Neil O’Brien
We were elected in 2010 promising to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Under the coalition government we tightened immigration rules. Because of abuses of human rights law, in 2010 and 2015, our manifesto promised we would “scrap the Human Rights Act” to “break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights”.
I was proud to work for Lord Cameron when he was prime minister and delighted to have such a great talent back as Foreign Secretary. We must remember those promises we made during the Cameron years as we think about how to handle the migration crisis. Over 110,000 people have arrived illegally in the UK via small boats. This is destructive to the rule of law, lucrative for criminals, and risks lives. It’s unfair to those who play by the rules. Most arriving are young men, coming from France, a safe country. Despite arriving illegally, almost all will stay in the UK. They know that if you can make it to the UK, you can stay. As long as this is the case, this criminal trade will continue, and people get to stay for two reasons. First, almost all claim asylum. The final grant rate has risen to nearly 80 per cent, as courts have expanded the rights set out in the Refugee Convention.
The Convention originally applied narrowly: only in Europe, only to cases before 1951. Today, courts consider an expansive range of social rights and risks from non-state groups. This makes the job of an immigration officer near-impossible. Eritrea has had an asylum grant rate of over 90 per cent in recent years. An Eritrean man who leaves without an exit visa may have to do military service on return. Should that mean we cannot turn down applications? Iran is oppressive, and around 80 per cent of claims are granted. But should anyone who claims they are a Christian or homosexual from Iran be allowed to stay? Should Albanians who say they’re at risk from a blood feud back home always get to stay? On today’s interpretations, the Refugee Convention confers a right to move to another country upon 780 million people worldwide. The second reason is that those refused asylum aren’t removed. The Oxford Migration Observatory estimated that nine in every 10 people who were refused asylum in 2020 were allowed to remain. Removal rates are a third of the rate we saw in the Noughties. The Home Office admits it doesn’t know the whereabouts of more than 17,000 asylum seekers whose claims ended. The number of foreign national offenders subject to deportation living in the community has trebled since 2012, to nearly 12,000. One in eight prison places is taken up by foreign nationals.
A recent government consultation listed the absurd ways that the European Convention on Human Rights is used to block deportations. A violent Nigerian crack cocaine dealer can’t be deported because he would face “obstacles” to “integrating back in Nigeria”. A Turkish man found guilty of grievous bodily harm can’t be removed, because of his marriage. Another violent drug dealer can’t be removed “given their relationship with their child”. This isn’t what Winston Churchill intended when he set up the Council of Europe. We’re not alone. Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria are all looking to do things differently. Two camps are being built in Albania to house migrants who have been rescued by Italian boats.
Nor is this idea new. Tony Blair tried to agree with EU members to have asylum processing in third countries. I will vote for the second reading of the Rwanda Bill on Tuesday. But I’m very concerned by Robert Jenrick’s assessment that the Bill will enable so many individual appeals that it won’t work as a deterrent. After two pieces of legislation in two years, this is our third and final go: we can’t pass something that has any holes in it. The Supreme Court’s verdict will likely embolden courts to be even more creative in refusing deportations than before. I hope the Government will find ways to strengthen the Bill by amendment during passage. If the House of Lords try to block it, we must do whatever it takes to pass it, and keep faith with voters. I hope the Government will also look again at every other way we could deter people smugglers, so that Rwanda isn’t our only solution. We should also look at other locations, other changes to rules and the strategic use of more detention, so people can’t come and work illegally.
Issues about the cost of living and NHS are at least as important as the small boats, but this is very important, and represents an issue that normal voters care deeply about. It isn’t a Westminster soap opera. It’s an issue of fairness. We cannot have criminals bringing people to this country illegally and then allow those people to stay. Today’s thicket of legal case law was never intended, and we must cut it back.
The Telegraph
