What is the hon. Gentleman’s solution? When Opposition Members make these arguments, they have to say what on earth they would do. I agree with the Opposition on one thing: with modern surveillance technology, drones and all the rest of it, it is a mystery why we are not managing to stop more people. With modern police efforts, it is a mystery why we cannot interdict more of these criminal gangs.
It is so easy to get involved in this trade. We close down one criminal gang, as the Opposition want to put more resources into doing, and another springs up. It is incumbent on the Opposition, given that we are such an attractive country, to explain how on earth they would stop this trade. I question whether we can proceed with the policy of keeping people in hotels, paying them benefits and approving 95% of applications when they have come through a safe country.
The problem I have with the Government is not their Rwanda policy because, looking at Australia and elsewhere, I accept that the only policy that seems to have any chance of discouraging this mass movement of people is offshoring. My argument with the Government is that, if we pass this Bill and keep passing Bills, such is the nature of our legal system that people will make spurious claims based on their political opinions, which will make it impossible for them to be put on a flight to Rwanda. That is the nature of my amendments, which is why I talk about spurious claims.
3.45 pm
Let us consider one example. Let us suppose that I am an illegal migrant who has paid all this money to get through France. I am now going to put my life at risk, having put a lot of my personal resources into this project. I am determined that when I arrive in Dover there will be no chance of my being sent to Rwanda or anywhere else. This is so simple: people can manufacture some spurious opposition to the Rwanda regime. They can do a tweet—even I can do a tweet. They can do a tweet in five minutes saying that the President of Rwanda is a dictator who should be overthrown, and they will have done it—it will have gone worldwide. Alternatively, once they have got into this country they can simply protest outside the Rwandan embassy about the President. That sort of thing has happened outside the Saudi Arabian embassy. People can so easily concoct a spurious reason as to why, although Rwanda generally may be a safe country, they personally cannot be sent there because of what they have done—demonstrated or tweeted. That will clog up our whole judicial process.
We have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark that in August we may have hundreds of crossings every week. Every claimant will take his case to the tribunal, where it will have to be heard, and we will have to deal with appeals. I cannot see how any of these people are actually going to be put on these flights by October, when there may be a general election. A very small number might be, but given the nature of the judicial process, the right to appeal and the ease with which someone can concoct a history of opposition to the Rwandan regime, I do not think anybody is really going to be put on a flight.
Alternatively, they can easily concoct a history of mental illness—that is so subjective. It is easy enough to find a doctor to sign a medical certificate saying that someone has a history of mental illness. It is easy to concoct a personal history. For instance, if someone
comes from Iran, they can allege that they are gay. Again, no tribunal would export someone to Iran if they say that they are gay. If someone comes from Iraq, they can say that they are an activist Christian, whether or not they are. I cannot see how anybody who has the right to go through the judicial process will not do so, and given the ease with which they can create a personal history that will make their own personal circumstances impossible in Rwanda, I cannot believe that any court or tribunal will export them to Rwanda.