Tag: Devizes

Refugee report: March


Government attitudes to immigration still causing problems

March 2025

The Government’s Border Security Asylum and Immigration Bill is in its committee stage this week. Much interest has been shown by MPs in using the occasion to express opposition to the Home Office’s guidance on denying citizenship to “illegal” migrants, however long ago their arrival may have been. This guidance has been put forward as a gloss on the “good character requirement” for naturalisation, deeming those who arrive illegally via “dangerous journeys” to be ineligible. The SNP have put forward an amendment to obviate this ruling and the Home Affairs Select Committee have sought an explanation for the change in policy.

Brian Mathew, the Liberal Democrat MP for Melksham and Devizes, said asylum seekers should be given the ability and support to work “instead of leaving them in administrative limbo in hotels around the country costing the taxpayer millions”.

There has been concern amongst MPs also about the government’s decision to transfer some of the foreign aid budget to pay for increases in defence expenditure. This will obviously have a bearing on the amount of funding available for countries with refugee issues. According to the FT, presently it is believed that half the foreign aid budget will now  go on migrant hotel accommodation.

The Home Secretary has been visiting Northern France, the first Home Secretary to do so in recent years. Yvette Cooper is bringing £172 million to aid the French authorities against people smugglers. The National Crime Agency believes that they now have a better understanding of how the boats and engines arrive on the Channel coast, mainly from Germany. Germany has now made it a crime to facilitate illegal migration to the UK.

At the same time as immigration is being targeted, the Government is increasing its deportation levels. This post by Prof. Mary Bosworth is worth reading.

The small boats continue; this year so far the numbers are 40% down on last year, but better weather will probably change the ratio. 2024 data indicate claims were up 18% on 2023, and grant rates were down from about 67% to about 47%. A particular drop in acceptances has been felt by Afghans: from around 90% agreement to around 50% (with legal routes barely used now); it has been suggested that the Home Office considers the Taliban no threat to a wide range of society now.  The largest influx currently is from Sudan.

Other notes: The Guardian featured the immigration regime in Spain, where a less hostile attitude has brought economic results with arrivals able to work.The Home Office has been accused of failing to correctly assess the ages of child migrants by the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium. And the UK is refusing to pay the £50 million compensation demanded by Rwanda for the collapsed migrant removal policy.

We are grateful to group member Andrew for producing this report.

0

Write for Rights


This Sunday, 10 December at the Cathedral

December 2023

Past event

Members of the Salisbury Group will be at the Cathedral cloisters from around 10 o’clock on Sunday for our annual Write for Rights and people in Salisbury are invited to come and sign. We must not forget that many people are in prison or at risk of execution often for no more than disagreeing with the powers that be in their country. They have committed no crime but have may said something disobliging or critical of a president, king or other leader and frequently without trial, can end up in prison for many years. Human Rights defenders, lawyers or journalists are all caught up in this activity.

United Kingdom

The situation in the UK is fast approaching a kind of crisis concerning the issue of deporting people to Rwanda. The government will be tabling a bill next week to disapply sections of the Human Rights Act to enable the deportation of immigrants to Rwanda. Previous plans were blocked by the Supreme Court because the human rights situation in Rwanda is unsatisfactory. Refugees sent there were at risk of refoulement that is being sent back to a country where they would be at risk of bad treatment of some kind. A plan last June to despatch a plane load from Boscombe Down, an airfield a mile or so from where this is being written, was halted by the European Court.

The issue of the ‘boat people’ has become a major issue for the government being one of the Prime Minister’s 5 objectives. Although only a small part of the overall level of immigration, it has assumed huge significance to the point where there might be a confidence vote next week if the bill is not passed. Ostensibly, it is partly due to anger around the gangs involved in organising the crossings. The hope is that if the Rwanda deportations can get underway, this will act as a disincentive to people wishing to cross the Channel. There are many who view this as wishful thinking.

Critics, including Conservative politicians, point out that the bill – even if it becomes law – will not prevent claimants appealing to Strasbourg thus delaying the deportation process until way beyond the likely date of the General Election. This is leading some politicians to demand that we leave the European Court as well.

A leading proponent of this is Danny Kruger the MP for Devizes in Wiltshire, who is co-founder of the ‘New Conservatives’ whose ten point plan is built around immigration matters.

The whole matter has reached almost absurd levels. The Supreme Court looked carefully at the evidence and concluded that Rwanda is not a safe country. Critics and journalists are frequently detained and tortured in detention. Opposition is effectively banned. There are disappearances. A new treaty has been signed between the UK and Rwanda a few days ago which claims to overcome these human rights problems identified by the Supreme Court and clear the way for deportations to take place.

It is almost an example of national hysteria combined with false promises coming home to roost. It was claimed that Brexit would enable the UK to regain its sovereignty a benefit of which was to stop boat crossings and reduce immigration generally. Yet recent figures show immigration at a record 745,000. The vast majority are here legitimately and are needed in a range of sectors such as health, horticulture and care homes. These organisations would find operating without them almost impossible. Yet hysteria has been ratcheted up by the media with its focus on the boat crossings. New proposals will prevent family members joining those already here which will cause great anguish in many, many cases.

We have now arrived at a situation where the government wished to disapply parts of the Human Rights Act and even contemplate departing from the European Convention to join Russia which was ejected in 2022. The statements around this matter by local MP Danny Kruger are to be regretted.

1

Plan to block HRA


Plan to disapply the Human Rights Act reported

November 2023

A report in the Guardian suggests the government proposes to disapply the HRA and block its use to enable the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda. This follows the Supreme Court’s decision last week that Rwanda is not a safe country and individuals sent there would be at risk of refoulement. The government is under considerable pressure from the right of the party and in particular the ‘New’ Conservatives jointly led by Danny Kruger MP who is the member for Devizes in Wiltshire.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/19/rishi-sunak-could-block-key-human-rights-law-force-through-rwanda-asylum-plan

0

The ‘New’ Conservatives


Danny Kruger: the leader of the New Conservatives

July 2023

Danny Kruger, the MP for Devizes in Wiltshire, whose odd ideas on human rights we have had occasion to highlight before, is the founding member of the New Conservative grouping within the party. All their manifesto concerns considerable hardening of attitudes towards immigration. Their ten point plan is:

  1. Closing temporary schemes that grant work visa eligibility for care workers and senior care workers.
  2. Raising the minimum income required to gain a skilled work visa.
  3. Extending the closure of the student dependant route.
  4. Closing the graduate route to students.
  5. Reserving university Study Visas for the brightest international students.
  6. Monitoring the reduction in visa applications under the humanitarian schemes.
  7. Implementing the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill rapidly.
  8. Capping the number of refugees legally accepted for resettlement in the UK.
  9. Raising the minimum combined income threshold for sponsoring a spouse and raising the minimum language requirement.
  10. Capping the amount of social housing that councils may assign to non-UK nationals. [Source Wikipedia]

Several of these policies run counter to the UK’s treaty obligations and would have significant impacts on human rights particularly concerning the Illegal Migration Bill currently struggling in the House of Lords. The care worker proposal for example, would make an already serious situation considerably worse. Their policies are all concerning immigration at present and are reported to be designed to appeal to Red Wall voters which, curiously, does not include Devizes, a safe Wiltshire seat. It is depressing that the people of Devizes should support Kruger and one assumes, these policies. The grouping claims to have 25 supporters but those listed do not add up to 25.

It is concerning that a group of MPs should see it advantageous to major on – to the exclusion of all else – a range of draconian anti-immigrant policies believing them to be popular with the electorate. Mr Kruger has previously claimed that a number of our country’s ills – long waiting lists for example – are the fault of immigrants.

The item concerning the cap on refugees would apply across the piece and would include those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong. Mr Kruger is a committed Christian and has spoken often about his beliefs. He is himself, the son of an immigrant and it is a curious fact that many in his party who are sons and daughters of immigrants (Priti Patel, Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak) are so hostile to those who follow them.

Sources: Wiltshire Times, Premier Christian News, Wikipedia, Blavatnik School of Government (Oxford University), Politico

0

The curious thinking of Danny Kruger MP


Danny Kruger is the MP for Devizes in Wiltshire

April 2023

UPDATE: 6 July 2024

Kruger wins the newly created seat of East Wiltshire in the 2024 General Election. None of his odd thinking emerged during the election period.

Danny Kruger has become conspicuous in recent weeks as the quasi leader of a group of MPs who wish to see a firmer crackdown on the boat people crossing the Channel to claim asylum in the UK.  The issue of the boat crossings is the subject of considerable political controversy and many people are outraged at the arrivals.

He was in the news recently when it was reported that the government had ‘caved in’ to demands by party rebels, in which he was a leading member, to amend the Illegal Immigration Bill by allowing ministers to ignore European Judges in certain situations.  This sprang from the last minute intervention by the European Court which prevented the deportation flight to Rwanda last year from leaving Boscombe Down near Salisbury. This decision enraged many in the Conservative party and much of the right wing media.

He is in the news again this week for an article in the New Statesman (online) which repeats and amplifies comments about immigrants calling it a ‘national disgrace’.  He goes on:

“The importance of this topic to many voters cannot be overstated.  To put it as plainly as people outside the liberal bubble put it: the small boats scandal shows that the powers that be are not on the side of the British people, but instead serve the abstractions of “human rights”, “international law”, or other signals of the middle class virtue. Lawyers and activists get to buff their own haloes while ordinary people pay the price, in longer queues for public services, lower wages and higher taxes”. 

The placing of human rights and international law in inverted commas is interesting and is a piece with another quote from a chapter he wrote on this subject discussed below.  The article suggests that ordinary people are experiencing difficulties in obtaining public services and having to pay higher taxes because of this immigration.  The facts speak otherwise and a number of Home Office reports demonstrate that immigrants are a net benefit to the UK economy. Mr Kruger may be forgiven for not knowing this as the reports have not been published. Wording such as the ‘abstractions’ of human rights suggest that they are in some way theoretical and is perhaps intended to be dismissive. ‘Powers that be’ is also puzzling since that is the Conservative party of which he is a member. Issues of access to public services is as a result of government policy, austerity and other matters not connected with immigrants.  

In a book produced by a group of backbench Conservatives called Common Sense: Conservative Thinking For a Post-Liberal Age (2021) is a chapter written by Danny Kruger entitled Restoring rights: Reclaiming Liberty. This chapter goes a little way to explain the thinking of the MP.

His chapter contains odd reasoning and some curious logic.  His first claim is that the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted by British Lawyers after World War II [lawyers from other countries were involved so it is incorrect to say ‘British lawyers’] ‘sits uncomfortably with the English tradition of preventing tyranny’.  This will come as something of a surprise to the millions of people who were enslaved and were worked to death in the sugar plantations or those who worked in fearful conditions in nineteenth century factories.  The acquisition and retention of Empire also has many horror stories. Quite where this ‘prevention of tyranny’ was taking place is not made clear.

Human rights are misnamed he claims ‘the rights we really need, and the only ones we really have, derive from something higher and something lower than mankind.  They derive from the idea of God, and from the fact of nations: from a Christian conception of law …’ It would be difficult to locate in the Bible many of the principles enshrined in the ECHR or the Human Rights Act (which Mr Kruger is keen to abolish) if only because these ideas and principles were a long way from a society colonised by the Romans and where practices like slavery were common.  There are many favourable references to slavery in the Bible for example.  The ‘lower than mankind’ element is not explained (although it could be a reference to Psalm 8).

He quotes approvingly the American author Patrick Deneen who wrote Why Liberalism Failed (2018).  Many do not agree with Kruger’s admiration of Deneen’s book regarding his blame of a huge range of society’s ills on excessive liberalism to be odd not to say ridiculous.

His analysis seems to go seriously awry however with the following passage:

“And so, from an early stage we came to think of rights as the means by which we are set free from external pressure, set free from obligations to others; and from there it is a small step to the hypocritical assumption that rights confer obligations on others to satisfy us” p49 ibid.  This is a unique view of what human rights is about.  Surely the point of our system of government is that it does involve governments carrying out policies which are about the wellbeing of those who are governed?  It is why we elect members of parliament to raise taxes and pass laws which make our life as acceptable and as fair as possible.  Who are these ‘others’ he refers to?

To read all of Mr Kruger’s articles and speeches is to struggle to find a coherent strain of thought as far as human rights is concerned.  They are a mixture of false premises, muddled thinking and ideas sprayed around which frequently make little sense.  Yet he appears to be someone of influence in the party at present and is often to be seen being interviewed.

Sources include: New Statesman, the Sun, Evening Standard.

2

Curious insight into Conservative view of the Human Rights Act


Devizes MP Danny Kruger has written a chapter in a book by the Common Sense group

May 2021

In recent years some members of the Conservative party seem to have a problem with the Human Rights Act and some would like to see it abolished.  Far right newspapers typify the act as being a means by which terrorists, murderers and others escape justice because the act provides lawyers with a range of loopholes to get their clients off. They call it a ‘criminal’s charter’.  Many of the stories, on closer examination, turn out not to be true or wanton exaggerations. 

The current corpus of human rights law started life after the Second World War and there were a number of Conservative politicians who were active proponents, including Sir Winston Churchill and David Maxwell-Fyfe. 

Since 2015, the tone has changed and in the manifesto of that year, David Cameron promised to scrap the act.  Little happened and by the time of the 2019 manifesto, ‘scrap’ had gone and a review was promised.  What is to be reviewed and how a new act would look and what it would contain has never been clear.  At the time, the Salisbury group raised the matter with our MP Mr John Glen, but we were not much clearer what they wanted it replaced by. The review of the act is currently underway.

A new book has just been produced by a group of backbench Conservatives called Common Sense: Conservative Thinking For a Post-Liberal Age. In it, is a chapter written by the Devizes* MP Danny Kruger entitled Restoring rights: Reclaiming Liberty. 

His chapter contains odd reasoning and some curious logic.  His first claim is that the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted by British Lawyers after World War II [lawyers from other countries were involved so it is incorrect to say ‘British lawyers’] ‘sits uncomfortably with the English tradition of preventing tyranny’.  This will come as something of a surprise to the millions of people who were enslaved and were worked to death in the sugar plantations or those who worked in fearful conditions in nineteenth century factories.  The acquisition of Empire also has many horror stories. Quite where this ‘prevention of tyranny’ was taking place is not made clear.

Human rights are misnamed he claims. ‘The rights we really need, and the only ones we really have, derive from something higher and something lower than mankind.  They derive from the idea of God, and from the fact of nations: from a Christian conception of law …’  It would be difficult to locate in the Bible many of the principles enshrined in the ECHR or HRA if only because these ideas and principles were a long way from a society colonised by the Romans and where practices like slavery were common.  There are many favourable references to slavery in the Bible for example.  The ‘lower than mankind’ element is not explained.

He quotes approvingly of the American author Patrick Deneen who wrote Why Liberalism Failed (2018).  Many do not agree with Kruger’s admiration of Deneen’s book regarding his blame of a huge range of society’s ills on excessive liberalism to be odd not to say ridiculous.

His analysis seems to go seriously awry however with the following passage:

“And so, from an early stage we came to think of rights as the means by which we are set free from external pressure, set free from obligations to others; and from there it is a small step to the hypocritical assumption that rights confer obligations on others to satisfy us” (p49).

It is incorrect to say that requiring the state to act in a lawful and reasonable way towards its subjects is in anyway hypocritical.  What is hypocritical about requiring the State not to torture us? What is hypocritical about having a fair trial?  Nor is it true to argue that rights set us free from external pressure.  This seems to go to the heart of the objections raised by some Conservatives about the HRA, and the attempts to weave in duties.  The argument seems to be you only deserve these rights in limited circumstances and in a conditional way. 

This argument is further developed in this passage:

“This conception of rights must be rooted in the existence of a community – a real community, not the abstraction of ‘humankind’.  A real community entails reciprocal duties, situated in institutions that can enforce them and mediated by the conventions of people who know each other and share a common culture.  This is the nation.  We derive our rights from our citizenship (or more properly, our subjectship)”. p52 (our italics)

The problem all along with the objections to the HRA is trying to tie them down to specifics.  In an earlier Conservative document Protecting Human Rights in the UK, the examples seem to be stuck on deporting foreign criminals as an example of obligations. 

The Human Rights Act, brought in following cross party consensus – and falsely characterised as ‘Labour’s Human Rights Act’ – represented a significant shift in power.  Ever since the Norman conquest, power rested with the elites: the king, the barons and gradually the landowners and aristocracy.  Concessions were drawn from them as a result of unrest, riots or events such as the Peterloo massacre.  Magna Carta sought to restore some of the rights enjoyed during Saxon times.  The ‘Glorious Revolution’ brought further changes.  The Great Reform Act some more.

We were subjects not citizens.  The HRA changed that and gave citizens a range of fundamental rights (some of which are conditional).  It would appear that for a small number of Conservative backbenchers in the Common Sense group this is troubling.  Yet Mr Kruger’s chapter never gives solid reasons for change, only rather nebulous arguments which crumble away on close reading. 

*Devizes is a small town 25 miles north of Salisbury.

kruger chapter extractDownload
Common-SenseDownload
1

Human rights and armed forces


Claire Perry writes in the Salisbury Journal

Claire Perry MP. Picture: thedrum

Claire Perry, the Conservative MP for Devizes in Wiltshire, said in her piece in the Salisbury Journal that:

[at the recent Tory party conference] … there were other important announcements to celebrate including the news that the government will put an end to the vexatious and damaging legal claims against members of the Armed Forces that arise from applying European Court of Human Rights judgements in the battlefield.

It is scandalous that highly trained and professional soldiers have been subjected to vexatious legal claims second-guessing their decision-making and that since 2004, the MoD has spent over £100 million on Iraq-related investigations, inquiries and compensation – money that should be spent on our troops not lawyers.   Salisbury Journal 27 October 2016

The problem with Claire Perry’s piece – largely copied from the statement by the Defence Minister at the conference – is that it is highly selective and largely untrue.  The picture painted is of our soldiers, operating in difficult and extremely dangerous environments, being pursued by lawyers, sorry ‘vexatious lawyers’, on the make.  The reality is quite different.

Firstly, it is part of a consistent and long running campaign by the right-wing media and tabloids against the Human rights Act and the European Court.  They do not like it because it provides protections for ordinary citizens and in particular, against the invasion of privacy by those self-same papers.  So at a party conference, appealing to that part of the media is only to be expected.

But more specifically, to take one element the statement: ‘claims against members of the armed forces …’ gives the impression that the claims are only about the soldiers themselves.  Many of the claims are against the MoD for not taking sufficient or reasonable care of their men.  So one claim for example was on behalf of a soldier who died of heatstroke serving in 50 degrees of heat in Iraq.  There is also the whole business of Deepcut and the soldiers who died there.  Others involve the Army sending men off in insufficiently protected land rovers.

The phrase ‘applying European Court of Human Rights judgements in the battlefield’ is doubly disingenuous.  Firstly, it is the application of the Human Rights Act which is causing the problem.  Adding the ECHR is just to appeal to those who do not like Europe and trying to shift the blame to Strasbourg who often have little if anything to do with it.  ‘Battlefield’ is also slipped in to create the impression of brave soldiers being pursued by lawyers (keep forgetting – vexatious lawyers) with outrageous claims.

What many of the claims are about is how prisoners are treated once they are taken captive, not on the battlefield.  One such claim was a man thrown into a canal in Baghdad and left to drown.  Many others relate to beatings and other mistreatment of prisoners.  If the courts have investigated claims and the MoD has been forced to pay compensation it argues that something is adrift.

Perhaps Claire Perry should ask herself why do we go to war in the first place?  Part of the answer is to promote our values.  We want to promote democracy and the rule of law.  We become involved in part to try and instill those values.  If our soldiers – not on the battlefield but back at base – are mistreating prisoners then those are not our values.  Although there was a lot of nonsense about weapons of mass destruction, one reason we went into Iraq was because Sadam Hussein treated his people abominably.  The results of bad treatment in places like Syria are visible to us every day with the refugee crisis.

It is a great pity that nonsense like this is both written and then published without challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

1

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑