Stop migrant boats or face defeat, Suella Braverman tells Tories

The Tories will not be forgiven if they do not stop Channel migrant crossings, Suella Braverman has warned the party.

In an interview with The Telegraph, the Home Secretary said the Government needed to halt the small boat crossings if the Conservatives were to win the next election.

She said the party’s reputation for competence was “on the line”, issuing a rallying call for MPs to unite behind plans to halt the crossings in the face of “formidable forces” that she said would seek to stop them.

Ministers anticipate major opposition in the Lords and a surge of court challenges to a new Bill that would give the Government powers to bar migrants who arrive illegally from claiming asylum in the UK.

There are also divisions within the Tories between those who want the Government to go further and quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and those who fear the plans could breach international law, including the Refugee Convention.

Ministers may seek to introduce the new Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill before MPs recess at the end of next week, seeking to bring in measures to deter the record numbers of migrants crossing the Channel as soon as possible.

The Bill will give the Home Secretary powers to detain migrants who enter the UK illegally and “swiftly” return them to their home country or a safe country such as Rwanda, where their claim for asylum will be considered.

Asked about the consequences if the Government failed to stop the boats, Mrs Braverman said: “I just don’t think we’ll be forgiven. We need to earn the trust of the British people on all issues and every single day we’re in government. This issue is of huge frustration to many, many people that I meet but also the British people at large.

“I believe my reputation and the reputation of the Conservative party is on the line here. It’s about competence, and it’s about being faithful to the British people who put us in office to fix this problem.”

Asked whether it could cost the Tories the next election, she said: “I think we need to stop the boats to win the election. No ifs, no buts. That’s why the Prime Minister has made migration one of the five priorities.

“The main objective is that there is no excuse any more. The Government needs to deliver on the promise. The British people are rightly fed up with this problem that has now gone on for years, and I really do think that it’s the last chance for the Government to get this right.”

The Bill is likely to place a legal duty on the Home Secretary to remove migrants who arrive illegally or enter the UK indirectly through a safe third country. This is designed to buttress the Government against legal challenges and effectively enshrine the Rwanda policy in law after it was stalled by legal challenges.

Asked whether she was confident the Bill would accord with the Refugee Convention, Mrs Braverman said: “I was Attorney General as well. So I do know the importance of legal frameworks, the importance of legislation and lawfulness.”

She refused to be drawn on whether the Government would withdraw or derogate from the ECHR, saying only that “my views on the ECHR are very clear”. She has previously said the UK should be prepared to quit.

But she claimed there would be “formidable forces working against us to succeed” in a “highly litigious” area of law. “There are very, very big challenges that we need to overcome if we want to fix this,” she said.

Her interview coincides with the second anniversary of the Hong Kong BNO route that has helped 144,000 people escape the regime in China. She said it was a “great example” of the Government’s plans to open up “legal and safe” routes to asylum and citizenship in the UK.

“We want  to make it clear that if you aren't genuinely fleeing oppression or hardship or political turmoil or conflict, then there is a route to seek refuge in the UK,” she said.

I think what's very apposite is the achievement and track record of this government on helping over 140,000 Hong Kong nationals who have arrived in the UK in the last two years. 

"It's a great reflection of the UK's commitment and steadfast tradition that we have in Britain to welcome all of those who want to make UK their own through legal safe routes.

"There's some amazing stories of people who have fled oppression proactively and they've come to the UK to work in our public services like the NHS or are contributing to our economy and business." 

Meanwhile, a new analysis suggested taxpayers could face an annual £1 billion bill to detain nearly 47,000 Channel migrants who cannot be removed from the UK because Britain does not have return agreements with countries to which they could be removed, according to the research by the Refugee Council.

Of the 45,746 people who crossed the Channel in small boats last year, the study calculated that 32,247 will be unable to be removed under the proposed new bar on asylum for migrants who enter the UK through illegal routes.

“If the number of people crossing the channel increased to 65,000 in a year then, based on previous arrivals and current asylum grant rates, this would result in 19,114 people removed overall, including 18,582 Albanians,” said the report. “This would then leave 46,866 stuck not having their asylum claim considered and being unable to be removed.”

It warned that proposals to detain the migrants would cost £148 million a year if they were held for 28 days, and up to £950 million a year if it was for six months. 

Channel migrants could be barred from using human rights law to avoid deportation

Channel migrants who enter the UK illegally could be barred from using the Human Rights Act to attempt to fight deportation, under proposals for new laws being considered by the Home Secretary.

Suella Braverman said on Friday night that she backed the “toughest possible legislation” to tackle illegal migration as two of Britain’s top constitutional experts proposed the Government’s new “small boats” bill should include powers to disapply the Human Rights Act.

The move would prevent legal challenges that could frustrate ministers’ plans to deport Channel migrants to Rwanda or return them to their home country, according to former Government lawyer Sir Stephen Laws and Oxford professor Richard Ekins, who is close to Home Office thinking.

It would mean Channel migrants' lawyers would not be able to use British courts to challenge their removal by claiming it was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Instead, they would have to take their case to Strasbourg where any final judgement would likely take years.

The proposal is made in a report for the Policy Exchange think tank.

It also recommends that it should be possible for illegal migrants to be deported even if the European courts have issued an interim injunction or other challenges. Such measures have so far blocked flights to Rwanda since last June.

Last night a Home Office source said: “The report makes a strong case for measures to ensure the new legislation stops the boats.

“Suella backs a lot of the ideas in this report and wants the toughest possible legislation so that we meaningfully tackle illegal migration across the Channel. Illegal migrants must be detained and swiftly removed once they arrive on our shores.”

Mrs Braverman is understood to have this week told the 1922 backbench committee that ministers are “stress testing” the legislation to ensure there are no loopholes to prevent the immediate detention and swift removal of Channel migrants.

The bill is expected to be published after next week’s February parliamentary recess once Rishi Sunak has finalised the proposals. Number 10 is said to be prepared to “push the boundaries of what is legally possible,” while staying within the ECHR.

Under the two legal experts’ proposals, Britain would remain in the ECHR. However, while the European court of human rights in Strasbourg considered any challenges to deportations, removals of illegal migrants under the new legislation would continue.

The pair warned that failure to disapply parts of the human rights act and to allow removals even if there were Strasbourg injunctions would effectively hand a veto on the policy to the courts before it was implemented.

“It would be a bad mistake for the Government to propose, and for Parliament to enact, legislation that, while appearing to address the problem, would in the end fail to tackle adequately the shortcomings in the existing law, and would end up stymied by litigation,” they said.

“Unless the Government effectively addresses the crisis in the Channel, further loss of life is likely and public trust, which has been undermined by repeated failures to honour past commitments on this matter, will continue to decline.”