Sunak ‘up for the fight’ over migrants Bill
Prime Minister warns challengers he is confident immigration crackdown is within the UK’S rights
RISHI SUNAK has warned lawyers preparing to challenge his illegal immigration crackdown that he is “up for the fight and will win”, as he accused the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of being “opaque, unfair and unjust”.
Ministers have acknowledged that the plan to deport asylum seekers with exceptionally limited ability to appeal has a more than 50 per cent chance of breaching the UK’S obligations under the ECHR. This means government lawyers believe it is more likely to fail than withstand a legal challenge.
The new Illegal Migration Bill places a duty on the Home Secretary to deport illegal migrants to their home country or a third safe country such as Rwanda to claim asylum there. It “radically narrows” their ability to block deportation through asylum, human rights or modern slavery claims and limits judicial reviews except in exceptional cases. As a result, ministers have had to issue what is known as a Section 19 (1) (b) statement in the Bill that they cannot guarantee it complies with the ECHR. It raises the prospect of a battle over the legislation that could go up to the Supreme Court, with lawyers already threatening legal action.
Asked if he was up for the fight at a press conference last night, the Prime Minister said: “Of course, we are up for the fight. I would not be standing here if we weren’t but we’re confident that we will win.
“It’s really important for everyone to recognise there’s absolutely nothing improper or unprecedented about pursuing bills with a Section 19 (1) (b) statement. It absolutely does not mean that the Bill is unlawful. We believe that we are acting in compliance with our international obligations. And we are also meeting our obligations to the British public to make sure that we have control over their borders.”
He rejected the idea of leaving the European Convention, saying it was not necessary. “We believe that we’re in compliance with it and acting meeting our international obligations,” he said. Ministers are preparing to take on the ECHR over interim injunctions, like that which blocked the first deportation flight to Rwanda last June.
The legislation includes a “marker” clause allowing the Government to rewrite the rules so it could ignore the injunctions – known as Rule 39s – if negotiations with the Strasbourg court fail to secure reforms to answer Britain’s concerns about them.
Mr Sunak said Rule 39s were “opaque”, failed the “natural justice test” and were decided by unnamed judges behind closed doors. “
We have absolutely no right to apply for the case to be dismissed. We have no right to appeal. So that process does not seem appropriate. What we want to do is see reform to that process,” he said.
The Bill proposes disapplying Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which means migrants are effectively barred from using the legislation to block their removal from the UK.
It means the Home Secretary’s new legal duty to remove migrants takes precedence over their asylum, human rights and modern slavery claims. Other human rights claims, including the right to private or family life, or other forms of judicial review cannot suspend a migrant’s removal.
Migrants will be subject to “non-suspensive” deportation orders which mean any human rights or other claims will only be heard abroad except in exceptional circumstances.
Unveiling the plans in the Commons earlier yesterday, Suella Braverman said asylum seekers arriving illegally will be detained and face a lifetime ban on returning after they are removed. They will never be allowed to settle in the country or gain citizenship.
All illegal arrivals will be declared inadmissible to stay. People who enter the UK illegally will be detained, with no recourse to bail or judicial review, within the first 28 days.
Ministers have promised that cases will be processed more quickly than at present. Detention powers will be extended, with the UK able to keep people locked up for as long as there is a reasonable prospect of removal.
The number of appeals and challenges available to suspend removal will be radically narrowed so that only those under 18, medically unfit to fly, or at real risk of serious harm in the country they are being removed to, will be able to delay their removal.
The Government has pledged to buy disused military bases to house current asylum seekers who are at present holed up in hotels. Ministers hope the use of military bases will deter others from attempting to come here. The new laws on detention took effect immediately from yesterday, when the Bill was laid before Parliament, and will apply retrospectively once the law is passed.
The Bill promises a new “safe and legal” route for those seeking sanctuary. The numbers allowed in will be capped by Parliament, with an annual vote to set each year’s cap, which will take into account local authority capacity for housing and public services.
If there is a humanitarian crisis within the world that requires a response, then the UK will step up and offer sanctuary to those in need.
In addition, the legislation will expand the list of countries that are considered safe in law. The list is designed to make it unquestionably clear when someone does not need the protection of the UK, because they are not at risk of persecution in their own country.
In her letter to MPS and peers, Ms Braverman wrote: “As we reduce illegal migration, we will do more to help the most vulnerable who are at risk of war and persecution through safe and legal routes. We want to send the message loudly and clearly to those people smugglers, to those people thinking about crossing the channel: do not do it.
“Do not hand over your life savings, do not get into that flimsy dinghy, do not risk your life, because you will not be entitled to a life in the UK.”
Ms Braverman denied that it was “bigoted” or “racist” to take a tough approach. She said Britain had been “taken for a ride” by asylum seekers.
Speaking at his press conference, Mr Sunak said the legislation was “tough but necessary and fair”.
“We have tried it every other way and it has not worked,” he said.
‘The Bill is [not] unlawful. We believe we are acting in compliance with our international obligations’
‘We want to send the message loudly to those thinking about crossing the Channel: do not do it’