Global Migration Challenge

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the United Kingdom’s approach to the global migration challenge.

The United Kingdom has a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to refugees. In recent years alone, we have welcomed more than 185,000 people through safe and legal routes, including from Syria, Hong Kong, Afghanistan and, more recently, Ukraine. In addition, we have welcomed more than 40,000 people in recent years through our refugee family reunion routes. This Government have done more than any other in recent history to support those fleeing persecution, conflict or instability.

But we cannot focus our support on those who need it most or effectively control our borders without tackling illegal migration, which is facilitated by people smugglers—serious organised criminals who profit from human misery, who do not care about people drowning in the channel or suffocating in the back of containers. We must break their lethal and evil business model by removing the demand for their repugnant activities. This type of illegal migration puts unsustainable pressures on our public services and local communities. Every day, the broken asylum system costs the taxpayer almost £5 million in hotel accommodation alone. The cost of the asylum system is the highest in over two decades at over £1.5 billion.

As the Prime Minister said last week:

“We cannot sustain a parallel illegal system. Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.”

That is why the new plan for immigration and its legislative vehicle—the Nationality and Borders Bill—are so vital. Once again, I urge hon. Members and Members in the other place to follow this elected House in backing the Bill.

At the heart of this Government’s approach is a simple principle: fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. More than 80 million people around the world are displaced. Others are on the move because they want a better life. There is a global migration crisis that demands innovative and international solutions, and this Government are taking firm action.

When we published the new plan for immigration back in March last year, we set out three very clear objectives: to increase the fairness and efficacy of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum; to deter illegal and dangerous routes of entry to the UK, thereby breaking the business model of criminal smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger; and to remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here.

The Ministry of Defence has taken command of small boat operations in the channel. Every small boat incident will be investigated to determine who piloted the boat and could therefore be liable for prosecution. These reforms are a truly cross-government effort, including the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Crown Prosecution Service, Border Force and the Ministry of Justice.

A nationwide dispersal system will be introduced so that asylum pressures are more equally spread across local authorities. Currently, 53% of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales do not accommodate asylum seekers under the dispersal system. It is simply unfair that a national burden should be felt disproportionately by certain areas of the country.

For the first time, the Government are building asylum reception centres to end the practice of housing asylum seekers in expensive hotels. A new reception centre in Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire will open shortly. Far from being outlandish, as some in the Opposition have commented, asylum reception centres are already operational in safe EU countries such as Greece and they are funded by the EU.

Just last week, I signed a new world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. Under this partnership, those who travel to the UK by illegal and dangerous routes, including by small boats across the channel, may be relocated to Rwanda, where they will have their asylum claims considered. Those in need of protection will be given up to five years of support, including education and employment training and help with integration, accommodation and healthcare, so that they can thrive there. The UK is supporting this investment in Rwanda over five years, boosting the Rwandan economy and increasing opportunities for people living there, further cementing the trading and diplomatic relationship between our countries.

This is a bespoke international agreement reached last week with Rwanda; I came to Parliament as soon as was reasonably practicable following the conclusion of that agreement. The agreement is compatible with all our domestic and international legal obligations. Rwanda is a state party to the 1951 United Nations refugee convention and the seven core United Nations human rights conventions, and has a strong system for refugee resettlement. The United Nations has used Rwanda for several years to relocate refugees, and of course it was the European Union that first funded that.

This agreement deals a major blow to the people smugglers and their evil trade in human cargo. Everyone who is considered for relocation will be screened and interviewed—that will include an age assessment—and will have access to legal services. In relation to accounting officer advice, contrary to reports in the newspapers, the permanent secretary did not oppose this agreement; nor did he assert that it is poor value for money. Rather, he stated in his role as accounting officer that the policy is regular, proper and feasible, but that there is not currently sufficient evidence to demonstrate value for money.

It is the job of Ministers to take decisions—more often than not, tough decisions—in the interests of our country. Existing approaches have failed, and there is no single solution to these problems—something that I think Opposition Members may have encountered in the past as well. Change is needed, because people are dying attempting to come to the UK by illegal and dangerous routes. This partnership is the type of international co-operation needed to make the global immigration system fairer, keep people safe and give them opportunities to flourish. This will help to break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life, while ensuring protection for those who are genuinely vulnerable.

This Government are delivering the first comprehensive overhaul of the asylum system and of this type of illegal migration in decades. At the heart of this approach is fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. The demands on the current system, the cost to British taxpayers and the scandalous abuses are increasing. The British public have rightly had enough. Our new plan for immigration will improve support for those directly fleeing oppression, persecution and tyranny through safe and legal routes. It will deter illegal and dangerous routes of entry to the UK, make it easier to remove those with no right to be in the UK and provide a common-sense approach to controlling immigration, both legal and illegal. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

We have seen, over the past week, this unworkable, shameful and desperate attempt to distract from the Prime Minister’s lawbreaking. The Home Secretary should not go along with it, because she is undermining not just respect for the rule of law, but her office, by providing cover for him. The policies that she has announced today are unworkable, unethical and extortionate in their cost to the British taxpayer.

There was no information from the Home Secretary about the costs today. Will she admit that the £120 million that she has announced does not pay for a single person to be transferred? She has not actually got an agreement on the price for each person; in fact, £120 million is the eye-watering price that the Home Office is paying just for a press release. What is the rest of the cost? What is this year’s budget? How many people will it cover? The Home Office has briefed that it might be £30,000 per person to cover up to three months’ accommodation, but that is already three times more than the ordinary cost of dealing with an asylum case in the UK.

The Home Secretary said in her statement that she would provide five years of costs. In Australia, offshoring costs £1.7 million per person, which is over 100 times more than the ordinary asylum cost here. Where will all the money come from to fund the plan? She says that she will save money on hotels, but the only reason why we are paying a fortune in hotel costs is that Home Office decision making has totally collapsed. On the Home Secretary’s watch, the Home Office is taking only 14,000 initial asylum decisions a year, half as many as it was taking five years ago. It is taking fewer decisions than Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria, never mind France and Germany. The costs to the UK taxpayer have soared by hundreds of millions of pounds because the Home Secretary is not capable of taking basic asylum decisions—and because she is not capable of taking those decisions, she is trying to pay Rwanda to take them instead. Whether or not people are refugees, whether or not they are victims of modern slavery, whether or not they have family members in the UK and whether or not they have come from Afghanistan, Syria or even Ukraine, the Home Secretary is asking Rwanda to do the job that she is not capable of doing.

That response to my statement was, if I may say so, wholly predictable. It is important to say to everyone in the House that we cannot put a price on saving human lives, and I think everyone will respect that completely.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was a Minister in the Blair Government when the powers that give this Government the legal basis for this policy were introduced. When she occupied a seat in the Blair Government, I do not remember her exploding in synthetic rage when all those policies were implemented, after Acts were passed in 1999, 2002 and 2004 to bring about similar partnerships —the same partnerships, by the way, that were used to establish the Dublin regulations to return inadmissible asylum seekers to EU member states. The right hon. Lady has gone on record multiple times attacking the Government for abandoning those regulations, and at the same time calling for a replacement. Now she is attacking the Government for using the very powers that only a few weeks ago she said we could still be using if we had not left the EU.

What we have heard today from the right hon. Lady and the Opposition demonstrates their absolute inability to understand this issue—the differentiation between legal and illegal migration. They should be honest about their policies. They stand for open borders and uncontrolled immigration. I will, if I may, go even further: the right hon. Lady described the policy as unworkable and extortionate. If it is unworkable, it cannot be extortionate. We will make payments based on delivery. That is the point of our scheme. Nowhere in her response to the statement did the right hon. Lady put forward an alternative that would actually seek to deal with people-trafficking and deaths in the channel. Importantly, the Labour party is being exposed today as having no policy, and no idea how to stop people-smuggling.

With respect to my right hon. Friend, from what I have heard and seen so far of the removal to Rwanda policy, I do not support it on the grounds of legality, practicality or efficacy. I want to ask her about one specific issue. I understand that only young men, and not families, will be removed. The Home Secretary is shaking her head, so I have obviously misunderstood the policy in that sense. If it is the case that families will not be broken up—the Home Secretary is nodding—where is her evidence that this will not simply lead to an increase in the trafficking of women and children?

I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss this further, and to give her further information —[Interruption.] Calm down and listen. First and foremost, the policy is legal and a memorandum of understanding has been published that states very clearly—[Interruption.] Members are not even listening, so there is no point. The MOU states clearly in terms of the legal—[Interruption.] If Members are interested in listening to the responses, please do. The MOU that has been published spells out in full detail the legalities and the nature of the agreement. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) would respect the fact that I am not going to speak about the eligibility criteria on the Floor of the House. [Hon. Members: “Why not?”] Because, as my right hon. Friend will know very well, those types of criteria are used by the smuggling gangs to exploit various loopholes in our laws to do with, for example, legal action to prevent removals. Opposition Members write to me frequently asking me not to remove some of the failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders who have no legal basis for remaining in our country. I will be happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss this further.

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Stuart C. McDonald.

This is a cruel and catastrophic policy. It will not hurt smugglers, but it will further seriously harm people who have fled persecution. It will do untold damage to the international system of refugee protection, and to what little remains of the UK’s reputation for upholding international law. This is worse than temporary offshoring; it is offloading responsibility altogether. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said, people fleeing persecution should not be “traded like commodities”, and in words of the Refugee Council, this is nothing short of cash for deportations. We know that 85% of refugees are in the developing or least developed countries, yet here is the wealthy UK offering them cash to take some more. So much for global Britain.

The only thing that is transparent about this policy is its dodgy timing and grubby political motivation. In the interests of proper transparency, will the Home Secretary finally publish a detailed estimate of how many billions this policy will cost? She was chuntering that she had the deal sorted out, so she should now announce it to Members of the House. And for what are we paying this money? Can she say what percentage of asylum seekers coming to the UK will be subjected to this abysmal treatment? Reports from Rwanda suggest capacity for probably around1%, but certainly less than 5%. Is that correct? We are told people will be screened before transfer, but how can a pathetic screening interview possibly pick out trafficking survivors, torture victims or LGBT people? Quite simply, it cannot, so is she happy to see those people subjected to this treatment?

Why are women and children within the scope of this policy? Will people going through the screening process be able to access legal advice? Why are we not allowed to see the criteria for deciding who will be sent? Where is the transparency in that? How will she monitor their treatment? Her Government have completely failed to stop abuses in UK detention centres, never mind in centres that are 5,000 miles away. In short, this disastrous policy has nothing to do with the global migration crisis and everything to do with distracting from the Prime Minister’s political crises. It is absolutely sickening, for all that.

Just for the record, I think the hon. Gentleman’s latter comment was absolutely unacceptable. It does a great disservice not just to this Government and the officials who have worked for over nine months on this partnership, but also to our counterparts in Rwanda who have been working with us, to my international counterparts who are working collectively to tackle the issues of illegal migration, and to some counterparts in the EU as well.

To answer some specific points, I think it is shameful that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is playing party political games on that point, just like the Labour party. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman lets me answer the question, I will.

The other point is that Rwanda has successfully resettled more than 130,000 refugees. I think the hon. Gentleman’s comments are a slur on the successful efforts of our partners in Rwanda. Rwanda is a safe and secure country with respect for the rule of law. I think hon. Members should listen to the undercurrent of their tone towards Rwanda, which has done a great deal to provide safety, refuge, security and a new life to many refugees from around the world.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the approach we will take. Everyone considered for relocation will be screened and interviewed, they will have access to legal advice, and decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nobody will be removed if it would be unsafe or inappropriate for them.

The hon. Gentleman is not the first hon. Member to mention legal obligations and the legalities. Rwanda is beholden to the same legal obligations on human rights as the United Kingdom and I make the point again that I think there is something really quite unpleasant about the undercurrent of the tone towards Rwanda.

The latest figures suggest that, in December, more than 7,000 people in Birmingham were claiming asylum support amounting to tens of millions of pounds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this partnership with Rwanda will reduce the reliance on hotels and reduce the number of small boat crossings?

There are a number of things—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) were less hysterical and actually listened, she might learn something about the new plan for immigration.

It is important to reflect on a number of points. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes, because we do not want people to be in hotel accommodation. It is a cheap point for Opposition Members to make, but we had to use hotel accommodation to protect people during the pandemic, and Public Health England guidance spoke to that.

On decision making—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury chooses to listen, the new plan for immigration is about speeding up asylum decisions and processing through legislation and the digitalisation of the system. I have to add that, because every single Opposition Member voted against this policy, they clearly want open borders. They just want to have uncontrolled migration, and they have done nothing to come up with an alternative plan on this issue.

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Diana Johnson.

The announcement made last week, when Parliament was not sitting, has caused a great deal of confusion about what this policy actually entails. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary turned her head away from the microphone when she responded to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), so I wonder whether she will answer the question of who will actually be eligible to be sent to Rwanda. Will it be single young men, or will it be women and children? What percentage of asylum seekers does she think will be sent to Rwanda?

On eligibility, as I have already said, everyone considered for relocation will be screened and interviewed and have the right access to legal advice and services, and decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. That is absolutely right and proper, but the fundamental principle in relation to this policy and the new plan for immigration, in which I am sure the right hon. Lady is well versed, is that it will apply to people who are inadmissible to our asylum system and to people who have come to our country illegally: through illegal and dangerous routes.

The asylum reception centre to which my right hon. Friend referred will be at Linton-on-Ouse in my constituency. I am not a nimby in any shape or form but, nevertheless, the RAF base on which it will be situated is at the centre of that small rural village. Local people are understandably concerned that this is not an appropriate place to put such a reception centre. Will she meet me to discuss that decision and to see what can be done?