Rwanda asylum plan: Yvette Cooper slams policy as ‘unworkable’ - how did Suella Braverman respond?

Labour’s Yvette Cooper has condemned the government’s plan to deport ‘illegal’ migrants to Rwanda as “unworkable, unethical, and extortionately expensive.”

Speaking after the High Court ruled on Monday (19 December) that the Home Office’s controversial policy was ‘lawful’, the Shadow Home Secretary argued that the case’s verdict was acting as a “damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking to go after the criminal gangs.”

She later told MPs in the House of Commons that there had been a “collapse” of prosecutions for people-smugglers and that gangs have “proliferated” in recent years. The Home Office secured just three convictions for people smuggling into the UK in the first half of 2022, which compares with eight convictions per month in 2021 and 12 per month in 2020. Cooper argued this “puts lives at risk”.

She commented: “The smuggling gangs have proliferated, the dangerous boat crossings putting lives at risk are up twentyfold, yet the number of criminals paying the price for their crime has collapsed. Why has [Suella Braverman] totally failed to take action against the criminal gangs?”

What did Suella Braverman say?

The Home Secretary hit back at Cooper, accusing Labour of failing to take action on the issue. Braverman argued that despite “trying to sound tough on illegal migration,” the opposition has voted against new offences and tougher sentences for people-smugglers.

“It was Labour who voted against tougher sentences to enable us to deport foreign rapists and foreign drug dealers,” the Fareham MP remarked. “It was Labour who would scrap our Rwanda scheme. They have no plan whatsoever for illegal migration, they are against our plan and all they want is open borders.”

She also backed the Rwanda asylum policy, arguing that it would ensure a “crackdown on the people smugglers through better operational command on the Channel”, and called on Cooper to “reverse” her opposition to the plan. Instead, Braverman asked her political counterpart to “come up with a methodical plan” so the Tories and Labour can have “a proper conversation.”

The Labour Party is not alone in voicing its opposition to the government’s plan to deport asylum seekers and migrants deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally to Rwanda. Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, which is one of the charities who brought the legal challenge against the government, said: “The Rwanda plan won’t end small boat crossings and it won’t keep refugees safe. There is a kinder and more effective way; giving safe passage to refugees in Calais.”

Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, added: “We are very disappointed in the outcome of this case. If the government moves ahead with these harmful plans, it would damage the UK’s reputation as a country that values human rights, and undermine our commitment to provide safety to those fleeing conflict and oppression, as enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention.”

The government is facing increased pressure to deal with rising migration, with the number of Channel crossings this year exceeding 40,000 - up from 28,526 in 2021. Determined to tackle the issue, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced last week that “enough is enough” as he laid out plans to bring down immigration - which included a vow to clear the UK’s backlog of asylum seekers by the end of 2023.

Commenting on the recent announcement, Braverman said: “I’m very proud of the announcement that the Prime Minister made last week setting out a comprehensive approach, a methodical approach, a compassionate approach, to dealing with illegal migration, stopping the boats crossing the Channel, dealing with the asylum backlog, responding to the cohort of people who’ve come here illegally from Albania.”

But again she faced criticism from Labour, with Shadow Home Secretary Cooper retaliating: “The Home Secretary says that the asylum system is broken. Well, who broke it? Because it’s the ministers opposite who have been running the system for the last 12 years.

“The Home Secretary describes today’s court judgment as a vindication. I have to wonder whether she has read it, because it sets out evidence of serious problems in Home Office decision-making, identifies significant financial costs of this scheme, and very limited numbers of people who will be covered. [There is also] certainly no evidence that this will act as a deterrent or address the serious problems that we face.”