JAMES Cleverly, the new Home Secretary who has said he is “absolutely determined” to get deportation flights to Rwanda in the air, has denied calling the plan “batsh**” in private.
It comes after a debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday saw Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, accuse Cleverly of having no faith in the plan which he is now in charge of delivering for the UK Government.
Cooper said: “Why will the Home Secretary not put that money into a proper plan to tackle the boats?
“I do not believe that he ever believed in the Rwanda plan. He distanced himself from it and his predecessor’s language on it. He may even, on occasion, have privately called it batsh**.”
Appearing on BBC Breakfast on Thursday, Cleverly was asked if he had made the comment.
Charlie Stayt: Did you describe the Rwanda system as batshit... is that true?
— Haggis_UK 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 (@Haggis_UK) November 16, 2023
James Cleverly: That was a claim made of me...
Charlie Stayt: Did you say that word?
James Cleverly: I certainly don't remember saying anything like that. #BBCBreakfast pic.twitter.com/Eryjv34Wnv
“That was a claim made of me, not something that I said,” the Home Secretary began. “But the point is, the point is, it’s good for parliamentary theatre, the point that I said is, and I repeat it, the Rwanda scheme is already having a deterrent effect.
“When we operationalise it, when we get those flights taking off, it will have an even greater deterrent effect.”
Also asked the same question on Sky News, he said: “I don’t recognise that phrase, and the point that I’ve made, and the point I made at the despatch box, is that the Rwanda scheme is an important part – but only a part – of the range of responses we have to illegal migration.
“And that range of responses is working. The numbers are down compared with the rest of Europe where the numbers are up.”
READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Rwanda and Gaza highlight continuing failure of British democracy
Both Cleverly and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have pledged to get the Rwanda scheme up and running as soon as possible, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is unlawful. They plan to use emergency legislation and a treaty with Rwanda to circumvent the judges’ unanimous decision.
But Cleverly distanced the UK Government from Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson’s suggestion that they should simply “ignore the laws”.
Cleverly told Times Radio: “I’ve listened to what he said. I disagree with the point he’s made. This is how politics works. I don’t always agree with all my friends and colleagues.
“But the simple point is the Prime Minister, I, the Government are clear and unambiguous. We play by the rules.”
He said Anderson was “expressing the frustration that a lot of people feel” but “we are a law-abiding country, a law-abiding government”.
READ MORE: The Labour MPs that voted for a Gaza ceasefire - see the full list
Cleverly further said the Government was “absolutely determined” to get a flight to Rwanda in the air before the General Election expected next year.
However, he said the UK Government would not look to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), calling the argument a distraction.
“Our preferred option is to remain in the ECHR,” he told Times Radio, after the Supreme Court made the point “there are a number of international treaties which are relevant” in the Rwanda case.
“This is a distracting conversation,” Cleverly said. “I get it is of interest, legitimate interest, but the point I have made is I, the Prime Minister, the Government, will not be distracted from focusing on what we have been told by the Supreme Court judges needs to be fixed in order to get this out of the way.”
The Home Secretary also refused to apologise for the amount of money spent on the Rwanda scheme.
Asked how much more would be spent, beyond the £140 million already committed, he told LBC: “I’m going to be really clear on this. I make no apology at all for spending money protecting this nation. It is the primary function of government.
“We know that even before the first flight has taken off the Rwanda policy is having a deterrent effect.
“We interview people that have attempted to come here through illegal migration and we know that people have been dissuaded from coming to the UK because of the fear of Rwanda scheme.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel