What’s happening with the Rwanda Bill?

I’m sometimes asked why I voted for the Rwanda Bill, or even how could I have done so. 

So in one sentence: as part of actions to reduce the number of immigrants arriving in small boats organised illegally by people smugglers. 

Do we want to sub-contract immigration to small boat smugglers for dangerous journeys across the Channel?

But not everyone agrees that single male asylum seekers should be processed in a third country, with Rwanda as the first. The main criticisms were summarised by one MP as: (This) 'political gimmick of a Rwanda Bill is extortionate, unethical, unworkable and unlawful.'

So let me answer each accusation in turn. 

'Political gimmick'?
 
This is a practical attempt to prevent criminal gangs from their business of trafficking people illegally and dangerously across the Channel. I see this as essential, not a gimmick, and the arrival of 338 more on Tuesday emphasises why this matters. 

Some say the answer is deeper relationships with the EU. But the UK already has effective relationships with both French and Belgian police, which have reduced the number of small boats by over a third over the last year (with 82 gangs disrupted and 400 people arrested).
 
What we also need is a deterrent. The Rwanda Bill is designed to act as a deterrent by showing that if you choose to arrive illegally in small boats you may end up not in the UK but in East Africa, which is not the destination which families and communities have saved so much for a family member to get to.

'Extortionate'?
 

An estimated cost for the scheme’s creation and the first 300 asylum seekers sent to Rwanda is as much as £500 million.
 
That is a lot of money, but the cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels has already run to £6 million a day. If the disincentive to come to the UK was not in place and numbers arriving return to their 2022 levels - then the cost of accommodation alone (not including health and infrastructure) would be greater and last much longer that the Rwanda plan (there is no limit to how many Rwanda would accept). 
 
So although the start-up costs of the Rwanda Scheme are considerable, the marginal cost per asylum seeker comes down sharply and overall it will save the UK money. 
 
'Unethical'?
 
No one can believe people smuggling is ethical or stopping it unethical. 

If the concept of processing claims in a third country was unethical (or immoral) philosophically, it would not be done by Australia and Italy or be under active consideration by several other EU states with the support of the EU. And, with great respect, it is not those who preach against the Rwanda Bill who will have to deal with the consequences of people smuggling. 

If the ‘unethical’ element is processing claims in Rwanda, then why does the UNHCR (High Commission for Refugees) house thousands of refugees in there? 
 
I could write about the practical implications of housing almost 500 illegal immigrants in Gloucester over the last few years, broadly based in two hotels, and how I prevented an attempt by the Home Office to take over a third - the New Inn in Northgate St - but let me leave my comments at this:
 
What is unethical is the way in which some counties (Herefordshire for example) do not accept ANY asylum seekers, and only Glasgow in Scotland does much. So when someone accuses me and Gloucester of being unethical, when we take by far the largest number of asylum seekers in Gloucestershire, and a county 10 miles up the road takes zero, you can understand I think morality has lost its way.
 
But those who say that ANY restriction on the number of asylum seekers by a city or a county is wrong need to make that case publicly but I worry such a policy would cause enormous division and a backlash against migrant communities. 

I vetoed the New Inn on Northgate Street from being taken over to house asylum seekers.

What I believe in

My number one responsibility is community cohesion in a multi-cultural city. As part of what a decent cathedral city should do, I and we support asylum seekers and refugees with decency and compassion, while also supporting my 87,000 constituents, who also need help and advice. 
 
My caseworker and I spend more time helping people who need and deserve that help and compassion than will ever be known, except by the individuals involved, and proportionately the highest percentage of time is on asylum seekers and refugees. Unlike a business, we cannot expand the number of staff or hours in a day, and I am working with others to reduce numbers of asylum seekers gradually. 
 
So I don't buy the argument that restrictions to the number of asylum seekers processed in the UK is illegal, I'm not impressed by the silence about swathes of the UK that do not accept any asylum seekers, and nor do I believe that processing them in a third country if they arrive by small boats is immoral or unethical.
 

‘Unlawful’

The key issue on which the Supreme Court found processing asylum claims in Rwanda unlawful was the possibility of Rwanda sending any asylum seekers onto another country (‘refoulement’). And so the government now has a treaty with Rwanda which specifically rules that out, amongst other points. 

The Rwanda Treaty addresses the concerns of the Supreme Court

The only other issue was whether individuals who could be at risk can challenge their deportation to Rwanda in extreme circumstances (e.g. health issues). The Bill does allow for a right to appeal while upholding the 1951 Refugees Convention and providing help to relocated individuals. 

Some have argued Rwanda is unsafe and that the Bill just saying it’s safe does not make it so. One said to me ‘go there and see for yourself’. I did the next best thing: my wife went there on business and walked all over Kigali, the capital city, completely safely. My neighbour, Tewksbury MP Laurence Robertson went and saw the accommodation, which he said was very good. So yes a sovereign Parliament can determine Rwanda is safe but more importantly, if Kigali was not safe, then the UNHCR has screwed up badly. It’s worth noting that the former Anglican Bishop of Rwanda, a friend, has written strongly about how Rwanda is safe. 

Kigali: the capital of Rwanda is a remarkable success story  

What about the ECHR?  

The Bill doesn’t change our relationship with the ECHR but makes it clear that the decision on whether to comply with any ECHR Section 39 (interim blocks against deportation) rulings lies with Ministers alone.
 
This is in line with an earlier decision about a decade ago where then PM David Cameron overruled an objection by the ECHR to take away the right to vote from prisoners.
 
It is not necessary to leave the ECHR if Ministers decide not to comply with one of their rulings, as France has demonstrated recently by overruling an ECHR ruling and remaining an ECHR member. 

'Unworkable'?
 
Lastly, what of the argument: 'well it won't work anyway'? What this really means is 'I hope it doesn't work because I don't like it'. 
 
The Bill is of course absolutely workable, and if it wasn't, there would be no need to oppose it. But will the flights go? Yes, the government is taking steps to get flights off the ground as soon as possible. 
 
And the individual grounds for appeal (above) have not prevented us from returning Albanian asylum seekers after our agreement with Albania, nor have the courts challenged these.
 
So although all these things take time, we are overcoming the obstacles at each stage. ‘Working’ means getting asylum seekers to Rwanda and cases processed; it also means acting as an effective deterrent. We should allow for the possibility of success, and I believe it will deter, but how successful, we will see over a longer period. 

Conclusion
 
I believe this Bill will have a considerable deterrent value on the numbers of those who think it worth the risk of a dangerous and expensive journey across the Channel.

 
So those (like me) in favour should not imagine this solves everything or that it will always run smoothly; it is one part of a number of policies designed to reduce drastically the numbers coming in small boats, some of which are already working. 
 
Meanwhile, I hope those who are against the Bill should allow for the possibility that it isn't illegal, will work, may represent better value than they currently imagine and if so should be allowed to continue. If anyone had a better idea, we haven’t heard it yet. 
 
The rest of you may find yourselves wondering in a year's time what all the fuss was about, and some will say it doesn’t go far enough – but neither the Royal Navy nor the RNLI exist to risk endangering asylum seekers’ lives.
 
It will come back and go through its remaining stages after Easter and become law then. 

I hope this gives you my answers to the main objections to the Rwanda Bill and why I supported it. Do let me know your thoughts and whether you support what we’re trying to achieve at [email protected]. 
 
Best regards