Suella Braverman was Home Secretary until last month, and is MP for Fareham.
In Parliament last week, I warned that if we fail to legislate in a manner that delivers effective control of our borders, the Conservative Party will face electoral oblivion. Some queried whether this was just rhetoric. Sadly, it is not.
We now find ourselves, on average, consistently 20 points behind in the polls. If the election were held tomorrow, the data shows us losing some 200 seats, over half of the Parliamentary party.
This is not because of a surge of support for Labour. Sir Keir Starmer remains a deeply unpopular, uninspiring, and untrustworthy politician. His leadership pitch is based entirely on who he is not – Jeremy Corbyn – rather than on anything that he actually stands for.
The reason for the Tory party’s polling collapse is that so many of those who voted for us in 2019 have either defected to Reform, who are currently polling on 11 per cent, or are simply no longer planning to vote at all.
There is now a real risk that Conservatives don’t just lose the next election, but end up in a similar situation to the Canadian conservatives after their 1992 defeat. That is, going from the party of government to a party that ceased to exist.
It is an extraordinary indictment of the Tory party’s current direction of travel that those who voted Conservative in 2019 but now intend to vote Reform or not at all, now constitute almost 20 per cent of all voters. These are the voters whose trust we must regain if we are to avoid an electoral wipeout.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. With effective action on immigration, legal and illegal, we have a chance of winning them back. According to YouGov, these voters regard ‘immigration & asylum’ as the most important issue facing the country by far. But they are sick and tired of empty rhetoric and slick slogans that aren’t backed up with the action necessary to achieve them.
As pollster James Johnson has put it: “The only way to improve the chances of a Tory electoral recovery is to stop the boats.” And the only way to do that is with effective legislation that delivers the scheme we have long since promised the British people: If you come to this country illegally, you will be detained, and swiftly removed to Rwanda. That is how we will establish a meaningful deterrent.
“Swiftly”, if it is to mean anything in this context, must mean those arriving illegally are removed within days of stepping ashore, rather than within two to six months as currently envisaged.
“Detained” must mean the majority of those arriving illegally don’t have a chance to abscond because our detention capacity is overwhelmed with people making appeals, but that they face a realistic likelihood of being interned – without bail – until such time as they are removed.
And “removed”, must actually mean removal. Not impeded by injunctions from Strasbourg, delayed in effect by appeals and inevitable court backlogs, or thwarted by spurious claims that Rwanda isn’t safe for a particular individual owing to their mental health, or whatever creative new ruses the immigration lawyers come up with.
Assurances that the Bill is tougher than its predecessors are wholly irrelevant. Success here is binary. The only question that matters is: will it work? And by failing to close off routes of individual challenge that can prevent removal, the Bill currently before Parliament will not work.
This is not merely my opinion. It is a view shared by some of the country’s finest legal minds who were consulted during the formulation of legislation, and who have given their opinion on the Bill following publication – including those in the European Research Group’s ‘star chamber’.
For the Bill to deliver the swift removal of people at scale before the next general election, it must circumvent the lengthy process of further domestic litigation to ensure that flights can take off as soon as it becomes law.
As we have seen demonstrated in the courts, ‘Serious and Irreversible Harm’ is unlikely to be the exceedingly high bar that some wish to make out. It is capable of being interpreted elastically, and following defeat in the Supreme Court, it stands to reason that judges are more likely to interpret it liberally.
To be effective in delivering what we have promised the public, the Bill must exclude all avenues of legal challenge. The entirety of the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights, and other relevant international obligations, or legislation, including the Refugee Convention, must be disapplied by way of clear “notwithstanding” clauses. Judicial Review, all common law challenges, and all injunctive relief, including the suspensive challenges available under the Illegal Migration Act must be expressly excluded. Other claims could still be made, but these would not prevent removal and could be continued remotely from Rwanda. Given the nature of the current crisis, there are good international law arguments – arguments that I’m sure would assuage any concerns that the Rwandans may have if presented to them.
The only means by which individuals should be able to avoid removal, is by demonstrating to Home Office officials, that they have entered the country legally, are under 18, or are medically unfit to fly. Opening up avenues for individual challenge beyond this will render the scheme unworkable in practice.
The Prime Minister has a final chance to fulfil his pledge to the British people and to save the Tory party in the process. He should withdraw the Bill and reintroduce one that works. If he does that, I’ll vote for it. But I can’t in good conscience support this one.
Suella Braverman was Home Secretary until last month, and is MP for Fareham.
In Parliament last week, I warned that if we fail to legislate in a manner that delivers effective control of our borders, the Conservative Party will face electoral oblivion. Some queried whether this was just rhetoric. Sadly, it is not.
We now find ourselves, on average, consistently 20 points behind in the polls. If the election were held tomorrow, the data shows us losing some 200 seats, over half of the Parliamentary party.
This is not because of a surge of support for Labour. Sir Keir Starmer remains a deeply unpopular, uninspiring, and untrustworthy politician. His leadership pitch is based entirely on who he is not – Jeremy Corbyn – rather than on anything that he actually stands for.
The reason for the Tory party’s polling collapse is that so many of those who voted for us in 2019 have either defected to Reform, who are currently polling on 11 per cent, or are simply no longer planning to vote at all.
There is now a real risk that Conservatives don’t just lose the next election, but end up in a similar situation to the Canadian conservatives after their 1992 defeat. That is, going from the party of government to a party that ceased to exist.
It is an extraordinary indictment of the Tory party’s current direction of travel that those who voted Conservative in 2019 but now intend to vote Reform or not at all, now constitute almost 20 per cent of all voters. These are the voters whose trust we must regain if we are to avoid an electoral wipeout.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. With effective action on immigration, legal and illegal, we have a chance of winning them back. According to YouGov, these voters regard ‘immigration & asylum’ as the most important issue facing the country by far. But they are sick and tired of empty rhetoric and slick slogans that aren’t backed up with the action necessary to achieve them.
As pollster James Johnson has put it: “The only way to improve the chances of a Tory electoral recovery is to stop the boats.” And the only way to do that is with effective legislation that delivers the scheme we have long since promised the British people: If you come to this country illegally, you will be detained, and swiftly removed to Rwanda. That is how we will establish a meaningful deterrent.
“Swiftly”, if it is to mean anything in this context, must mean those arriving illegally are removed within days of stepping ashore, rather than within two to six months as currently envisaged.
“Detained” must mean the majority of those arriving illegally don’t have a chance to abscond because our detention capacity is overwhelmed with people making appeals, but that they face a realistic likelihood of being interned – without bail – until such time as they are removed.
And “removed”, must actually mean removal. Not impeded by injunctions from Strasbourg, delayed in effect by appeals and inevitable court backlogs, or thwarted by spurious claims that Rwanda isn’t safe for a particular individual owing to their mental health, or whatever creative new ruses the immigration lawyers come up with.
Assurances that the Bill is tougher than its predecessors are wholly irrelevant. Success here is binary. The only question that matters is: will it work? And by failing to close off routes of individual challenge that can prevent removal, the Bill currently before Parliament will not work.
This is not merely my opinion. It is a view shared by some of the country’s finest legal minds who were consulted during the formulation of legislation, and who have given their opinion on the Bill following publication – including those in the European Research Group’s ‘star chamber’.
For the Bill to deliver the swift removal of people at scale before the next general election, it must circumvent the lengthy process of further domestic litigation to ensure that flights can take off as soon as it becomes law.
As we have seen demonstrated in the courts, ‘Serious and Irreversible Harm’ is unlikely to be the exceedingly high bar that some wish to make out. It is capable of being interpreted elastically, and following defeat in the Supreme Court, it stands to reason that judges are more likely to interpret it liberally.
To be effective in delivering what we have promised the public, the Bill must exclude all avenues of legal challenge. The entirety of the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights, and other relevant international obligations, or legislation, including the Refugee Convention, must be disapplied by way of clear “notwithstanding” clauses. Judicial Review, all common law challenges, and all injunctive relief, including the suspensive challenges available under the Illegal Migration Act must be expressly excluded. Other claims could still be made, but these would not prevent removal and could be continued remotely from Rwanda. Given the nature of the current crisis, there are good international law arguments – arguments that I’m sure would assuage any concerns that the Rwandans may have if presented to them.
The only means by which individuals should be able to avoid removal, is by demonstrating to Home Office officials, that they have entered the country legally, are under 18, or are medically unfit to fly. Opening up avenues for individual challenge beyond this will render the scheme unworkable in practice.
The Prime Minister has a final chance to fulfil his pledge to the British people and to save the Tory party in the process. He should withdraw the Bill and reintroduce one that works. If he does that, I’ll vote for it. But I can’t in good conscience support this one.