Key events
Q: How is it compatible with the British traditions of compassion that you are going to incarcerate asylum seekers? You don’t have agreements with third countries for their return?
Sunak says this country has always been welcoming. Half a million people have been welcomed since 2015. Everyone should be “incredibly proud” of that.
There is nothing compassionate about allowing vulnerable people to perish, he says.
He says the legislation is a “necessary step” towards being able to return people. Hundreds of people are being returned to Albania.
Britain should be focusing its compassion on the most vulnerable people, he says.
Sunak claims fall in number of arrivals from Albania shows this problem can be solved
Sunak is now taking questions.
Q: If you haven’t stopped the boats by the time of the election, will you have failed?
Sunak says he has thought “long and hard” about this problem and he would not be standing here if he did not think this would work.
The legislation is important. But it is just one of many things needed. More cooperation with the French is needed too.
Albania accounted for around a third of illegal migrants last year. But now hundreds of Albanians are being returned, and the number of people coming from Albania is going down.
Sunak says there will be a debate about the toughness of these measures. He goes on:
All I can say is we have tried it every other way and it has not worked.
Sunak says this is a complex problem. It won’t be solved overnight. The government will have to use every tool at its disposal.
He has agreed a deal with France, increased raids for illegal migrants, and reached an agreement with Albania. Deterrence works. And with will and determination, the government can get on top of this, he says.
He says this is a welcoming country. But the current situation is neither moral nor sustainable.
The government is spending £6m a day on putting people up in hotels.
The system is unfair on people who come here legally, or who want to come here legally, he says.
Rishi Sunak starts by saying he is introducing new legislation “to keep my promise to you”. (He is addressing the public, not the journalists in the room.)
People on small boats are not fleeing an imminent threat to life. They are coming to the UK for a better life.
They pay the people smugglers because they know the system can be exploited. They can make spurious claims to frustrate their removal.
He repeats the claim that there are 100 million displaced people around the world who might want to come to the UK. (See 12.45pm.)
That is why the government is saying, if you come here illegally, you will be removed.
And once you are removed, you will be banned from entering the country again, as in America and Australia.
Rishi Sunak to hold press conference
Rishi Sunak is about to hold a conference.
As the Sun’s Natasha Clark reports, he will be standing at a lectern with “Stop the boats” on it.
It is a bold move given that most experts in this field believe that his bill will not stop the small boats. Perhaps he is supremely confident, or knows something we don’t? Or perhaps he just thinks he will get credit with the electorate for trying.
As the BBC’s Dominic Casciani reports, in a letter to MPs Suella Braverman has said the the section 19 (1) (b) statement on the face of the bill (see 4.12pm) means there is a more than 50% chance that the bill is not compliant with the Human Rights Act. But she also said she was confident the bill was compatible with international law.
Home Secretary’s letter to all MPs admits that her illegal immigration bill is *more likely to fail than withstand legal challenge*. (That’s the maths behind ‘more than 50% chance’). Screengrab of relevant bit: pic.twitter.com/0TKQ3n8l4e
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) March 7, 2023
Jonathan Jones, a former head of the government’s legal department, argues that what Braverman is saying does not make sense.
Ministers are entitled to take legal risks. And s19(1)(b) is there for a reason. But I’m not sure how you can think you’re more likely than not to lose if challenged under the HRA *AND* be “confident” that what you’re doing is compatible with the ECHR
— Jonathan Jones (@SirJJKC) March 7, 2023
Jones resigned in September 2020 over a government plan to pass legislation that would break international law. The attorney general at the time who approved it was Suella Braverman.
Tory 1922 Committee chair Graham Brady to stand down as MP at next election
Peter Walker
Sir Graham Brady, whose role as chair of the Conservative party’s 1922 Committee saw him usher three prime ministers out of Downing Street in four years, is to step down as an MP at the next election.
Arguably the most powerful backbencher of his political generation, Brady released a statement to his local newspaper saying it was time to “bring this fascinating and fulfilling chapter of my life to a close”.
Brady, the MP for Altrincham and Sale West in Greater Manchester since the constituency was created in 1997, has never held ministerial office but has chaired the committee that represents Tory backbenchers since 2010.
During that time he observed four prime ministerial departures – David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss – and subsequent elections for a successor, and in three of the cases played a pivotal role in their resignations.
As chair of the 1922 Committee, Brady is the custodian of any Tory MPs’ letters of no confidence in the prime minister, and if 15% of their contingent submit one, a confidence vote is held.
As the letters mounted against the four prime ministers, Brady would be pursued around Westminster by TV crews asking for a running tally, which he would never divulge, responding only with inscrutable bonhomie.
In his statement, Brady said colleagues had “given me the unique opportunity of chairing the 1922 Committee for longer than anyone else in its 100-year history”, and that he would remain in the role until the end of the parliament if they wanted him to. He said:
I will continue to do everything I can to support the Conservative cause and Rishi Sunak. He is bringing both stability and vision as prime minister.
I have decided to bring this fascinating and fulfilling chapter of my life to a close while I am young enough to pursue other opportunities and interests, so I will not be standing at the next election.
One aspect of his decision to stand down could be the shrinking majority in his always slightly marginal seat, now less than half of the 13,000 margin at its peak in 2015.
Charities that work with refugees have also denounced the illegal migration bill.
This is from Katy Chakrabortty, head of policy and advocacy at Oxfam GB.
This bill is yet another example of the UK turning its back on some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Seeking asylum is not a crime, and those forced to flee their homes deserve compassion, dignity and the right to fair treatment. Conflict and persecution do not exist only within the confines of countries that the UK government deems worthy of a visa scheme.
This is from Laura Kyrke-Smith, executive director of the International Rescue Committee UK.
The bill will not stop small boats crossing the Channel. It will only add to the trauma of the people in these boats, while further damaging Britain’s global reputation for fairness and compassion.
And this is from Emma Stevenson, deputy CEO of Choose Love.
Today’s proposed bill reaches new depths of cruelty towards asylum seekers. Displaced people are not criminals, but this bill is punitive in nature. It shirks the European Convention on Human Rights and avoids the UK’s international responsibilities.
Whatever the fate of this Bill, serious damage has already been done. The government today said any opposition to these plans would amount to a ‘betrayal of Britain’. [See 11.51am.] History tells us this demonisation of the vulnerable can lead to catastrophic results.
Rishi Sunak has been visiting the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre in Dover to speak to staff dealing with small boats. Here are some of the pictures.
Green party says it would have safe legal routes for anyone wanting to claim asylum in UK
The Green party says it wants safe legal routes for anyone wanting to make an asylum claim in the UK. This is what Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said in a statement about the illegal migration bill.
This is the latest attempt by the Tories to stop desperate people finding sanctuary. Last year three-quarters of all asylum claims were granted. Despite this, the government seems determined to clamp down on those fleeing conflict, persecution or extreme poverty in a host of countries by failing to offer legal routes to the UK. This will force people to continue taking their chances arriving in small boats ….
The Green party is the only party taking a strong stand against this cruel legislation and saying proudly that refugees are welcome. We want to see safe legal routes for anyone wanting to claim asylum. That’s the way to stop small boats making perilous journeys across the channel and break the criminal gangs involved in people smuggling.
In the Commons Suella Braverman repeatedly accused Labour of not wanting to put a limit on the number of people it would allow to enter through safe routes for asylum seekers. She said:
The shadow home secretary talks about safe and legal routes; I wonder what number Labour would cap that at. Would it be 500,000? A million? Five million? [Yvette Cooper] should be honest with the house and with the British people: what she really means is unlimited safe and legal routes – open borders by the back door.
But Labour is not saying it would have unlimited safe routes. It says it would change the system to have “a clearer process for refugees with family connections in the UK to be considered for resettlement”.
Lisa O’Carroll
Europe minister Leo Docherty has told a Lords committee the government is considering expanding the Turing programme, the UK’s post-Brexit overseas study scheme.
Asked if the government would consider linking up with Erasmus Plus, the EU scheme which the UK left when Brexit came into force told the House of Lords European affairs committee, Docherty told peers that the government that it was among the moves that was “under consideration”.
He told peers on the European affairs committee he was “delighted” with the “success” of Turing, in which 41,000 students participated in 2021/2022.
But he conceded that second school visits to the UK from EU countries had “dried up” after the government stopped accepting ID cards due to the risk of fraud.
Here are comments from two left-leaning thinktanks criticising the illegal migration bill.
This is from Harvey Redgrave, the lead home affairs expert at the Tony Blair Institute, and a former deputy head of the strategy unit at No 10.
The illegal migration bill is a soundbite dressed up as a solution and will ultimately join the Rwanda policy on the scrapheap.
The headline pledge – that nobody coming over the Channel will be able to claim asylum – will inevitably be broken.
Without return agreements in place, any new duty on the home secretary is meaningless.
And the continued lack of any focus on enforcement against smuggling gangs or a legal route to claiming asylum will keep illegal migration high while locking out people with genuine claims.
As TBI has previously said, if the government is serious about preventing illegal migration then they should focus on clearing the backlog, increasing the number of returns, introducing a system of digital identity verification and opening up safe and viable routes for asylum claims.
And this is from Marley Morris, associate director for migration, trade and communities at the IPPR.
This bill is both unethical and impractical. As with last year’s Nationality and Border Act, this bill will simply add to the distress of Afghans, Syrians, Iranians and others seeking asylum in the UK, without deterring people from making the journey.
The government can pass law after law, but without a deal with France and new safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum, people will continue to be forced to make the perilous journey across the Channel.
Previous IPPR research into those entering the UK via Channel crossings found that around two-thirds would have a well-founded asylum claim if they were properly considered.
The full text of the illegal migration bill has been published. It’s here.
Here is the section 19 (1) (b) statement on the face of the bill – the admission that it might not fully comply with the European convention on human rights.
And here are the explanatory notes to the bill.
