← Back to House of Commons Debates
Migration and Economic Development Partnership
29 June 2023
Lead MP
Suella Braverman
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
Asylum & RefugeesMigrants & BordersForeign Affairs
Other Contributors: 30
At a Glance
Suella Braverman raised concerns about migration and economic development partnership in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the UK’s migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. The Government's stance is that illegal migrants must be deterred from entering the UK through dangerous routes, and as such, signed a partnership agreement with Rwanda in April last year for relocating individuals seeking asylum through these means to have their claims processed there. This was intended to discourage illegal immigration and stop people smugglers' business models. The first relocation flight planned under this agreement faced legal challenges but the High Court upheld its lawfulness, which was further supported by the Court of Appeal's recent judgment confirming Rwanda as a safe third country for asylum processing. However, two judges expressed concerns about potential refoulement from Rwanda to other countries where individuals could suffer ill treatment, whereas the Lord Chief Justice held that there is no real risk of this occurring due to assurances and protections in place. The minister stated that the partnership will continue despite these setbacks, emphasising the need to end illegal boat crossings and protect those truly needing asylum.
Ian Lucas
Lab
Wrexham
Question
The Home Secretary says that the scheme is lawful, but surely she accepts that there are major weaknesses in Rwanda's asylum system. Given this, how does she reconcile the moral case for removing individuals from UK to Rwanda when they may be at risk of refoulement and abuse?
Minister reply
I respect the Court’s judgment but disagree with those who suggest conditions in Rwanda make it unsafe for individuals there. The Court found that while there is a possibility of refoulement, this can be mitigated by strong assurances from the Rwandan Government and protective measures in place. Our partnership remains committed to ensuring safety and fair treatment of asylum seekers.
Mark Field
Con
East Ham
Question
I welcome the minister's statement on our moral responsibility but how can we justify sending people thousands of miles away from their family when there is a danger they could be returned to unsafe countries? Surely this does not help our moral standing?
Minister reply
The Government’s commitment lies in deterring illegal immigration and ensuring that those seeking asylum are processed fairly. We continue to work with Rwanda, which has demonstrated its capacity and willingness to support refugees effectively.
Steve McCabe
Lab
Birmingham, Selly Oak
Question
Does the Home Secretary agree with Lord Justice Lane that talking about thousands of asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda is political hyperbole? How does she reconcile this with her claim that the partnership will make a significant impact?
Minister reply
While the number of individuals relocated may not be in the thousands, our aim remains steadfast. The scheme's primary objective is to deter illegal entry and protect asylum seekers through fair processing in designated safe countries.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
Question
Today’s judgment shows that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have no plan to fix the Tories’ small boats chaos. Their only policy, to send everyone to Rwanda, is now completely unravelling. Ministers have admitted that it will cost £169,000 to send each person to Rwanda—on top of the £140 million cheques that they have already written, with more costs to come—but now the court has found that they did not even do the basic work to make sure that the Rwanda scheme was legal or safe. Over four years, this Tory boats crisis has grown and grown, and the Government have completely broken the asylum system. They have failed to stop criminal gangs taking hold along our borders—gangs that have seen their profits soar from £3 million four years ago to more than £180 million today. The Home Secretary talks again today about thousands of people being sent. The Lord Chief Justice says that “the talk of Rwanda, within a few years, being a destination for thousands of asylum seekers” is “political hyperbole”. A hundred people is less than 0.5% of those who arrived in the UK, so no wonder the Home Office admits there is no evidence that it will act as a deterrent.
Minister reply
I thank the right hon. Lady for her pre-prepared script as well—very well delivered. I have to say, she seems unusually upbeat today, which I find, frankly, quite odd, given that today’s judgment will be frustrating for the majority of the British people who have repeatedly voted for controlled migration, for all those who want to see this Government deliver on our promise to stop the boats. As ever from Labour, there is no alternative plan, and moreover, it does not care that it has no alternative plan. The truth is that our current system is rigged against the British people. That is why we are changing the law. The Labour party is perfectly content with this rigged system. Labour Members would like to keep it in place. That is why they are opposing our Illegal Migration Bill. That is why they would scrap our partnership with Rwanda. Rather than proposing any meaningful reforms to the asylum system, Labour would keep the system as it is to enable more people to come to the country illegally so that they can be settled into local communities more quickly.
Question
While respecting the authority of the Court of Appeal, I share the Home Secretary’s disappointment at its judgment. I welcome the fact that she will take the judgment to the Supreme Court. Does the Home Secretary think that the case before the Supreme Court will be strengthened if she brings forward the safe and legal routes now written into the Illegal Migration Bill, so that there are clear options for genuine asylum seekers not to have to use irregular or illegal routes? Secondly, can she write into the Rwanda agreement a default position that, if the Rwandan Government try to move these people on to a third country, a right of appeal could be heard in the United Kingdom?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am grateful for his constructive input. The Illegal Migration Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament, makes reference to and contains provisions relating to safe and legal routes, and we are in discussions about how and when those routes will be rolled out. They are an important element of our overall plan to stop the boats.
Patrick Grady
SNP
North Glasgow
Question
The SNP member questions whether the Home Secretary is genuinely disappointed by the High Court's decision, suggesting that this was part of a strategy to clash with the judiciary and triangulate against opposition parties. He criticises the Government’s stance on asylum seekers as being devoid of humanitarian concern, highlighting the economic cost of £120 million already paid to Rwanda and questioning further appeals to the Supreme Court. The member also addresses the SNP's genuine commitment to welcoming refugees despite accusations of hypocrisy.
Minister reply
The Home Secretary disagrees with most of the MP’s points and emphasises respect for the Court of Appeal while maintaining disagreement with some findings. She criticises the SNP’s approach to asylum seekers, referencing a recent incident in Leith where they opposed accommodating asylum seekers despite it being cost-effective.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Question
The Conservative member questions the lack of alternatives for constituencies overwhelmed by local services and suggests that legal frameworks need reform, advocating for derogation from human rights conventions to manage asylum seekers effectively.
Minister reply
Acknowledges thanks to his community’s support at RAF Scampton. Discusses the need for reforms in the face of opaque and irregular operation of Strasbourg court. Acknowledges current measures within proposed legislation.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West
Question
The Labour member criticises the Government's failed economy and immoral asylum policy, questioning why the Home Secretary doesn't fix the system instead of outsourcing it.
Minister reply
Defends the government’s stance on immigration, criticising the opposition for inconsistency and failure to speak for British people regarding illegal migration. Accuses the opposition of prioritising their vested interests over public good.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
Question
The Conservative member supports the Home Secretary's decision to appeal, asks if anything can be done to expedite the Supreme Court’s decision on timelines, and questions whether a derogation from ECHR is necessary.
Minister reply
Acknowledges the right hon. Friend’s points, confirms adherence to the 6 July timeline set by the Court of Appeal for submissions. Refers to paragraph 16 in summary judgment emphasising need for swiftness. Discusses the Lord Chief Justice's dissenting opinion on Rwanda.
Tim Farron
Lib Dem
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Question
The Liberal Democrat member questions if the best deterrent would be efficient processing of asylum seekers rather than playing games, implying incompetence.
Minister reply
Defends efforts to streamline processes, increase caseworkers, and make quicker decisions. Acknowledges progress on backlog reduction but stresses complexity and enormity of challenge.
Question
The member questions the discrepancy between Rwanda being deemed unsafe while having an asylum scheme funded by EU.
Minister reply
Refers to Lord Chief Justice’s dissenting judgment, highlighting paragraph 498 as support for disagreement with other judges and absence of real risk in relocation.
Olivia Blake
Lab
Sheffield Hallam
Question
The Labour member invites the Secretary of State to meet Afghan refugees to explain the use of 'phoney humanitarianism'.
Minister reply
Proudly highlights UK’s tradition in offering humanitarian protection but criticises those fleeing safe countries for illegal trade and urges support for stopping it.
Question
The MP thanked the Home Secretary for her statement and expressed hope that she will appeal the judgment quickly, emphasising her constituents' desire to see a fair asylum system and an end to people smuggling.
Minister reply
The minister criticised Opposition Members for opposing deportation of foreign criminals and their failure to support measures to improve the asylum system.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
The MP acknowledged the seriousness of the matter, agreeing with the Home Secretary that boatloads of young refugees circumnavigating the system must end but asked how the UK can stop the influx while fulfilling its human rights obligations.
Minister reply
The minister responded that it is a moral and political issue where most British people want to stop the boats. She expressed confidence in the lawfulness of the Rwanda agreement despite concerns about refoulement.
Question
The MP highlighted local outrage over an asylum seeker being charged with rape, urging for a swift appeal and rapid passage of the Illegal Migration Bill.
Minister reply
The minister agreed that setbacks to the policy will be met with horror by constituents. She emphasised that many asylum seekers are economic migrants and not refugees fleeing persecution.
Karin Smyth
Lab
Bristol South
Question
The MP criticised the Government's system as rigged after 13 years, questioning how many more detention centres will be needed if the Bill passes.
Minister reply
The minister stated that illegal immigrants cost £6 million per day and proposed a plan to detain and remove them swiftly through the Illegal Migration Bill.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
Question
The MP asked if it is necessary to get commitments from Rwanda not to refoule asylum seekers to places where they might be persecuted and when planes will start taking off.
Minister reply
The minister stated ongoing discussions with Rwanda, who have a strong track record supporting migrants. She emphasised that Rwanda is a safe country.
Helen Hayes
Lab
Dulwich and West Norwood
Question
The MP questioned the Home Secretary's decision to appeal court rulings allowing persecuted families from Afghanistan to come to the UK.
Minister reply
The minister criticised Labour for opposing humanitarian measures, maintaining that their stance is inhumane.
Question
A constituent believed illegal migrants would never be sent back to Rwanda due to left-wing opposition. The MP asked if this belief was correct.
Minister reply
The minister affirmed her commitment to stop the boats and deliver on promises made, believing she will succeed.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
Question
The MP questioned the Home Secretary's back-up plan after admitting delays in processing asylum claims are part of their deterrence strategy.
Minister reply
The minister criticised Labour for not having a clear plan to stop the boats, suggesting they propose open borders and uncontrolled migration.
Question
The MP argued this is about democracy as British people voted for immigration control and asked what steps would be taken to deliver on that promise.
Minister reply
The minister confirmed she will do whatever it takes, including appealing the ruling or legislating in Parliament, to stop the boats.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
Question
Contrary to Home Secretary's claims, most boat arrivals are Iranians and Afghans fleeing persecution. The MP questioned if she would be honest about how much money will continue to be spent on this policy.
Minister reply
The minister rejected taking lectures from Labour on the issue.
Kieran Mullan
Con
Bexhill and Battle
Question
I agree with the Lord Chief Justice. Despite what we have heard from Opposition Members, one of the three judges thought we were right; these are finely balanced issues. Of course, the court was preoccupied not so much with the ability of Rwanda to host asylum seekers but with its ability to process their claims. We might find that other countries are willing to work with us but are also not able to evidence their ability to process claims as well as they can evidence their ability to look after people. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on plans to allow us to process the claims ourselves while people are in a third country, so that we can overcome some of these barriers?
Minister reply
We have in recent months put in a huge amount of extra resource focused on the processing of asylum claims. We have increased the number of caseworkers, and we are on track to have over 2,000 case-workers by September. We have improved and streamlined the process, and we have simplified the guidance, so that we can make decisions and process cases more quickly.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Question
I actually agree with one thing that the Home Secretary has said today: this is hugely frustrating, because the majority of people in this country do want to see an end to the vile, evil people smuggling that is costing lives in the channel. But perhaps the time has come to accept that this immoral, unworkable, expensive scheme, which has now also been found to be illegal, is not the correct way to go about it. Perhaps the Home Secretary might consider the voices from all sides of the House that are saying, “Add more safe legal routes, clamp down on the people smugglers, end the backlog and fix the system.”
Minister reply
What is immoral is the position that the Lib Dems have taken in this whole debate. By opposing our humanitarian plans to save lives and stop the people-smuggling gangs, they have put themselves on the same side as the criminal people-smuggling gangs and as open borders. That is what is not moral. That is not what will save lives, and that is not what will stop the boats.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Question
Let us be clear: we all want to see an end to the small boat crossings, and it is wrong of the Home Secretary to try to mischaracterise the Labour position on that front. But the Rwanda policy—if we can call it a policy—was never going to make sufficient inroads into the number of people seeking asylum here to make any difference at all. As the shadow Home Secretary said, it is political hyperbole and it is a total con. I ask the Home Secretary again—and this time, perhaps she will not try to make me answer the question—what is her plan if Rwanda is not an opportunity for the Government to address the issue?
Minister reply
It is not over yet. This is a Court of Appeal judgment. We have made it clear that we are seeking permission to appeal it, and we will await the outcome of the next level in the process and the next decision from the courts. It is premature to assume that this is the end of the policy. We maintain a high level of confidence in the lawfulness of the policy. We are committed to delivering it and to working in partnership with Rwanda.
Ellie Reeves
Lab
Lewisham West and East Dulwich
Question
Today’s judgment says that Rwanda’s physical capacity for housing asylum seekers is limited to 100 people. That represents less than 0.5% of the people who crossed the channel last year. Why on earth, then, have the Government already given £140 million to Rwanda for what is clearly an unethical and unworkable scheme?
Minister reply
Both Rwanda and the United Kingdom have made it clear that the scheme is uncapped. Indeed, when I visited Rwanda a few months ago, I visited some of the new accommodation that has been constructed for the precise purpose of supporting people who will be relocated to Rwanda. With respect, I disagree with the hon. Lady. There is potential in our agreement with Rwanda. We have confidence in its lawfulness, and we hope to deliver it as soon as possible.
Richard Foord
Lib Dem
Honiton and Sidmouth
Question
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Government cannot send refugees to Rwanda. The scheme would cost taxpayers tens of thousands of extra pounds per refugee, yet the Government still seem to want to spend extra millions to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court. Have the Government thought instead about simply paying for the Arsenal football team’s Visit Rwanda sponsorship deal, which would cost less and achieve more than this gimmick of a scheme?
Minister reply
What disappoints me is that the hon. Gentleman is failing to grapple with the challenge and the costs that we are incurring right now: £6 million a day on hotel accommodation and £3 billion a year on our asylum system. That cannot go on, which is why the Prime Minister and I have pledged to do whatever it takes to stop the boats, bear down on our asylum backlog and deliver our legislation and our partnership with Rwanda.
Ruth Jones
Lab
Newport West and Islwyn
Question
Today’s judgment is clear that Rwanda has repeatedly breached its memorandum of understanding with Israel. The Home Secretary is a lawyer, so why is she handing over hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money without doing the basic work to check that first?
Minister reply
This judgment, and this dispute, is about our partnership and our agreement with Rwanda, which was secured last year. As the Lord Chief Justice found, it is subject to robust monitoring—a committee that inspects its operation—and very strong and robust assurances from Rwanda on its delivery. Those give me confidence, which is why I am determined to roll it out as soon as possible.
Andrew Western
Lab
Stretford and Urmston
Question
I have another question on the Government’s spending of money, because today’s judgment stated that the Rwandan system for refugees is neither reliably fair nor effective, so why did Ministers sign up to sending £140 million to Rwanda without checking that first?
Minister reply
We have been up front about the costs of our partnership with Rwanda, and that is a matter of public record. However, what is absolutely clear —I am sorry that I have to repeat it again, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be getting the point— is that we are spending £6 million a day on hotel accommodation and £3 billion a year on our asylum system. That cannot continue, which is why we will do whatever it takes to stop the boats.
Shadow Comment
Yvette Cooper
Shadow Comment
Today’s judgment reveals that the Government's only policy of sending everyone to Rwanda is now unravelling. The Home Office has admitted costs of £169,000 per person to send migrants to Rwanda, with an additional £140 million already spent and more anticipated. This scheme is unworkable, unethical, and extortionately expensive, costing taxpayers a fortune without addressing the underlying issues such as the rise in people smuggling profits and asylum backlog. The Labour party advocates for practical solutions focusing on combating criminal gangs and securing stronger agreements with France to address illegal crossings effectively.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.