UK-Rwanda Partnership

Question

The MP's question or point. Include their concern, local impact, or criticism. 2-4 sentences.

Question

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement. There is total chaos in the Government and the Conservative party... What kind of party have they become? And all of this for what? For a scheme that will likely cover less than 1% of the people who arrive in this country to claim asylum and will cost hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money...

Question

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement... Can he give us details of the assessments that have been made as to whether the disapplication of the Human Rights Act and other laws is robust, will stand up to the legal challenges and, ultimately, will ensure the delivery and the implementation of this policy to curb illegal migration?

Question

When the permanent secretary came before the Home Affairs Select Committee last week... Can the Home Secretary confirm today how much additional money will be provided to Rwanda in the light of the changes in the treaty, and whether he will update Parliament more often than once a year? If, for whatever reason, he is not able to attend, will the Home Secretary attend in his place?

Question

The Prime Minister said that he would not allow a foreign court to block his Rwanda plans... So can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explain why article 11(4)(a) of the treaty expressly requires Rwanda to enable migrants to make claims to that European Court?

Question

Critiques the Home Secretary for claiming Rwanda is safe when it contradicts his own treaty. Asks if human rights are universal or not, and questions the necessity of such legislation given its illiberal nature.

Question

Asks if provisions in the Bill are sufficient to resist individual challenges from those who might be sent to Rwanda, specifically about disapplication of rule 39.

Question

Points out human rights issues in Rwanda according to US State Department reports, questioning how the Home Secretary can judge it safe.

Question

Congratulates the Home Secretary for addressing illegal immigration, emphasising the moral imperative to break people smuggling business models.

Question

Asks about the potential impact on trade and co-operation agreements due to changes in judicial cooperation with the ECHR.

Question

Argues that most asylum seekers are young men seeking economic opportunities rather than fleeing persecution.

Question

Questions the Home Secretary's legal constraints imposed by President Kagame of Rwanda.

Question

Over the past few years, we have taken over half a million refugees from different parts of the world—women, children and others—from countries in extreme difficulties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we can stop people being trafficked across the channel in small boats, we may well be able to help more of those who are genuinely in the most danger?

Question

I want to know how much this shambles has cost the British taxpayer so far and how much it will continue to cost us. The treaty means that we would be obliged to support someone in Rwanda for up to five years. What estimate has the Home Secretary made, under the terms of the treaty, of how much it will cost to support just one person for the full five years?

Question

The UK-Rwanda partnership is a long-standing one. I first went to the country 15 years ago and have returned many times since, including when I was serving as Africa Minister. How many of the Opposition Members who are railing against the deal or the judges who have criticised the deal have been to the now Commonwealth country of Rwanda?

Question

I am afraid that I have heard nothing from the Home Secretary today that persuades me that the Rwanda policy is anything other than immoral, expensive and unworkable. Earlier today, his predecessor told the House that she believed that if the policy did not work, the Conservative party would face “electoral oblivion”. I wonder whether the Home Secretary accepts that it could be facing that situation because the policy is unworkable.

Question

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his commendable efforts to address a problem that is a major source of concern to all our constituents by concluding the treaty with Rwanda and publishing the Bill today. The Bill, as he will anticipate, will be closely scrutinised by colleagues, and I am sure he will be happy to answer questions, but could he assist me with one point? Clause 4(1)(b) specifically allows a court to consider an appeal on the grounds that…Rwanda is not a safe country for the person in question based on that individual’s particular circumstances. Can my right hon. Friend say why that clause was inserted in the Bill, and can he assure the House that it does not in any sense frustrate the Bill’s intent?

Question

Can the Home Secretary confirm that he went to Rwanda intending to get a treaty that went much further than he has been allowed to go, and that what stopped him was that the Rwandan Government refused to be party to a treaty that did not recognise international law and conventions? What does it say about taking back control when Rwanda is dictating his immigration policy?

Question

I thank the Home Secretary for his efforts to tackle a problem that is of great concern to my constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham, and I welcome the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty because many of my constituents have questioned how courts can tell us what to do. However, there is a provision, as he says, for individual claims. Can he tell me in what circumstances such an individual claim could expect to be successful, and how long that and the appeal process would be expected to take?

Question

The ECHR is fundamental to the operation of our Senedd in Wales. Has the Home Secretary taken full account of the danger that his proposals may deal a fatal blow to devolution as it is at present?

Question

The Home Secretary has delivered his deal with his typical efficiency and transparency, and that should be welcomed, but one key aspect of immigration policy is the fast processing of claims in this country. Will he outline the progress the Government have made in that regard, and can he tell me and the House how it goes hand in hand with the Rwanda policy?

Question

The Home Secretary has twice refused to answer the question of whether the Immigration Minister has resigned—but he has, hasn’t he? Has he resigned because he thinks that this policy does not stand an earthly chance of working, or has he resigned because he is embarrassed that a British Government would actually put Ministers above the law? In other words, has he resigned because he thinks this policy is crazy or because he does not think it is crazy enough?

Question

I echo the Home Secretary’s praise of the patience shown by Rwanda, whose integrity has been severely impugned by those who oppose the treaty. The Strasbourg Court recently said that it was going to reform rule 39 indications, acknowledging their weaknesses. There would not be anonymous judges giving rulings, they would only be used in extremis and the Government would be allowed to put their case to weigh up the evidence. Rule 39 indications did not form part of the original European convention on human rights in any case, so how confident is my right hon. Friend that challenges to Rwandan deportations will not now fall foul of rule 39 interim orders under the terms of the new treaty?

Question

The reality is that the Government are making a mockery of international law and playing with people’s lives. The Home Secretary referenced his plans to tackle illegal migration, but his plans for legal immigration are just as draconian. Doubling the minimum income requirement for family visas to £38,700, knowing full well that hundreds of thousands of families will be torn apart, is nothing less than calculated, vindictive and punitive. Is the Home Secretary really prepared to tear up international law and tear families apart just so that he can throw some red meat to his hard-right Tory Back Benchers?

Question

What is the Government's position on ensuring that asylum seekers are removed to Rwanda as quickly as possible?

Question

How does the Home Secretary reconcile the statement on the Bill with international law?

Question

What are the procedures for appeals and logistics concerning flights to Rwanda?

Question

Is the Attorney General satisfied that the Rwanda treaty complies with international law?

Question

Will the legislation enable the UK government to determine immigration policy free from judicial challenges?

Question

Has the Immigration Minister resigned over this Bill and was it known to the Home Secretary?

Question

If appeals can delay flights to Rwanda, what is the purpose of the legislation?

Question

How does the Home Secretary reconcile Rwanda's safety as a destination with its refugee-producing conditions?

Question

Is it necessary to review human rights laws given today's migration challenges?

Question

Why is there a need to override judicial powers in the Bill if Rwanda is deemed safe?

Question

Will there be opportunities for amendments to improve the Bill?

Question

Will costs associated with sending asylum seekers to Rwanda be disclosed before voting?

Question

Will my right hon Friend pay tribute to the Immigration Minister, who has apparently just resigned, and thank him for all the hard work he has put into trying to resolve these issues over several years, including working on this Bill? Does my right hon Friend feel that the Government will be inhibited in their implementing of the Bill by the absence of the Immigration Minister?

Question

From the point of view of those of us who believe in the rule of law, the separation of powers and the universality of human rights, there are at least three extraordinary things about what the Home Secretary has said this evening. First, he says that he does not have confidence in the domestic courts of the United Kingdom because they cannot always be relied upon to do what he wants them to do. Secondly, he says that he will replace the jurisdiction of the domestic courts of the United Kingdom with ministerial fiat in relation to interim measures passed by a court presiding over a treaty to which we are fully signatories. Thirdly, as Jonathan Sumption has said, it is extraordinary for the law to say that the facts are other than they are, and then to oust the jurisdiction of the courts from determining whether that is the case. It is not just extraordinary; it is also not compliant with article 6, and of course the European convention on human rights is part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, which the Home Secretary is not repealing.

Question

I have been listening carefully to the questions from Opposition Members, and there have been a good many references to human rights, but surely the ultimate human right is the right to life. Does the Home Secretary agree that once this legislation is passed and comes into effect, fewer people will go to a watery grave in the English channel?

Question

The deputy chair of the Conservative Party has said that the Government should just ignore the law and send people back anyway. Does the Home Secretary agree with the deputy chair of his party, and if he does, can he tell us when the Conservative party became the party that ripped up laws and supported disorder?

Question

Immigration is a complex, long-standing and developing challenge. I have listened carefully to the concerns, obstacles and different perspectives raised this evening through questions, and I have also noticed the confidence with which my right hon Friend has answered many of those questions. May I ask him to look ahead and say when he expects to be able to return to the House and declare the Bill a success?

Question

I am opposed to the entirety of the Bill on policy grounds, but as a Northern Ireland MP I have a particular duty to highlight the importance of the Human Rights Act to the Good Friday agreement especially in respect of policing and justice reform; to article 2 of the Windsor framework; and to the policing and justice chapter of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. May I ask the Home Secretary what steps his Department has taken to screen this policy and this Bill against all three of those?

Question

Rwandan Foreign Affairs Minister Biruta has said tonight: “Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.” Without lawful behaviour, Home Secretary? It is being reported in the press that the Rwandan Government are getting cold feet because this deal is too toxic for them. Is that the case?

Question

The Home Secretary wants us to take great comfort from the fact that the treaty with Rwanda will be binding in international law. Then, in the next page of his statement, he assures us that next week he will bring in legislation that will, in certain circumstances, make it a legal requirement for British courts to act contrary to that same international law. How can he expect Rwanda to comply with its treaty obligations when his Government will pick and choose what treaties they comply with and what treaties they tear up?

Question

The Home Secretary has used some choice language in this place, and in recent times he associated a particular favourite word of his to his own Government’s Rwanda policy. What specific changes have been made for him to become such a robust defender of it now?

Question

In her personal statement this afternoon, the former Home Secretary, the right hon and learned Member for Fareham said that she had been unable to obtain the support of other Government Departments for her preferred method of dealing with applicants for asylum. She said: “we must build Nightingale-style detention facilities to deliver the necessary capacity… The only way to do this…is with the support of the Ministry of Defence.” Russia is on manoeuvres, more than 20,000 British troops are being deployed across northern Europe next year, and the Conservative Government are seeking to shrink the Army to 73,000. Does the Home Secretary, who was the Foreign Secretary last month, think that our armed forces should be training for war or for kettling asylum seekers into camps?

Question

It is clear to the country that the Government are riven with division and chaos on this issue. Some still think that these plans are batshit, and some think that they do not go far enough, including the Immigration Minister, who has resigned.