I remain deeply uncomfortable with the approach this Bill takes, but I also accept the Government is in a very difficult position. We cannot tolerate abuse of our asylum system by those who are really economic migrants. We have a process for considering the admission of economic migrants (and there are separate concerns about the numbers being admitted via that route) but failing to prevent economic migrants from avoiding that process by crossing the Channel in small boats and then claiming asylum is unfair on those who are genuine asylum seekers, those who are applying properly as economic migrants, and on the UK taxpayer who pays for their processing and accommodation. It is also of course incredibly dangerous for those making the journey and enriches criminal gangs who are preying upon them in facilitating it. The policy of insisting that asylum seekers can have their claims considered and resolved in a third safe country is a rational way of deterring those whose real objective is to reach the UK for economic reasons without preventing those fleeing genuine peril from leaving it behind them. Deterrence cannot be the only part of a policy to prevent illegal immigration, but it is a perfectly reasonable component of it. The Government has been prevented from using that policy component by legal challenges and it is in my view entitled to seek ways to address that. Deeming a country as safe has been tried before and there is good evidence that Rwanda is a safe place for refugees to go, exemplified by the UN sending refugees there.
It is likely that the numbers of those seeking to come to the UK will only increase and we simply can’t take them all. A workable immigration policy is therefore increasingly essential and action justified to secure it therefore more radical, while staying the right side of the rule of law which I think this legislation does. The Government in my view deserves the chance to try this partial solution and it has not yet been able to do so. That is what I voted for it, though I did so reluctantly.
It is worth noting that the Act covers only the first determination of safety and provides no mechanism for Parliament to change its mind if circumstances change. Save, that is, for a new Act of Parliament which it would need the Government to introduce.
This is why I voted against the Government on an amendment which would provide a mechanism for Parliament to reconsider the safety of Rwanda if circumstances change.
