Home secretary, it's good to see you. Congratulations. Thank you, Kay. Thank you for taking the time to join us. Supreme Court says Rwanda isn't a safe country. Can you in all conscience pass a law to say it is?

Well, the UNHCR, so the United Nations Own Organization for the Management of Refugees, has a relationship with Rwanda. Rwanda has hosted refugees on behalf of the UN. The UN has said they have a positive relationship with Rwanda, and Rwanda is effective in the hosting of those refugees, so it's good enough for the United Nations.

We have- If we go into what the UNHCR does there. They basically train people to drive, teach them to drive or whatever, and then they bring them to other European countries. They don't leave them there. They don't really use.

That as an example. But the point is the UN have a good working relationship with Rwanda. We have a very professional working relationship with the Rwandan government. Obviously, the outcome yesterday was one that we knew could happen. We'd started doing some planning around what would happen if that was the verdict from the Supreme Court judges. We've been working on this for over a year. We have a memorandum of understanding with the Rwandan government, which we're going to upgrade to a treaty which is legally binding to make sure we address the specific points. I know there was a lot of talk in that judgment, and it's a 54-page judgment, but it boils down to a number of small number of very, very important points which were already in the process of addressing. The non-reformant, which is a technical term for basically saying a country mustn't redeport someone to a dangerous country. And we're working- How often are.

They doing they do?

We're working on a legally binding treaty so that they don't, so that they can't.

How will you monitor it?

Well, we already have British officials in Rwanda. We have a fantastic team in the High Commission there, including Home Office officials. We've had a long-standing relationship with them. They want to work with us. They value the relationship they have with us.

They listen- And the money the 40.

Million quid we've given them. Yeah, and look. The point is border control is not free, it's never been free. Whether you do it here in the UK or with partners internationally, it has never been free. But the point is it is working, it is effective. Small boat numbers are down, returns to countries are up. We are bucking the trend compared with other countries around Europe.

Shadow Home Secretary has gone on the record to say that you said to her that the government's Rwanda policy was batched.

Well, look, I don't recognize that phrase. The point that I've made and the point I make at the dispatch 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.

Yes, they are. Why do we need to send people to Rwanda if the.

Numbers are down? Because it is important- down by a third. They are down by the third. But we have promised to stop the boats. The Rwanda policy is an important part. It's only one part, but it is an important part- That isn't working. -of a series of plans which are working. And actually-But that part isn't working. No, funnily enough, it is. The deterrent effect of Rwanda is already having an effect in the thinking of the people smugglers. Because we know, we interview people when they get here, we know that the Rwanda scheme is talked about amongst the people smugglers and about the people who would put their lives and money in the hands of those people smugglers, and we know it has a deterrent effect. Now, when those flights take off, it will have an even stronger deterrent effect.

When is that going to happen?

Well, we are working- I know you.

Said you wouldn't say yesterday.

What I don't want to do is I don't want to pick a date where I can't give that degree of certainty. But what I can say is we've been working on this MOU, memorandum of understanding for well over a year. It is ready pretty much now to turn into a treaty that can be done within days, not weeks or months, days. The legislation can go through the House quickly, and I hope- But what about the House of Lords? Well, the House of Lords should recognize that it is an absolute priority of the British people, and I think their Lordships, they are thoughtful people. I think their Lordships will recognize that the British people, particularly in the poorer communities are the ones who are under most pressure from illegal migration. They should recognize that poor and vulnerable people around the world are being raped, sometimes murdered, robbed by these people smugglers. There is nothing humane allowing this evil trade to continue. I have no doubt their Lordships would want to do everything that they can to break the business model of those people smugglers.

We stay within the ECHR, set up in 1951 to make sure that people are protected from torture, slavery, and killing. What do you want to do about the ECHR? Because I was just looking at lunchtime yesterday, you said we're not going to leave. Then three hours later, the Prime Minister said we were going to.

We might have to. Precision of language is key. That's why I corrected myself. Yeah, and you're absolutely right to do so. The point that we should make, we helped set it up. It's one of these post-war institutions? We help set it up. But institutions sometimes need to reform. When I was in my old job, Foreign Secretary, I gave a major speech on the need to reform those post-war institutions. Actually, this news got lost on Monday because there's a lot going on on Monday, but the Strasberg court, the ECHR, actually changed some of its procedures as a direct response of the UK's call to do so on this very issue. It got lost in the reshuffle news, but the point is that we listen to the Supreme Court judgment.

We're not mixing up the ECHR and the European Convention, are we?

No. But the point being, the Supreme Court judges yesterday told us what we needed to fix to make our policy completely lawful. There was many elements of it which they said were fine, lawful. The concept of a third country doing our asylum claims has already been found to.

Be lawful. We also said Rwanda isn't safe.

But the judgment is very specific. The judgment was very specific about non-reformant, and we are addressing the judgment. That is the point of law that needs to be addressed.

I want to go back to the ECHR, if I may. I mean, the only countries that have ever left are because of coups and war. Why would we leave?

Well, look, again, we don't think we're going to need to. We don't think that is a point that will come up. So we're not going to leave. A couple of things. Firstly, we're dealing with the specific points that the Lordship has made in the Supreme Court judgment, point one. Point two, we have already seen that the ECHR is willing to reform because of the work that we're doing. But the Prime Minister is clear we are not going to be deterred from doing the right thing. And the right thing is protecting our borders, protecting those communities who are most under pressure through illegal migration, protecting the illegal migrants themselves because we have safe and legal routes. We want people to use those and not put themselves in the hands of these people smugglers.

I was reading a book actually that a lady had written about about Rwanda, and she said that it was seen as a Switzerland of East Africa, but its underbelly is anything but.

Well, I don't know the specific quote. There you go. And I will Okay. I'm not familiar with her work. I'm not going to debate that. Look, Rwanda is a country that has gone through miraculous transformation.

It had- Since it's genocide in the early 90s.

Yes, it absolutely did. Like a lot of countries, it has been on a lightning-fast reform program. I'm not suggesting the author that you're quoting does this, but I have detected basically some very lazy attitude because it is an African country, to be perfectly honest with you. I'm not suggesting that you're the author of doing this, but I'm telling you, and you can put a face, Kay. -yeah, I'm there. I am. I'm telling you.

That some people- The Supreme Court says it's not safe. -but some people- Why are they wrong and you're right?

But some people, when the idea of someone going to Africa is mentioned, it's all a little bit difficult and distateful.

The Supreme Court says that Rwanda is.

Not safe. No, no, the Supreme Court's decision, and that's what we're based on, the Supreme Court's decision, we are addressing. And as I say, the UNHCR works with Rwanda. They have a relationship with Rwanda, which is actually not as legally strong as the treaty that we're going to be signing.

With Rwanda. Will the flights go by the spring?

We are absolutely determined to get the flights. The precise dates will depend on a number of things. We're absolutely determined to get these flights, to have that deterrent effect, to have another string to our bow on what is actually, when it comes to attacking illegal migration, one of Europe's success story countries.

That's us. We're out of time. Just what was your top tip to Lord Cameron?

Drink water on the airplanes, try and get as much sleep as you can.

Very good. Thank you very much indeed for joining us.