Danny Kruger, Simon Clarke, and Jonathan Gullis are MPs for Devizes, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, and Stoke-on-Trent North respectively.
Conservative MPs and our constituents know the Small Boats crisis is completely unacceptable. Beyond the obviously unsustainable financial and social costs, the crisis poses more fundamental questions of sovereignty and democratic accountability.
That Labour has no real interest, let alone a plan, to stop the boats shows they are not fit to govern. But merely trying harder than Labour is not a credible defence for government failures – and nor will it prove a compelling general election strategy.
The Prime Minister promised that we will ‘stop the boats’. We all want him to succeed in this endeavour, and believe he can. He and the Home Secretary deserve tremendous credit for making difficult, necessary, and contentious decisions with the Illegal Migration Bill which is in Parliament today. But good intentions will count for nothing if the legislation doesn’t achieve its aims.
That is why we – backed by a significant number of colleagues – have put forward amendments that are necessary for the Bill to function and deliver on its stated intent: If you arrive here unlawfully, you will be detained and swiftly removed.
These amendments are not, as some falsely assert, a Trojan horse for leaving the ECHR, nor are they about reducing legal and moral protections for migrants. They are reasonable, lawful, and essential changes, drawing on proposals made by Professor Richard Ekins and former First Parliamentary Counsel Sir Stephen Laws, in a recent Policy Exchange report.
Some of us presented similar amendments to the Nationality and Borders Act which were rejected at the time as unnecessary. Unfortunately, the events of last summer proved us correct. Had our amendments been accepted, flights to Rwanda would not have been blocked by Strasbourg.
To retain our confidence, the Bill must meet these four tests:
1). Does the Bill preclude Strasbourg from blocking Rwanda flights? Simply put, if this Bill were law tomorrow, we would still be unable to operate removals to Rwanda, until the Strasbourg court withdraws the Rule 39 orders that are currently blocking flights.
As currently drafted the Bill gives Government no further powers in this respect. And we remain vulnerable to future Strasbourg rulings on the legality of the scheme – despite UK courts determining that the policy is lawful, and that flights can proceed. To maintain sovereign control of our borders we must amend the Bill so that we can operate removals notwithstanding any contrary judgements from the Strasbourg court.
2). Does the Bill address those sections of the Human Rights Act that could tie up the Government in months of litigation? The Bill disapplies Section 3 of the HRA which would otherwise leave open the possibility of systemic legal challenge. We see no legal, philosophical, or practical argument against doing the same for other Sections that present similar risks.
In their Policy Exchange paper, Professor Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws are clear that in addition to Section 3, the Government should disapply section 4 (declarations of incompatibility), section 6 (acts of public authorities), and section 10 (power to take remedial action). They write that failure to do so could ‘fatally frustrate swift implementation of the policy Parliament had otherwise approved and put in motion.’ Our HRA amendment removes this risk.
3). Does the Bill appropriately limit challenges against removal? The Bill currently sets out reasonable and limited grounds for someone to challenge their removal to a safe country. These are known as ‘suspensive claims’ and are explicitly defined in legislation. Individuals would not be removed if they are medically unfit to fly, or will face persecution in the destination country.
Beyond these, we cannot have lawyers finding loopholes, and judges inventing new blocks on removal, that Parliament did not intend to allow. Amending the Bill to put a statutory block on interim relief would prevent them from doing so.
4). Does the Bill ensure that those removed from the UK will not be returned to the UK? Any deterrent gained from successfully removing people will quickly fall away if, having arrived in Rwanda, people are able to mount successful legal challenges that return them to the UK. It is reasonable and lawful to block returns.
Before they are removed, individuals will have the ability to appeal Home Office decisions to the Upper Tribunal. And if anyone succeeds in a ‘non-suspensive’ legal challenge after they have been removed, they can receive compensation, some other remedy, or be moved elsewhere. Amending the Bill to put a statutory block on returns will guarantee the Prime Minister’s pledge: if you arrive here illegally, you will not get to stay in the UK.
Alongside these four tests, the Government must bring forward plans on safe and legal routes. They must also set out plans to appropriately safeguard unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, while delivering scientific age assessment methods that are used across Europe to ensure that adults falsely claiming to be children are quickly found out. And they must take steps to stop the accommodation of illegal arrivals in hotels, as other European countries are now doing.
We have been encouraged by assurances that the Government will give proper consideration to our concerns ahead of the Bill’s Report stage. On the expectation of receiving this commitment from ministers in Parliament today, we will not be pushing our amendments to a vote this week.
We share the Government’s aim: a fair but firm system, which guarantees safe and legal routes for those in need of genuine protection, and at the same time completely bars illegal arrivals from accessing the UK’s asylum system. The Government and all Conservative colleagues should be able to get behind moves to strengthen both those principles.
Danny Kruger, Simon Clarke, and Jonathan Gullis are MPs for Devizes, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, and Stoke-on-Trent North respectively.
Conservative MPs and our constituents know the Small Boats crisis is completely unacceptable. Beyond the obviously unsustainable financial and social costs, the crisis poses more fundamental questions of sovereignty and democratic accountability.
That Labour has no real interest, let alone a plan, to stop the boats shows they are not fit to govern. But merely trying harder than Labour is not a credible defence for government failures – and nor will it prove a compelling general election strategy.
The Prime Minister promised that we will ‘stop the boats’. We all want him to succeed in this endeavour, and believe he can. He and the Home Secretary deserve tremendous credit for making difficult, necessary, and contentious decisions with the Illegal Migration Bill which is in Parliament today. But good intentions will count for nothing if the legislation doesn’t achieve its aims.
That is why we – backed by a significant number of colleagues – have put forward amendments that are necessary for the Bill to function and deliver on its stated intent: If you arrive here unlawfully, you will be detained and swiftly removed.
These amendments are not, as some falsely assert, a Trojan horse for leaving the ECHR, nor are they about reducing legal and moral protections for migrants. They are reasonable, lawful, and essential changes, drawing on proposals made by Professor Richard Ekins and former First Parliamentary Counsel Sir Stephen Laws, in a recent Policy Exchange report.
Some of us presented similar amendments to the Nationality and Borders Act which were rejected at the time as unnecessary. Unfortunately, the events of last summer proved us correct. Had our amendments been accepted, flights to Rwanda would not have been blocked by Strasbourg.
To retain our confidence, the Bill must meet these four tests:
1). Does the Bill preclude Strasbourg from blocking Rwanda flights? Simply put, if this Bill were law tomorrow, we would still be unable to operate removals to Rwanda, until the Strasbourg court withdraws the Rule 39 orders that are currently blocking flights.
As currently drafted the Bill gives Government no further powers in this respect. And we remain vulnerable to future Strasbourg rulings on the legality of the scheme – despite UK courts determining that the policy is lawful, and that flights can proceed. To maintain sovereign control of our borders we must amend the Bill so that we can operate removals notwithstanding any contrary judgements from the Strasbourg court.
2). Does the Bill address those sections of the Human Rights Act that could tie up the Government in months of litigation? The Bill disapplies Section 3 of the HRA which would otherwise leave open the possibility of systemic legal challenge. We see no legal, philosophical, or practical argument against doing the same for other Sections that present similar risks.
In their Policy Exchange paper, Professor Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws are clear that in addition to Section 3, the Government should disapply section 4 (declarations of incompatibility), section 6 (acts of public authorities), and section 10 (power to take remedial action). They write that failure to do so could ‘fatally frustrate swift implementation of the policy Parliament had otherwise approved and put in motion.’ Our HRA amendment removes this risk.
3). Does the Bill appropriately limit challenges against removal? The Bill currently sets out reasonable and limited grounds for someone to challenge their removal to a safe country. These are known as ‘suspensive claims’ and are explicitly defined in legislation. Individuals would not be removed if they are medically unfit to fly, or will face persecution in the destination country.
Beyond these, we cannot have lawyers finding loopholes, and judges inventing new blocks on removal, that Parliament did not intend to allow. Amending the Bill to put a statutory block on interim relief would prevent them from doing so.
4). Does the Bill ensure that those removed from the UK will not be returned to the UK? Any deterrent gained from successfully removing people will quickly fall away if, having arrived in Rwanda, people are able to mount successful legal challenges that return them to the UK. It is reasonable and lawful to block returns.
Before they are removed, individuals will have the ability to appeal Home Office decisions to the Upper Tribunal. And if anyone succeeds in a ‘non-suspensive’ legal challenge after they have been removed, they can receive compensation, some other remedy, or be moved elsewhere. Amending the Bill to put a statutory block on returns will guarantee the Prime Minister’s pledge: if you arrive here illegally, you will not get to stay in the UK.
Alongside these four tests, the Government must bring forward plans on safe and legal routes. They must also set out plans to appropriately safeguard unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, while delivering scientific age assessment methods that are used across Europe to ensure that adults falsely claiming to be children are quickly found out. And they must take steps to stop the accommodation of illegal arrivals in hotels, as other European countries are now doing.
We have been encouraged by assurances that the Government will give proper consideration to our concerns ahead of the Bill’s Report stage. On the expectation of receiving this commitment from ministers in Parliament today, we will not be pushing our amendments to a vote this week.
We share the Government’s aim: a fair but firm system, which guarantees safe and legal routes for those in need of genuine protection, and at the same time completely bars illegal arrivals from accessing the UK’s asylum system. The Government and all Conservative colleagues should be able to get behind moves to strengthen both those principles.