Afternoon summary
Photograph: Cameras in Court/PA
Updated
Plans to build a national memorial to the Holocaust have moved “one step closer”, Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, said today.
Speaking after MPs approved the Holocaust memorial bill yesterday, Gove said:
We are privileged in this country to have survivors of the Holocaust who have been willing to share their testimony. Sadly, this living testimony will not be with us forever.
The government is absolutely determined to complete the Holocaust memorial at the very heart of our national life to preserve the memory of what happened for ourselves and for all future generations. MPs from all sides of the house have expressed their support to get the memorial built and I am pleased yesterday’s vote brings it a step closer.
The memorial will be located in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to the Houses of Parliament.
The bill will now be debated by a select committee. It has been classified as a “hybrid” bill, meaning bodies directly affected by it will be able to petition for parts of it to be changed.
Updated
Nadine Dorries rejects criticism from privileges committee, saying they should 'grow up' and 'stop crying over hurty words'
Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, has hit back at the Commons privileges committee over its report saying she and other Boris Johnson supporters sought to undermine its inquiry into the former PM.
In an interview with TalkTV, where she presents a show, she said:
First of all, they need to grow up and put on their big girl and boy pants and stop crying about hurty words. This is a democracy we live in where free speech reigns …
In the words of Lord Cruddas, if they don’t want to be accused of being a kangaroo court, they should stop hopping so much. I find it absolutely bizarre that I would be accused of coordinating it. There was absolutely no coordination. I did put out a few tweets, and I have made a few comments but there is something much more substantial that’s going on here.
I am not sure how interested the public are … but if they are I think they will see this for what it is, which is an attempt to close down critical comment or freedom of speech in the House of Commons which is the mother of all parliaments and our democracy.
Updated
The Rwandan government is very supportive of its asylum deal with the UK, and defended it again in a statement this morning (See 10.44am.) But, as Ignatius Ssuuna reports from Kigali, that is not a universal view. Frank Habineza, an MP and opposition party leader, said there were not enough jobs for Rwandans, let alone refugees. He said:
The UK government is violating the rights of asylum seekers by forcing them to come to Rwanda when they don’t want it. We don’t have employment opportunities here. What will the refugees do when they arrive here? Even nationals don’t have jobs. As green party, we oppose this policy and today’s ruling has vindicated us.
Updated
The Braverman statement is now over. Sir Bill Cash rises to make a point of order, and asks for an assurance that, when MPs debate the illegal migration bill as it returns from the Lords, they won’t be banned from raising issues on sub judice grounds, because of the case going to the supreme court.
Dame Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, tells him the sub judice rule does not apply to debates on legislation.
Braverman refuses to say what government might do if Rwanda option proves unworkable
Kerry McCarthy (Lab) asks what the government’s plan is if it cannot send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Braverman says the legal action is not over yet. So the question is premature, she says.
McCarthy was raising a point highlighted earlier today by the Migration Observatory, a research organisation based at Oxford University. Peter Walsh, one of its senior researchers, said:
The ruling on the legality of the Rwanda scheme has important ramifications for UK asylum policy and in particular the illegal migration bill.
The bill currently going through parliament is predicated on the idea that the UK will remove asylum seekers to safe third countries. Even with a Rwanda deal in place, it has never been clear how easy this would be.
If there are no safe third countries accepting the UK’s asylum seekers, the core idea behind the policy can’t be implemented. In essence, all the eggs are in one basket and this basket is looking fragile.
Stella Creasy (Lab) says most of the people in the boats are Iranians and Afghans, and their asylum applications have a 98% success rate. She asks how much money has been allocated for this policy.
Braverman says last year there were 12,000 Albanians arriving on small boats.
She says the vast majority of people on the boats are young men, paying to come to the UK. That is not what humanitarian protection is all about, she says.
Braverman says Labour does not have a plan to stop the boats. “What they are proposing is open borders and uncontrolled immigration,” she says.
Updated
Danny Kruger (Con) asks if the government will seek further assurances from Rwanda about asylum seekers not being returned to countries where they will face prosecution, in the light of what the appeal court said about the risk of this happening. (See 3.25pm.)
Braverman says Rwanda is a safe country. But she says the government is always willing to review its arrangements with the country.
Updated
Matt Warman (Con) refers to the report of an asylum seeker being accused of raping a woman in a park just days after arriving, and says members of the public want to see the Rwanda policy implemented.
Updated
Braverman says UK should not be allowing small boat arrivals to continue 'in name of phoney humanitarianism'
In her opening statement Suella Braverman, the home secretary, said it was madness for governments in the west to be “lining the pockets of people-smugglers and turning our seas into graveyards, all in the name of a phoney humanitarianism”.
Labour’s Oliver Blake put it to her that the term “phoney humanitarianism” was “deeply offensive”.
Braverman said she favoured the UK offering refuge to people fleeing persecution. But she said she did not see why people should be coming to Britain from safe countries like France.
Updated
Mark Francois (Con) says Suella Braverman’s instincts on this are right. (He seems to be talking about her opposition to the ECHR.) He says the government is right to appeal. But this will take months, he says. What can be done to speed this up? And wasn’t Sir Edward Leigh right to say the UK needs a derogation from the ECHR?
Braverman says Francois speaks “very powerfully”. She says the court of appeal wants submissions on appeals by 6 July. She says the summary judgment acknowledges the need for speed.
She does not address the question about a derogation from the ECHR.
Updated
Sir Edward Leigh (Con) told MPs that the ruling showed why the UK should be able to derogate from the European convention on human rights.
The SNP’s Patrick Grady told Suella Braverman that he thought she was secretly pleased with the ruling, because she actually wanted a fight with the judiciary. He said that her dream was not for flights to Rwanda to take off, but for them to be blocked so the government would have a reason to withdraw from the European court of human rights.
How lord chief justice thought talk of Rwanda taking thousands of refugees from UK was 'hyperbole'
Here is the quote from Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice, suggesting talk of Rwanda taking thousands of asylum seekers from the UK is “hyperbole”. It is from Burnett’s dissenting judgment (Burnett was the only one of the three judges hearing the case who thought Rwanda should count as a third country).
In much of the political hyperbole which surrounded the announcement of the Rwanda policy there was talk of Rwanda, within a few years, being a destination for thousands of asylum seekers who arrived irregularly in the United Kingdom. The UNHCR evidence questions whether Rwanda can cope with the volumes apparently contemplated. Yet the evidence before the divisional court was that the physical capacity for housing asylum seekers in Rwanda was limited to 100; that of the 47 originally identified for removal the Home Office expected in fact to remove about 10; and that the starting point for any removal under the agreement was for the two governments to agree who would be sent to Rwanda.
Updated
Braverman is replying to Cooper.
She says today is a bad day for the British people, but a good day for people-smugglers and a good day for Labour. Cooper is pleased about the ruling, she claims.
She claims the current system is “rigged against the British people”. And that suits Labour, she claims.
Updated
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, is speaking now.
She starts by saying the ruling shows the government’s policy is failing. (See 12.05am.)
She asks Braverman if she agrees with the lord chief justice, who said in his judgment that the notion that thousands of asylum seekers would be sent to Rwanda was “hyperbole”.
She also points out that the report about foreign national offenders today (see 3.53pm) amounted to a “damning indictment of the Tory Home Office”.
Updated
Braverman says it would be 'madness' to carry on with current approach to asylum
Braverman says people are not naive. She goes on:
While our compassion to help people may be infinite, the public understand that our capacity to do so is finite, and therefore precious. The British people will no longer indulge the polite fiction that we have a duty or infinite capacity to support everyone in the world who is fleeing persecution, nor anyone that would simply like to come here to improve their lot and succeeds in making it to our shores.
She says the government is spending £6m a day on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers putting up people who have “broken into this country”.
Carrying on like this would be “madness”, she says. That is why the government will do “whatever it takes to stop the boats”.
Braverman tells MPs appeal court ruling is 'disappointing for majority of British people'
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is making her statement to MPs about the court of appeal ruling on the Rwanda policy.
She says she visited Rwanda in March, and signed an update to the memorandum of understanding with the country to bring it in line with the illegal migration bill.
Rwanda has the capacity to process thousands of asylum seekers, who will receive “excellent care” before they move on.
She says a legal challenge halted the first flight to Rwanda.
The high court said Rwanda was a safe country, she says.
Today the court of appeal “unanimously found in the government’s favour” on most aspects of the appeal, she says.
And it found that it was lawful for the government to relocate asylum seekers to a safe third county.
But two of the three judges were concerned that there were deficiencies in Rwanda’s processes that meant there could be a breach of the European convention on human rights.
She says the court did not say Rwanda itself was not safe. It said there was a risk that asylum countries in Rwanda might be sent back to countries where they would not be safe.
This is a “disappointing judgment”, she says. The government will seek leave to appeal, she says. She says she hopes this will happen quickly.
She goes on:
This judgment is disappointing for the majority of the British people who have repeatedly voted for controlled immigration.
Updated
Colin Yeo, an immigration lawyer, has posted a good thread on Twitter about the report about the removal of foreign national offenders published today. (See 3.53pm.) It starts here.
1. The Home Office chose today to slip out a damning inspector report on their mishandling of foreign national offender cases. Short thread. https://t.co/G682c4Z2bl
— Colin Yeo (@ColinYeo1) June 29, 2023
He points out that it is surely no coincidence that the Home Office published the report on a day when home affairs specialists are otherwise engaged.
5. This is the opportunity cost to all the high profile but failed policies at the Home Office: a really badly run department failing to do the basics. No wonder the Home Office decided to publish today, when attention is elsewhere.
— Colin Yeo (@ColinYeo1) June 29, 2023
'No way to run government department': report gives damning verdict on Home Office's handling of foreign offenders
The Home Office wants to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, but currently is not allowed to because of the courts. It is, however, allowed to deport foreign national offenders (FNOs), foreign nationals who have committed offences in the UK. But a damning report out todays say some FNOs are not being deported promptly – not because the court of appeal has got in the way, but because of poor management.
The report is from David Neal, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. In a statement summarising his findings, he said:
It is clear to me that the Home Office does not have a firm grip on its caseworking operations in FNORC [Foreign National Offenders Returns Command], and the shortcomings with data and MI [management information] add to this challenge. Staff throughout the command lacked a clear sense of priorities and I found a disproportionate focus on managing cases, rather than making decisions and progressing the removal of FNOs. If my assessment is correct, this inspection points towards broader concerns for the Home Office in anticipation of a likely increase in immigration detention, removals and caseworking as a consequence of the IMB [illegal migration bill].
The early removal scheme (ERS) is not working well. This means that FNOs who want to leave the country are not being removed quickly. This is largely down to delays in caseworking which add to the significant challenges and costs of detaining FNOs in the prison estate. I found that little, if any, progress had been made in this area since the National Audit Office made similar findings in 2014.
And here is an extract from the report.
My inspection found FNORC to be a large and complex operation which lacked the ability to track and monitor the progression of cases, from initial referral to decision outcome. Staff did not have a clear sense of priorities, and there was a disproportionate focus on managing cases, rather than making decisions and progressing the removal of FNOs.
Of particular concern was the situation regarding data and management information, with staff working from unwieldy local spreadsheets rather than a reliable central database that meets the needs of the business area. This is something that the ICIBI [independent chief inspector of borders and immigration] has repeatedly encountered and commented on in previous reports. It is therefore unsurprising that the Home Office was unable to provide consistent data sets or complete evidence returns for this inspection. It is unacceptable that the department cannot produce clear and reliable data on the FNOs for whom it is responsible.
To provide just one illustration of the shortcomings of the data being used to manage criminal casework, this inspection found that the only way for the Home Office to identify a nationality cohort awaiting deportation was to manually trawl through multiple spreadsheets. For an operation of this size to be run like this is unacceptable. For any operation to be effective, there needs to be a single version of the truth, and for FNOs it does not exist. Worryingly, I found no evidence of a strategy to build one.
Moreover, there is insufficient information to effectively identify which FNOs could be removed from the country today.
Updated
And this is from Haroon Siddique, with more detail about why the court of appeal ruled the Rwanda policy unlawful.
Here is more from the court of appeal’s judgment on the Rwanda policy. This is from Sir Geoffrey Vos, master of the rolls, explaining in detail why he thought Rwanda’s record on dealing with asylum applications meant it should not be viewed as a safe country. Vos said:
The UNHCR’s evidence shows 100% rejection rates at RSDC [Refugee Status Determination Committee] level for nationals of Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria, from which asylum seekers under the MEDP [Migration and Economic Development Partnership – the UK’s deal with Rwanda] may well emanate ... The overall rejection rate for the 156 cases covered by the figures is 77%. Of the 34 recent asylum seekers from a country with close bilateral relations with Rwanda, three were peremptorily rejected by the DGIE [Directorate General of Immigration and Emigration], three were forcibly expelled to the Tanzanian border, two were instructed to leave Rwanda within days, and two more were threatened with direct expulsion to their country of origin. In addition, there have been five recent cases of expulsion of those arriving at Kigali airport: two Libyans removed from Kigali airport in February 2021, two Afghans chain refouled to Afghanistan on 24 March 2022, and one Syrian chain refouled to Syria on 19 April 2022.
The cases of airport refoulement do not themselves demonstrate that there would be a real risk of identical methods of refoulement under the MEDP, since those asylum seekers arriving in Rwanda would have been pre-approved by the government of Rwanda and would arrive on planned flights. These instances nonetheless illustrate, as described by Underhill LJ at [156], “a culture of, at best, insufficient appreciation by DGIE officials of Rwanda’s obligations under the refugee convention, and at worst a deliberate disregard for those obligations”.
“Refoulement” means the forcible return of refugees to a country where they may suffer persecution.
Updated
Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland had ‘no set plan’ to deal with Covid-style pandemic
There was “no set plan” in Scotland for dealing with a pandemic of the nature of Covid-19, Nicola Sturgeon has told the UK Covid inquiry. Libby Brooks has the story here.
The Commons privileges committee included Sir Michael Fabricant in its list of Tories who tried to undermine its inquiry because he posted a message on Twitter accusing it of malice. On the day Boris Johnson announced his resignation as an MP, Fabricant said:
Serious questions will need to be asked about the manner in which the investigation was conducted. These were no jurists as was apparent by the tone of the examination. The question of calibre, malice and prejudice will need to be answered now or by historians.
Today, in his response to the committee’s latest report accusing him and other Boris Johnson supporters of interfering with its work, he defended his comment – while also insisting that he did not condone threats directed at members of the committee.
I stand by my statement. Some of the members of the Privileges Committee treated their witness, Boris Johnson, with contempt by gestures and other actions. Had it been in a law court, the judge would have called them to order. Respect for the Committee needs to be earned. pic.twitter.com/t8qpglLIB3
— Michael Fabricant 🇬🇧🇺🇦 (@Mike_Fabricant) June 29, 2023
.👆I do NOT condone, however, any members of the public threatening or attempting to influence individual members of the Privileges Committee (or any other House Committee) concerning any of their inquiries. Any material evidence should always be sent to the Committee clerks.
— Michael Fabricant 🇬🇧🇺🇦 (@Mike_Fabricant) June 29, 2023
As the LBC’s Henry Riley points out, like many of the other Johnson loyalists criticised by the committee today, Fabricant featured in the former PM’s resignation honours.
NEW
— Henry Riley (@HenryRiley1) June 29, 2023
Of the 8 MPs (& former) with problematic contributions regarding Privileges Commttee
5 were recently proposed honours by Boris Johnson
Damehoods to Andrea Jenkyns, Priti Patel
Knighthoods to Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Fabricant
Proposed peerage for Dorries@LBC @mrjamesob pic.twitter.com/VLqg1Km2Qg
Updated
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, will be addressing MPs later about the appeal court ruling on the Rwanda policy. In a statement, she said she was disappointed by the decision, but that the court had accepted that relocating asylum seekers to a safe third country would be lawful. She said:
The court of appeal have been clear that the policy of relocating asylum seekers to a safe third country for the processing of their claims is in line with the refugee convention.
While we are disappointed with their ruling in relation to Rwanda’s asylum system, I will be seeking permission to appeal this.
Updated
Keir Starmer has been campaigning in Selby and Ainsty in North Yorkshire today, ahead of the byelection there on 20 July, and highlighting Labour’s support for homeowners. After a meeting with a resident, Alice Fletcher, he told reporters:
Nobody wants to build on our fantastic countryside, particularly in a place like this, but we do need a plan that allows families, young families in particular, to have a chance to get a home of their own.
At the moment the government’s turned its back on homeowners, there is no plan, and there’ll be many, many more people like Alice who are trapped, unable to move forward with their lives.
This byelection is so important in that respect because you’ve had 13 years of an MP who’s done next to nothing, I think mentioned buses in parliament three times, a really critical issue – and has now thrown his toys out of the pram because he didn’t get a peerage. That is disgraceful.
There is no way that the Conservatives deserve to win this byelection.
Starmer was referring to Nigel Adams, the Boris Johnson loyalist who resigned alongside Johnson. Adams had been expecting a peerage, but was one of the MPs on Johnson’s resignation honours list blocked from getting one, apparently because they had not committed to leaving the Commons promptly.
In 2019 Adams had a majority of 20,137 over Labour.
Updated
UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, has welcomed the court of appeal’s decision on the Rwanda policy. During the appeal it participated as an “intervener”, advising the court on international refugee law. It said:
In our submissions to the court, UNHCR expressed its longstanding and well-known concerns about the “externalization” of asylum obligations. We continue to urge the government of the United Kingdom to instead pursue other measures, including cooperation with the UK’s European neighbours and fair and fast asylum procedures, that would be more humane, efficient, and cost-effective.
MPs to debate privileges committee report about interference with Johnson inquiry on Monday 10 July
Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, told MPs this morning that they would get a chance to debate the privileges committee’s report about interference with its Boris Johnson inquiry on Monday 10 July. She said the fact that a debate had been scheduled a debate showed “how seriously the government takes these matters of privilege”.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson was unable to say “this far in advance” whether Rishi Sunak would be attending the debate, or voting.
Asked if the PM still had confidence in Zac Goldsmith, the only serving minister named in the report as one of those Tories who undermined the inquiry’s work, the spokesperson said he did.
Asked if the PM was relaxed about what Lord Goldsmith had done, the spokesperson said Sunak had spoken publicly about how he supported and respected the work of the committee.
In its report, the committee criticises Goldsmith for retweeting a tweet, on the day Boris Johnson announced his resignation as an MP, calling its inquiry into him a witch-hunt and a kangaroo court. Goldsmith also said:
Exactly this. There was only ever going to be one outcome and the evidence was totally irrelevant to it.
Updated
Sunak says he is willing to do 'whatever is necessary' to ensure government can stop people arriving in UK in small boats
It is also worth highlighting the final paragraph of Rishi Sunak’s statement. (See 12.26pm.)
The policy of this government is very simple: it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen.
There is a debate within the Conservative party over whether or not it should consider withdrawing from the European convention on human rights to enable the government to deport asylum seekers without risk of legal challenge. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has called for this publicly in the past, and there is a smallish cohort of Tory backbenchers who strongly agree.
Rishi Sunak has been more equivocal. In the past he has suggested there is no need for Britain to leave the convention, but he has not ruled out the idea, and the line in his statement today about being willing to do “whatever is necessary” to ensure the UK controls its borders will encourage those Conservatives who want him to move in this direction.
Some in the party want to turn this into an issue at the next general election.
Updated
Sunak says he 'fundamentally' disagrees with appeal court's Rwanda ruling and government appealing to supreme court
Rishi Sunak has just issued a statement saying that he “fundamentally” disagrees with the court of appeal’s ruling on the Rwanda policy. He has confirmed that the government will appeal to the supreme court.
Here is the statement in full.
While I respect the court I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions.
I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries – something that the lord chief justice agrees with.
Rwanda is a safe country. The high court agreed. The UNHCR have their own refugee scheme for Libyan refugees in Rwanda. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the supreme court.
The policy of this government is very simple: it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen.
Updated
The Liberal Democrats are urging the government to “accept reality” and abandon its Rwanda policy. Alistair Carmichael, the party’s home affairs spokesperson, said:
Not only is the Conservatives’ Rwanda asylum plan immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers, but the court of appeal has also now said it is unlawful, too.
It will do nothing to stop dangerous Channel crossings – and it runs roughshod over the UK’s legal obligations, as the courts have confirmed.
The home secretary needs to finally accept reality. Instead of wasting even more taxpayer money by defending this plan in the courts, the home secretary should scrap her vanity project and focus on tackling the asylum backlog created by her own government’s incompetence.
Labour claims appeal court ruling shows Rwanda policy 'completely unravelling'
Labour says the court of appeal ruling today shows the government’s policy on so-called small boats is “completely unravelling”. In a statement Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said:
Today’s judgment shows that Rishi Sunak has no plan to fix the Tories’ small boats chaos and his only idea is completely unravelling.
Ministers were forced to admit this week that it will cost £169,000 to send each person to Rwanda on top of the £140m of taxpayers’ money they have already spent. Now the court has found that ministers didn’t even do the basic work to make sure the scheme was legal or safe.
Time and again, ministers have gone for gimmicks instead of getting a grip, and slogans instead of solutions, while the Tory boats chaos has got worse. The Rwanda scheme is unworkable, unethical and extortionate, a costly and damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking.
They should now put that money into Labour’s plan to go after the criminal gangs, clear the asylum backlog and stop dangerous boat crossings that are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk.
Cooper will be facing Suella Braverman, the home secretary, in the Commons later when Braverman makes a statement on the court of appeal ruling. It is now expected around 3.30pm.
Updated
Labour accuses Sunak of allowing Tory MPs to 'undermine democratic institutions' in light of privileges committee report
Labour is challenging Rishi Sunak to condemn the Tory MPs and peers criticised in today’s privileges committee report. (See 9.19am.) In a statement on it, Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the Commons, accused him of allowing them “to undermine and attack Britain’s democratic institutions”. She said:
Rishi Sunak has allowed senior members of his own party to undermine and attack Britain’s democratic institutions. This includes a serving government minister and two former cabinet ministers.
It’s yet another example of the prime minister’s weakness and failure to hold his own ministers to high standards that Zac Goldsmith is still a government minister.
It’s time Rishi Sunak condemned his Conservative colleagues who have sought to override parliament’s standards system to get one of their own off the hook. He must accept the committee’s damming conclusions and make time for MPs to approve the report in full.
Updated
A reader asks:
As to Lord Cruddas’s claim [see 8.56am] – is it possible for someone who is not an MP to be found in contempt of parliament or not?
Yes, they can be. Dominic Cummings was found to be in contempt of parliament, as were two News of the World executives. But the Commons does not have sanctions it can impose on non-MPs for contempt of parliament, and so it all can do is censure them. In the past it could fine or imprison people for contempt of parliament, but it’s now widely accepted that these powers have lapsed.
Updated
Campaigners welcome appeal court ruling on Rwanda policy
The court of appeal judgment has been welcomed by campaigners and charities who work with asylum seekers. Here are some of the their comments.
From Alison Pickup, director of Asylum Aid (which was one of the parties involved in the appeal):
We are delighted that the court of appeal has upheld the argument that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers. While we are disappointed that the court has held that the process can be made fair, we are pleased that it has not upheld the high court’s judgment and has made it clear that the government needs to ensure that Home Office officials give people more time when they need it.
From Detention Action (which was involved in the original high court case, but not the appeal):
We are relieved that the UK’s court of appeal has recognised the unlawfulness of this government’s controversial and dangerous deal with the Rwandan regime … The intervention of the court proves that in the UK we still recognise our responsibility to protect people seeking asylum, even if the home secretary does not.
From Sonya Sceats, chief executive of Freedom from Torture (which was represented at the appeal hearing):
This is a victory for reason and compassion … As we outlined in our intervention in the court of appeal, this dirty deal with Rwanda does too little to identify and protect survivors and other vulnerable groups and would see them placed at risk of further harm.
From Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council:
We are relieved that the court of appeal has ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for people who claim asylum. However, we’re disappointed that they have not concluded that the overall policy is unlawful.
Let’s remember that the UK made an international commitment under the refugee convention to provide a safe haven for those fleeing for their lives who seek protection on our soil.
From Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive:
This judgment is very welcome, but it can’t undo the enormous suffering, harm and expense already caused by the government’s long and reckless pursuit of a patently unjust scheme.
From Aisha Dodwell, head of campaigns for the Catholic aid agency Cafod:
It is time for the government to look again at its shameful policy and its treatment of migrants and refugees. As Pope Francis has made clear, the world needs to show maximum respect for the dignity of each migrant by building bridges, not walls, as well as providing routes for safe and regular migration.
Updated
Rwanda ruling highlights possible need for UK to leave ECHR, says former Tory cabinet minster
The ruling of the court of appeal on Rwanda was described as “deeply disappointing” by the Tory MP and former levelling up secretary Sir Simon Clarke, who said he would anticipate “an immediate appeal” to the supreme court.
“We have to be able to control our borders. If the ECHR continues to forestall this, we have to revisit the question of our membership,” he added, referring to the European convention on human rights, cited in the judgment today as the reason for the Rwanda policy being unlawful. (See 10.29am.)
Some Tories want the UK to leave the ECHR, to remove legal objections to the deportation of asylum seekers, and some MPs want the party to make this a manifesto proposal at the next election.
This is a deeply disappointing ruling in the face of the clear will of Parliament. I would anticipate an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court.
— Simon Clarke MP (@SimonClarkeMP) June 29, 2023
We have to be able to control our borders. If the ECHR continues to forestall this, we have to revisit the question of our membership. https://t.co/GsUef3PKe2
Other rightwingers were also critical of the ruling. Nigel Farage, the former Ukip and then Brexit party leader, said the judiciary would “always do their best to assist illegal immigration”.
Court of Appeal rules against the Rwanda policy. The House of Lords and the judiciary will always do their best to assist illegal immigration. France is a safe country, we should send people straight back there.
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) June 29, 2023
And Richard Tice, leader of Reform UK (the successor to the Brexit party), said the ruling was “disgraceful”.
DISGRACEFUL
— Richard Tice 🇬🇧 (@TiceRichard) June 29, 2023
British Establishment speaks:
Yesterday House of Lords blocks Illegal Migration Bill
Today Court of Appeal reject positive Rwanda ruling
Majority British people furious
Only @reformparty_uk will stop the boats with 6 point plan https://t.co/2OMkaN78by
Updated
Privileges committee accused of 'gross overreach' as pro-Johnson Tories reject its conclusions
Brendan Clarke-Smith, one of the Boris Johnson-supporting Tories criticised by the Commons privileges committee (see 9.19am), has said he is “shocked and disappointed” by its findings.
Members of Parliament fulfil an important role in society and it is absolutely vital that they are able to scrutinise and comment on any matters relating to their work. Having fully respected the processes before me and at no point referring to the committee whilst preparing 1/2
— Brendan Clarke-Smith MP (@Bren4Bassetlaw) June 29, 2023
their previous work, I am shocked and disappointed to be named in this new report. This raises serious questions about free speech in a democratic society and my colleagues and I will continue to defend these principles going forward. 2/2
— Brendan Clarke-Smith MP (@Bren4Bassetlaw) June 29, 2023
The committee criticised Clarke-Smith for posting this message on Twitter on 9 June, the day when Boris Johnson resigned as an MP with a statement denouncing the draft privileges committee report he had been shown confidentially. At that point the final report had not been published.
Tonight we saw the end result of a parliamentary witch-hunt which would put a banana republic to shame. It is the people of this country who elect and decide on their MPs. It’s called democracy and we used to value it here. Sadly this no longer appears to be the case.
Mark Jenkinon, another Johnsonite Tory named in the report today, has also rejected its conclusions. He accused it of “gross overreach”.
On publication of the previous report I said it had overreached. Prior to publication I had not referred to the committee.
— Mark Jenkinson MP 🇬🇧 (@markjenkinsonmp) June 29, 2023
Yet in another perfect example of gross overreach, the committee use a tweet that did not refer to them and was about the media witch hunt of Boris Johnson. https://t.co/clLfh18L6b
In its report the committe highlighted this message from Jenkinson, also posted on Twitter on 9 June.
When the witch-hunt has been forgotten, future generations will look back in astonishment.
Rwandan government rejects court of appeal's ruling, saying it is 'one of safest countries in world'
The Rwandan government has issued a statement contesting the court of appeal’s decision that it is not a safe third country. Yolande Makolo, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, said:
While this is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees. Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world and we have been recognised by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.
We make a significant contribution to dealing with the impacts of the global migration crisis. Rwandans know what it means to be forced to flee home, and to make a new life in a new country. As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans. Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this.
Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. The broken global migration system is failing to protect the vulnerable, and empowering criminal smuggling gangs at an immeasurable human cost. When the migrants do arrive, we will welcome them and provide them with the support they’ll need to build new lives in Rwanda.
In his statement to summarising the court of appeal’s ruling, Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice, stressed that it was not making a political assessment of the Rwanda policy. He said:
The court of appeal makes clear that its decision implies no view whatever about the political merits or otherwise of the Rwanda policy.
Those are entirely a matter for the government, on which the court has nothing to say.
The court’s concern is only whether the policy complies with the law as laid down by parliament.
Why court of appeal decided Rwanda was not safe third country
This passage, from the summary of the court of appeal’s judgment, explains why it decided that Rwanda was not a safe third country.
The decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill (the vice-president of the court of appeal (Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was before the high court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement, inadequate. The court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the proposed removals. In consequence sending anyone to Rwanda would constitute a breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights, with which parliament has required that the government must comply (Human Rights Act 1998, section 6).
Originally the hight court ruled that in principle Rwanda was a safe third country. But the high court found in favour of asylum seekers challenging the decision to send them to Rwanda because of the way their cases had been handled.
But the court of appeal’s decision was not unanimous. Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice, concluded Rwanda was a safe country. But he was “outvoted” by the other two judges sitting with him.
In agreement with the high court, the lord chief justice, the Lord Burnett of Maldon, has reached the opposite conclusion. He agrees that the procedures put in place under the Rwanda agreement and the assurances given by the Rwandan government are sufficient to ensure that there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy will be wrongly returned to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment. He has concluded that the chances of failed asylum seekers being returned to their countries of origin are in any event low, not least because Rwanda has no agreements in place with any of the countries in question. In addition, extensive monitoring arrangements, formal and informal, of all those sent to Rwanda and their asylum claims once there provide powerful protection. The arrangements put in place provide sufficient safeguards in a context where both governments will be determined to make the agreement work and be seen to do so.
Updated
Here is the summary of the court of appeal’s judgment in the Rwanda case.
And here is the full 161-page judgment.
Court of appeal says removal of migrants to Rwanda 'unlawful' because it's not 'safe third country'
Here is the key passage from the summary of the judgment by Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice. He said:
The result is that the high court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful.
Updated
Here is more Twitter comment on the ruling.
From Danny Shaw, a former BBC home affairs correspondent
BREAKING The Court of Appeal has ruled - by 2 to 1 - that Rwanda is “not a safe third country”.
— Danny Shaw (@DannyShawNews) June 29, 2023
Asylum-seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania who’d arrived on small boats had challenged @ukhomeoffice decisions to remove them.
Serious blow for @ukhomeoffice
Two judges - Sir Geoffrey Vos (Master of the Rolls) and Lord Justice Underhill - said there were substantial grounds for believing there was a “real risk” asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be sent back to their home countries.
— Danny Shaw (@DannyShawNews) June 29, 2023
Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett didn’t agree.
From Colin Yeo, an immgiration barrister
Case undoubtedly going to Supreme Court - I guess Court of Appeal itself will grant permission given the split.
— Colin Yeo (@ColinYeo1) June 29, 2023
Updated
These are from Colin Yeo, a barrister specialising in immigration cases.
Appeal allowed on Rwanda being safe - as in, the claimants succeed on that ground.
— Colin Yeo (@ColinYeo1) June 29, 2023
There are substantial grounds for believing genuine refugees might be returned from Rwanda to their own countries to face persecution.
— Colin Yeo (@ColinYeo1) June 29, 2023
Evidence does not establish that necessary changes to Rwandan asylum system would have been put in place, despite assurances from Rwandan government. Also therefore breach of Article 3 ECHR.
— Colin Yeo (@ColinYeo1) June 29, 2023
It's a split decision - Lord Chief Justice dissents.
— Colin Yeo (@ColinYeo1) June 29, 2023
Updated
Campaigners for asylum seekers win appeal against high court case on Rwanda deportation policy
Lord Burnett says the court is allowing the appeal from campaigners acting on behalf of asylum seekers on the grounds of Rwanda being a safe third country.
But he says the court is not allowing the appeal on other grounds.
Updated
Court of appeal delivers judgment on Rwanda appeal
The court of appeal is now giving is judgment on the Rwanda appeal. There is a live feed at the top of the blog.
Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice, is now setting out the background to the case.
The essential issue is whether the Rwanda system could deliver reliable outcomes, he says. He says the appellants argued that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda might be returned to their home country when they had a good case for asylum.
He says the high court approved the Rwanda policy in principle, but objected to how it was applied in particular cases.
Updated
Jacob Rees-Mogg declined to comment on the privileges committee report when he was doorstepped by reporters this morning. He told ITV he was going to church, and then to the Test match.
Jacob Rees-Mogg says he's going to church and watching the cricket today, after he was named in a Privileges Committee report as one of the Tory MPs who attacked those investigating Boris Johnson's partygate lieshttps://t.co/VLQFp8NbgZ pic.twitter.com/g0GuBMe4w9
— ITV News Politics (@ITVNewsPolitics) June 29, 2023
The Suella Braverman statement in the Commons on the court of appeal judgment on the Rwanda deportations policy will take place at about 5pm.
The ruling itself is due within the next few minutes.
In its report the Commons privileges committee says there were legitimate ways by which MPs could have sought to influence its inquiry into Boris Johnson. It says that they got the chance to vote on it when it was set up; that they could have submitted evidence to the committee about the subject of its investigation, or about its procedures; and that they had a vote on the final report.
But some of Boris Johnson’s allies did not do this, it says.
Those members did not choose to engage through any proper process such as the submission of letters or evidence to our inquiry, but by attacking the members of the committee, in order to influence their judgment. Their aim was to (1) influence the outcome of the inquiry, (2) impede the work of the committee by inducing members to resign from it, (3) discredit the committee’s conclusions if those conclusions were not what they wanted, and (4) discredit the committee as a whole.
Updated
Campaign against privileges committee had 'significant personal impact' on its members, report says
The Commons privileges committee says the campaign against its Boris Johnson inquiry waged by some of his supporters had a “significant personal impact” on members of the committee. In the report it says:
Pressure was applied particularly to Conservative members of the committee. This had the clear intention to drive those members off the committee and so to frustrate the intention of the house that the inquiry should be carried out, or to prevent the inquiry coming to a conclusion which the critics did not want. There were also sustained attempts to undermine and challenge the impartiality of the chair [Harriet Harman], who had been appointed to the committee by unanimous decision of the house.
This unprecedented and co-ordinated pressure did not affect the conduct or outcome of our inquiry. However, it had significant personal impact on individual members and raised significant security concerns.
If abuse of members who are carrying out the duties imposed on them by the house is allowed to continue, it is reasonable to conclude that in future members would decline to serve on the committee, or there might be a reluctance on the part of individuals approached as external advisers to serve in that role. If that happens, rather than making its decisions with the assistance of a report from a committee which can take advice and gather and evaluate evidence, the house might feel compelled to cede to an external authority the responsibility for protection of its rights and privileges.
Updated
Privileges committee says MPs should get chance to vote on motion backing its criticism of Johnson's allies
The Commons privileges committee is not directly calling for sanctions against the MPs it says interfered with its Boris Johnson inquiry. And the Commons does not have the power to impose sanctions on peers anyway. But it does want the Commons to pass a motion that would back up the criticism in the report of the conduct of some of Boris Johnson’s allies.
It also says the Commons should consider if “further action” needs to be taken against the MPs named. It says:
We recommend that the house agree a resolution in the following terms:
That this house:
a) notes with approval the special report from the committee of privileges;
b) considers that where the house has agreed to refer a matter relating to individual conduct to the committee of privileges, members of this house should not impugn the integrity of that committee or its members or attempt to lobby or intimidate those members or to encourage others to do so, since such behaviour undermines the proceedings of the house and is itself capable of being a contempt;
and c) considers it expedient that the House of Lords is made aware of the special report and this resolution, so that that house can take such action as it deems appropriate.
If the government fails to table such a motion within a reasonable time, we note that any member has the power to write to the speaker to ask for the matters in this special report to be given precedence as a matter of privilege. If Mr Speaker does grant precedence, that member will be able to table an appropriate motion to enable the house to reach a decision on those matters. Such a motion would be debatable and amendable.
It will be for the house to consider what further action, if any, to take in respect of members of the house referred to in this special report.
Updated
Privileges committee accuses seven Tory MPs and three peers of trying to interfere with its Johnson inquiry
The Commons privileges committee has criticised in particular seven MPs and one peer for posting tweets, or giving comments to the media, that it describeds as “some of the most disturbing examples of the co-ordinated campaign to interfere with” its inquiry into Boris Johnson.
The quotes are set out in an annex to the report.
The MPs are:
Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary (who seems to be the worst offender – four of her remarks are quoted)
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary and former leader of the Commons (the next worst – two of his remarks are quoted)
Mark Jenkinson
Michael Fabricant
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Andrea Jenkyns
Priti Patel, the former home secretary
And the peer is Zac Goldsmith, who is a Foreign Office minister.
The report says:
By his ruling on 6 March 2023, the Speaker prevented abuse within the house, but what needs to be addressed is the campaign waged outside parliament by some members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords to undermine the committee.
Those involved used newspapers and radio and there was extensive use of social media. There were many examples but the committee is particularly concerned about attacks mounted by experienced colleagues, including a serving minister of the Crown, a former leader of the house and a former secretary of state for digital, culture, media and sport, and at least three members of the House of Lords (one of whom is the serving minister referred to above) who took it upon themselves to undermine procedures of the House of Commons. The former and current members of the Government we have referred to are privy counsellors.
We have not catalogued every tweet or TV appearance, but have set out in an annex to this report some of the most disturbing examples of the co-ordinated campaign to interfere with the work of the committee.
The annex includes the statements made by the individuals referred to above and of others who followed their example.
This matter is made more difficult because two of the Members mounting the most vociferous attacks on the Committee did so from the platform of their own hosted TV shows. Attacks by experienced Members are all the more concerning as they would have known that during the course of an investigation it was not possible for the privileges committee to respond to the attacks.
The report also criticises two other Tory peers, Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh. It says:
An example of selective pressure brought to bear on Conservative members of the Committee was the email campaign instigated by the Conservative Post website, urging those members to stand aside from the committee and alleging that the inquiry was “deeply flawed, biased and unfair”. Two members of the House of Lords, whose peerages were conferred on the recommendation of Mr Johnson, were among over 600 people who emailed committee members using the template email devised by Conservative Post. Conservative Post is the online magazine of the Conservative Democratic Organisation, whose President is Lord Cruddas and whose Vice-President is Lord Greenhalgh.
Updated
The Commons privileges committee has published its report. It’s here.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, will make a statement in the Commons later about the court of appeal ruling on the Rwanda policy.
One Statement today from @SuellaBraverman on Migration and Economic Development Partnership Court of Appeal Ruling
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) June 29, 2023
This will come at the end of Commons business today
Lord Cruddas restates claim privileges committee 'kangaroo court' ahead of publication of its report
Lord Cruddas, who was given a peerage by Boris Johnson despite the House of Lords appointments commissions saying he was unsuitable, posted an extended message on Twiter last night denying that he “intimidated” the Commons privileges committee and claiming that he is the victim of snobbery. He also repeated the claim they were a “kangaroo court”. He said:
The Committee of Privileges is a House of Commons committee. It simply does not have the power to sanction people who aren’t MPs. The House of Lords is an independent body. Once again it has embarrassed Parliament by not understanding basic law. The idea I “intimidated” a committee of supposedly grown-up individuals is a nonsense. Worse frankly, it is defamatory of me and I suspect it is yet more snobbery directed at someone from the working class who has succeeded in life from these career politicians. Based on their ‘logic’ they are intimidating me and committing contempt of the House of Lords. If they don’t want people noticing they are a kangaroo court then they should hop less.
The Committee of Privileges is a House of Commons committee. It simply does not have the power to sanction people who aren’t MPs. The House of Lords is an independent body. Once again it has embarrassed Parliament by not understanding basic law.
— Lord Cruddas of Shoreditch (@peteratcmc) June 28, 2023
The idea I “intimidated” a…
Partygate: privileges committee to publish report into ‘coordinated’ attempt to undermine Boris Johnson inquiry
Good morning. When the Commons privileges committee published its report two weeks ago saying Boris Johnson lied to MPs about Partygate, it said that it would be publishing a follow-up about attempts to “undermine” its inquiry. All Commons committees find their work subject to criticism, but in this case what triggered particular concern were comments suggesting that the Conservative members of the committee might face deselection if their report was critical of the former PM.
In its report the committee said:
From the outset of this inquiry there has been a sustained attempt, seemingly coordinated, to undermine the committee’s credibility and, more worryingly, that of those members serving on it. The committee is concerned that if these behaviours go unchallenged, it will be impossible for the house to establish such a committee to conduct sensitive and important inquiries in the future. The house must have a committee to defend its rights and privileges, and it must protect members of the house doing that duty from formal or informal attack or undermining designed to deter and prevent them from doing that duty. We will be making a special report separately to the house dealing with these matters.
This report is now being published at 9am. And the committee seems to have firmed up its thinking. The “seemingly” has gone, and the report is called (according to the advance operational note put out by the committee) “Co-ordinated campaign of interference in the work of the Privileges Committee”.
As Aubrey Allegretti reports in his preview story, the former cabinet ministers Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries, and the Tory peer Peter Cruddas, as three of the worst offenders. They all repeatedly criticised the committee, in derogatory terms, as it was carrying out its inquiry.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: The Commons privileges committee publishes its report on the “coordinated campaign of interference” with its investigation into Boris Johnson.
9.10am: James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, gives a speech at a Chatham House conference.
10am: The court of appeal issues its judgment in the appeal against a high court ruling saying the Home Office’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was lawful.
Morning: Nicola Sturgeon, the former Scottish first minister, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in North Yorkshire.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
