Migration and Economic Development

Question

Does the Minister accept that this policy is a distraction from dealing with the real issues, such as crime in Dover and smuggling gangs? How does she propose to tackle these problems?

Question

Given the recent court decision, will the Home Secretary provide detailed information on how many asylum seekers are likely to be sent to Rwanda next year?

Question

The shadow criticises the Government for failing to stop criminal gangs from putting lives at risk along UK borders and failing to prosecute or convict gang members. She highlights flaws in Home Office decision-making such as mixing up evidence, confusion between teams, and ignoring evidence of torture and trafficking. The shadow requests details on how many people are expected to be sent to Rwanda next year, the full cost of the scheme, and why an investigation was not conducted into the terms of the Rwanda-Israel agreement.

Question

Although the High Court ruled that the Rwanda policy is lawful, there were only eight asylum claimants whose cases have been set aside due to improper consideration. With over 160,000 individual cases outstanding, the MP questions whether it is essential to apply the 'notwithstanding' formula to new legislation to distinguish between genuine refugees and illegal economic migrants, assert UK parliamentary sovereignty, and deal comprehensively with the current backlog of asylum cases.

Question

The SNP Member criticised the Home Secretary's Rwanda policy, calling it 'wrong in principle and unworkable in practice.' She questioned how the Government will now approach cases of those who challenged the policy, the fate of those issued with notices of intent, and expressed doubts about the deterrent effect of the scheme. The shadow also pointed out that the policy is akin to state-sponsored people trafficking and asked for a detailed cost breakdown.

Question

The Member questioned the legitimacy of an injunction issued by a Russian judge and asked if it could stand.

Question

The Member criticised the Home Secretary's policy as vile and brutal, asking if she could show humanity towards desperate individuals who are victims of wars, environmental change, and human rights abuse.

Question

The Member suggested detaining individuals who arrive irregularly or illegally until their asylum application is dealt with as a way to deter migration.

Question

The Member questioned the cost-effectiveness of the scheme and asked for the Home Secretary to publish all costs spent so far.

Question

The Member welcomed the High Court judgment and questioned if it was better to keep people safe in France rather than removing them to Rwanda.

Question

The Member asked if children and those looking after them would be deported to Rwanda, seeking a clear confirmation.

Question

The Member spoke about his visit to Hope hostel in Kigali and expressed hope that refugees would obtain jobs and move out, asking if the policy is humane.

Question

The MP is frustrated with the Home Secretary's response and suggests focusing on stopping dangerous crossings, tackling smugglers and trafficking by providing more safe and legal routes for refugees. She emphasises dealing with issues at source to prevent such crossings.

Question

The MP welcomes today's judgment and asks if legislation can include a 'notwithstanding' clause to ensure the Government can prevent further loss of human life in the English channel.

Question

The MP asks if leaving the European convention on human rights is possible without breaking commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Question

Will the trade in small boats continue if more safe and legal routes are made available?

Question

The MP asks for assurance that individuals arriving on Dover's shores to claim asylum in order to join a family member will not be expelled to Rwanda.

Question

The MP inquires about the speed of processing cases and requests assurance that staffing issues are being addressed.

Question

The MP criticises the Government's policy as ineffective and lacks public support. She asks for an end to the policy, provision of safe legal routes, and adherence to international agreements.

Question

The MP inquires about timescales for implementing the Rwanda policy following today's ruling. He asks if agreements with other countries will be delayed similarly.

Question

The MP cautions against getting overexcited about a first-instance decision and asks if the Home Secretary will legislate her way out of international treaty obligations.

Question

The MP inquires about the duration of further judicial delays and when relocation flights will take off.

Question

The right hon. and learned Lady tries very hard to find a way forward and a solution, which I acknowledge, and I defer to the High Court ruling. I say with great respect to the right hon. and learned Lady that, clearly, we have a duty of care. Along with many others in this House and in the nation, I do not believe that the scheme fulfils our moral obligation. Should other ways of dealing with the situation be identified, such as better regulation of the English channel, better processes in France or more acceptable ways of migration, will it be reconsidered? There has to be a more compassionate approach.

Question

As the Home Secretary knows, Stoke-on-Trent has already done more than its fair share, and this has put huge pressure on our local public services, so does she agree that it is really important that we now get on with delivering this policy and get on with those flights as soon as possible?

Question

It is the super-rich and those on luxury yachts, not small boats, that people should be scared of. Asylum seekers are people just like us; they have hopes, dreams and aspirations. This policy could be legally sound but it is immoral and a waste of taxpayers’ money. This cruel Government should be ashamed of themselves. The Home Secretary said in her statement: “This judgment thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership…It is what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to happen.” Of course, the Rwanda partnership was not in the Tory manifesto, so can she evidence this support from people across all four nations wanting the Rwanda deal? Scotland certainly does not, and Scotland will continue to reject these xenophobic policies.

Question

I welcome the judgment today that confirms that the Government’s policy is legal and will be a step forward to implementing what the Prime Minister said last week. The Home Secretary is right to say that we need to break the business model of the people smugglers. Does she agree that it is not enough just to go after the supply, even though those people are immoral and parasitic, and that we also need to destroy the demand for these journeys in the first place? The way we will achieve that is by making it clear that those that come by boat will not be allowed to stay in this country. That is what worked in Australia, and that is what will work here.

Question

If every country took this Government’s approach, this Rwanda approach, the countries that already host the overwhelming majority of refugees—the Jordans, the Lebanons, the Pakistans and the Ugandas of this world; the first countries—would be required to host all of them, while wealthy western countries such as the United Kingdom could pick and choose if and when they wanted to help out. What this Government are arguing for is an end to the international system of refugee protection, is it not?

Question

I welcome the statement today and the judgment, but will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that she will continue to use every tool in her power to stop these boats? As we can see, the Opposition and the human rights lawyers will try to stop the good work that the Secretary of State is doing, but the people of Doncaster are tired of been taken advantage of by these illegal immigrants. Will she confirm that she will continue to use every power that she has?

Question

How many of the people who were pulled from the channel last week does the Home Secretary think should be sent to Rwanda?

Question

The High Court found that the Home Office has to consider an asylum seeker’s particular circumstances before deporting them to Rwanda. Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that this defeats the scheme’s original purpose, which was to have applications assessed in Rwanda under Rwandan law? As such, will she reconsider?