In 2013, yet the operation was enacted. Within a year the problem was eliminated. Denmark, between 2015 and 2016, announced a range of measures intended to make their Asylum System significantly less asylu m system sig nifica ntly less attractive Asylum System significantly less attractive as a destination for Illegal Migration bill stack the result was a reduction in claims from 21,02015 result was a reduction in claims from 21,020 15 to 602016, and 1500 in 2020. For every one Asylum Seeker that arrived in denmark in 2021, three arrived in sweden on a per capita basis. Unilateraland capita basis. Unilateral and Bilateral Solutions capita basis. Unilateraland Bilateral Solutions and policies of deterrence can and do work. This is the route in the uk has chosen to go down. In 2022 some 12,000 albanians entered the uk illegally via small boats. In response we strengthen how we work with albania, including improved data sharing, close to operational working, new expedited returns arrangements and financial support. These measures have seen the number of albanians small boat arrivals ball by 90 so far doing 2023. We also work closely with france, last year the Prime Minister signed a historic Bilateral Agreement to deepen our cooperation in combating Illegal Migration bill. That included significant investment to increase Front Line Staffing and policing levels in northern france, better Real Time Intelligence and data sharing, supported by embedded uk officers, and improved Data Intelligence corporation to increase disruptions, arrests and prosecutions. This sort of cooperation is necessary but not sufficient in terms of results. Overall crossings are down more than 20 so far this year, compared with 2022. The system that we are working to deliver through our legal migration act is one that within the limitations of the broader rights based framework says that the only route into asylum in the uk must be a safe and legal route. Anyone who enters the uk illegally will be deemed inadmissible to our Asylum System, and following assessment will be detained and swiftly removed to their home country if that is safe, or to a safe third country of not. In 2021 we signed our Ground Breaking migration and Economic Development partnership with rwanda. I did this Agreement One that will accept physical and legal Response Ability for illegal migrants, relocated from the uk. And look after all their needs while they claims are considered. We always knew that our partnership would be challenged in court. We remain confident that that the Uk Supreme Court will uphold in the legality of the scheme later this year. Enabling us to start putting it into operation. While our political opponents, ngos and others dismissed the partnership, as any moral gimmick when first announced, it is striking how many countries run by governments of varying political hues have now expressed in public and in private conversations support for this model. Many are now pursuing variations of their own. The uk will continue to prioritise policies of deterrence and Border Hardening alongside the maintenance of safe and legal roots. At the same time we will look to build consensus for more fundamental reform of the Asylum Framework at the International Level. The goal for reform must be to embed principles in the global Asylum Framework. The tearing Illegal Migration bill be an aim. Countries must have a say in what volume of refugees they are capable of resettling each year. Support and protection shooed to the fullest extent possible and be rendered in neighbouring safe countries where it is most efficient to deliver and able to reach those that need it most. The only route to resettlement should be by a safe and legal roots. People must be claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach, the definition of who qualifies for protection must be tightened and policies of externalisation such as partnership with rwanda must be recognised as appropriate. I dont accept the full choice between acting unilaterally or even bilaterally to protect ones border and solving this problem through multilateral cooperation. International cooperation is essential if we are to find in doing solutions to the challenges of global migration and deliver an Asylum Framework fit for the modern age. But nations cannot simply sit on their hands while a reform process plays out. It is right that they act in their national interest. I have in recent weeks been meeting with fellow Interior Ministers in europe, i will continue doing so in the coming months and hope to bring together partners to a forum where we can begin discussing some of the matters i have touched on today. Is the Refugee Convention in need of reform . Would a revised global Asylum Framework work, and how would it look . How can we better Balance National rights and human rights so that the latter do not undermine National Sovereignty . Could the echr be more transparent and accountable and how it interprets human rights . And give greater power to nation states to make arguments and present evidence . What are the appropriate criteria for being labelled a refugee the days in the 21st century . How can we stop Human Rights Laws being gamed by smugglers . Are we delivering safe and legal roots in an efficient and effective manner . And while we may have different views as to the solutions, i hope we can at least agree on one thing. That we are living in a new world bound by outdated legal models. It is time that we acknowledge that. Thank you. Applause thank you those remarks and for being thank you those remarks and for being here thank you those remarks and for being here to make them. You raised a being hereto make them. You raised a number being here to make them. You raised a numberof being here to make them. You raised a number of important and complicated questions, and i think may be complicated questions, and i think may be at complicated questions, and i think may be at the one that is likely to be most may be at the one that is likely to be most provocative is the question of the be most provocative is the question of the future of the Un Convention on refugees. You say it needs to be modernised, are you saying that if that doesnt happen, the uk may consider that doesnt happen, the uk may consider withdrawing from that convention . My consider withdrawing from that convention . Consider withdrawing from that convention . G ,. , convention . My personal views on the echr have been convention . My personal views on the echr have been chronicled convention . My personal views on the echr have been chronicled and convention . My personal views on the echr have been chronicled and a convention . My personal views on the echr have been chronicled and a very| echr have been chronicled and a very clear part what i think is a legitimate question for all of us to be asking in the uk is whether it is operation and its interpretation by the court is compatible with our pressing need to control our borders and National Sovereignty. We have engineered and struck a Ground Breaking deal with rwanda, we believe that to be in compliance with our International Obligations and compatible with International Law frameworks. We havejust and compatible with International Law frameworks. We have just past the new legislation in the form of the new legislation in the form of the Illegal Migration bill, we consider that to be compliant. We are wanting to work within those frameworks and we are confident that we can achieve that but i do think legitimate questions need to be asked about the somewhat ill fitting nature of how these Outdated International models are sitting with the global migration crisis of the 21st century. H0 . . . With the global migration crisis of the 21stcentury. With the global migration crisis of the 21stcentury. How do you think about how those the 21stcentury. How do you think about how those models the 21stcentury. How do you think about how those models have the 21stcentury. How do you think i about how those models have become outdated . About how those models have become outdated . The words on the page of the un outdated . The words on the page of the Un Convention have not changed dramatically since the one protocol in the dramatically since the one protocol in the late dramatically since the one protocol in the late 1960s, and yet as you say, in the late 1960s, and yet as you say, the in the late 1960s, and yet as you say, the particle forms they have taken say, the particle forms they have taken and say, the particle forms they have taken and the actual practice of dealing taken and the actual practice of dealing with refugees all around the west and dealing with refugees all around the west and the world have changed dramatically, how has that happened and how dramatically, how has that happened and how would changing the words on the page and how would changing the words on the page address that problem . | the page address that problem . I think the page address that problem . Think a lot the page address that problem . I think a lot of the challenges we face are because of the jurisprudence, interpretation by courts. Add a more forward leaning an expansive approach taken by judiciaries around the world. So whether it is in the context of the echr, we can see article three, the prohibition against torture, or article eight, the right to family and private life, being stretched beyond all recognition to what the original intent of that convention was. In the context of the Refugee Convention, whether it is the definition of refugees as i set out in my speech, whether it is the definition of reform on travel. Those are big been subject to unforeseen and expansive interpretations by courts, added thatjurisprudence and case law has then imposed greater burdens, unsustainable burdens on governments around the world. If we unsustainable burdens on governments around the world. Around the world. If we can untangle to elements around the world. If we can untangle to elements of around the world. If we can untangle to elements of the around the world. If we can untangle to elements of the way around the world. If we can untangle to elements of the way that around the world. If we can untangle to elements of the way that you to elements of the way that you describe to elements of the way that you describe this in your remarks, the question describe this in your remarks, the question of describe this in your remarks, the question of National Sovereignty on the one question of National Sovereignty on the one hand and in the actual specific the one hand and in the actual specific content and substance of the treaty specific content and substance of the treaty commitments. You may know the treaty commitments. You may know the us the treaty commitments. You may know the us is the treaty commitments. You may know the us is not the treaty commitments. You may know the us is not an original signatory of the the us is not an original signatory of the un the us is not an original signatory of the Un Convention on refugees, the truman of the Un Convention on refugees, the Truman Administration decided that it the Truman Administration decided that it was the Truman Administration decided that it was too much of a violation of american that it was too much of a violation of american sovereignty and in the us Stayed Of American Sovereignty and in the us stayed out of the gd for 17 years us stayed out of the gd for 17 years. Untilthe us stayed out of the gd for 17 years. Until the late 1960s. The objection years. Until the late 1960s. The objection was a matter of sovereignty, they argued that the treaty sovereignty, they argued that the treaty would take Immigration Policy out of treaty would take Immigration Policy out of the treaty would take Immigration Policy out of the hands of the us government. The admin you are making seems government. The admin you are making seems to government. The admin you are making seems to be government. The admin you are making seems to be more that the specific substance seems to be more that the specific substance of the multilateral commitment is the problem, you do seem commitment is the problem, you do seem to commitment is the problem, you do seem to think there can be a multilateral way to deal with refugee issues, that there is a way for nations refugee issues, that there is a way for nations to agree on rules without for nations to agree on rules without losing control of their Immigration Policy, is that right . Multilateralism is the way to ultimately frame Refugee Policy . | ultimately frame Refugee Policy . I dont think these arm usually exclusive choices. There needs to be an International Level approach which is consistent and has an equitable approach in instilled throughout it, that is why i am calling for a renewed global conversation about the substance of some of these international conventions. And i believe that the nation state at its very concept and existence is dependent nationally elected governments which are held to account by the electorate, to take their own decisions unilaterally or bilaterally, in the way that we have done in the uk with our partnership with rwanda, or defining and rolling out particular and bespoke domestic legislation. What is the right definition of refugee . You put your finger on the problem refugee . You put your finger on the problem that there really are people who are problem that there really are people who are in problem that there really are people who are in danger, in a position that who are in danger, in a position that is who are in danger, in a position that is like who are in danger, in a position that is like the one these tds were intended that is like the one these tds were intended to address, there are also people intended to address, there are also people who are now covered by those definitions people who are now covered by those definitions that are not in that position. Definitions that are not in that position, if it were up to you or if the process position, if it were up to you or if the process you are calling for when to start, the process you are calling for when to start, what definition of refugee would to start, what definition of refugee would you to start, what definition of refugee would you think would work in the 21st century . Sis would you think would work in the fistcentury . Would you think would work in the 21stcentury . As i pointed out, the definition has 21stcentury . As i pointed out, the definition has expanded 21stcentury . As i pointed out, the definition has expanded beyond 21stcentury . As i pointed out, the i definition has expanded beyond what is a reasonable and sustainable approach. What we are saying in the uk at least, in the eu, economic migrants are falling under the umbrella of refugees. Whether through illegitimate claims being made to mask the fact that they economic migrants or otherwise. And we have seen in our case law at what has been played out in the courts a disproportionate allowance being made for economic migrants under the guise of asylum law. That line has been blurred. People are leaving a safe country like france, coming to the uk and claiming asylum on a face level interpretation of the text, that should not be allowed. But jurisprudence caselaw, practice, convention has built up over time to render that not the case. That is one very simple example of where. The existing definition. Yes, we do need to. Taste the existing definition. Yes, we do need ton the existing definition. Yes, we do need tom the existing definition. Yes, we do need to. We are going to come awa , do need to. We are going to come away. Having do need to. We are going to come away, having listened do need to. We are going to come away, having listened to do need to. We are going to come away, having listened to suella away, having listened to Suella Braverman saying in that speech in washington, arguing that a failure to control migration poses an existential challenge to the west. She described it as a permanent and structural challenge for developed nations, saying unless we act, it will only worsen in the years to come and finishing by aiming her thoughts at the Refugee Convention and talking about the need for reform leaving hanging what would happen if he was no reform. Some very clear views outlined by Suella Braverman, the uk Home Secretary, made in