only revealed that the government had given another £100m to Rwanda this year, and that it was planning to give another £50m in 2024-25. But Cooper asked about a further payment of £50m in 2026, which Cleverly confirmed. That seems to be new, and would take the total payment to Rwanda by 2026 to £340m.)
Cleverly says the supreme court’s judgment was based on the facts from 18 months ago.
Those facts can be remedied, he says.
The new treaty with Rwanda now sets out obligations on Rwanda and the UK within international law.
Jeremy Wright (Con), a former attorney general, asks Cleverly to confirm that parliament does not have the power to deem itself in compliance with international law.
He says no country should be able to just state it is within international law.
He suggests the language of the bill needs to be clarified on this point.
Cleverly says that is not the intention of the bill. The deeming clause is about the safety of Rwanda, he says.
Joanna Cherry (SNP) asks, if Rwanda has addressed the problems raised by the supreme court, why is legislation necessary?
Cleverly says the bill will make this clear and unambiguous.
Sir Bill Cash (Con) asks Cleverly if he agrees that clear wording clearly establishing the intention of parliament takes precedence over international law.
Cleverly says Cash is right. When the wording of a bill is clear and unambiguous, where there is a deeming cause, that must take precedence.
