Michael Howard
In the end, the most controversial proposed legislation of this Parliament – appropriately titled the Safety of Rwanda Bill – went through comfortably. The Left-wing excitement over Tory splits was exaggerated. The rebellion was muted. Of course, this very radical Bill, treading new, unprecedented territory, was never going to get its second reading without a row, but the Prime Minister has once again proved his critics wrong.
There are many arguments still to come, but it would be very surprising indeed if it failed to gain the approval of the House of Commons at third reading. Those rebels who abstained on Tuesday must by now understand that they don’t have the numbers to get the changes they want added to the legislation. In any case, it would be an act of real self-harm if they allowed what they regard as the best to become the enemy of the good.
And, once again, the hollowness of Sir Keir Starmer’s response has been exposed. Labour have no alternative and the shrillness of their rhetoric has failed to cover up the lack of any substance behind it. How would they stop the boats without Rwanda? What exactly would they do? Yes, there will be difficulties in the House of Lords. But its members would be very ill-advised to seek to defy the elected chamber on an issue that matters so much to the general public, who have been promised that immigration would come under control. So I expect the Bill to become law soon. Then what of the courts? The doubters rub their hands in anticipation of legal challenges which they assert will stop the scheme in its tracks. But the scope for challenge is extremely limited. When Parliament has made its intention clear, it is the duty of the courts to respect the sovereignty of Parliament under our system. I am confident that they will do just that. But will the scheme work? Will it have the desired effect of making it clear to those who pay the people smugglers, in the hope of reaching our shores, that they will be wasting their money, as well as risking their lives, if they continue to hand over large sums to the organisers of this tragic trade? I think there is every prospect that it will.
The nay-sayers point to the relatively small numbers who can be dealt with in Rwanda in the first stages of the scheme. But there is no reason to suppose that it can’t be expanded or that other countries with the potential to play a part cannot be identified. Rwanda is a framework.
It can easily be built upon, should we feel the need to do so. The truth is that large-scale migration has become a global problem. While the British Government has had some success in reducing by a third the number of people reaching our shores on small boats, the number reaching other European countries has continued to increase.
And many of those countries are watching the Rwanda scheme carefully. Several are considering their own version of dealing with asylum claims offshore. This may well prove to be the pattern of the future. And it may well prove to be a challenge for bodies like the European Court of Human Rights. France is already reported to have deported asylum seekers in double quick time, conveniently avoiding intervention by the ECHR. If this method of stemming the flow of migration becomes more widely adopted, it may be appropriate for the ECHR to interpret its decades’ old Convention in the light of modern circumstances. Here in Britain, just look at how rapidly things have changed. A week ago, the Rwanda Bill was widely regarded as a lost cause. Two days ago, some thought that dozens of Conservative MPs would vote against it. When the scheme was announced a few years ago, this country was denounced as an international outlier and accused of being a pariah because it sought to work with Rwanda.
Just as we did on Ukraine, so once again Britain is taking a lead in boldly showing the way in which global challenges can be effectively met. Rishi Sunak deserves the highest praise for true leadership and may well yet get the credit and electoral reward he deserves.
