Immigration and Asylum Bill - Clause dealing with Rwanda

Asked the Home Secretary about his view on the Australian model of offshoring detention centres, pointing out that Australia recently closed its offshore centre due to high financial and human costs.

Agreed with the Home Secretary's stance, stating that the Government should take all steps to ensure they remain within international law while dealing with illegal immigration. He also commented on colleagues who need to be careful about what they wish for.

Asked the Home Secretary about concerns regarding tensions between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, pointing out that Congolese President accused Rwandan President of being a Hitler-like figure.

Brought up EU Council Directive 2005/85/EC, which confers the right to remain in territory while a claim is being processed. He stated that this directive creates additional 'rights' in Northern Ireland that do not apply in Great Britain and frustrates the core intent of the Rwanda Bill.

Said it was clear in international law and constitutional doctrine that Parliament's enacted laws take precedence over international law, citing judgments by Lord Hoffmann and others.

Asked for clarification on the language of clause 1(5), which specifies that Rwanda is a safe country to remove persons in compliance with international law, emphasising that the UK cannot deem itself compliant with international law.

Questioned why the Bill was necessary if the treaty with Rwanda meets Supreme Court concerns and suggested it is causing problems within the parliamentary party.

Asked about the Government's deal with Rwanda, confirming £240 million had been given already with more planned for 2025 and 2026.

Asked the Home Secretary to share details of payments planned in years four and five of the programme with Rwanda, seeking more transparency.

Commented on the principle of comity within our constitution, questioning if stringent measures might test it to breaking point, while emphasising the importance of maintaining balance between sovereignty and judicial independence.

Critiques the bill for its high costs (£400 million), lack of effectiveness in ending small boat crossings or reducing asylum claims, undermining compliance with international law, and failure to address the root causes such as strengthening border security and tackling criminal gangs. Argues for a better use of resources to clear the backlog and end hotel usage.

Corrected points made by Geoffrey Cox about Labour's approach to immigration, stating that the Government is already implementing many of the measures listed and highlighting the importance of addressing incentives for people traffickers through Rwanda.

Called for interventions to be brief and noted that those who intervene should remain for the rest of the speech, highlighting issues with some Members leaving after interjections.

Argued against the bill's assertion that Rwanda is safe, stating it undermines parliamentary sovereignty within a functioning legal system and constitutional framework. She emphasised the importance of allowing courts to interpret law.

Agreed with Robert Jenrick's stance, emphasising the divide between those who believe international law trumps parliamentary sovereignty and those who see the supremacy of this place derived from the people.

Asked John Hayes to explain how the will of the British people is expressed within European human rights frameworks, questioning the validity of his argument.

Questioned Robert Jenrick's record on immigration as a Minister and highlighted Labour’s previous successes in managing returns of individuals, challenging his assertion that Labour would lead to an increase in small boat arrivals.

Called for a fair assessment of Labour's immigration policies and criticised Robert Jenrick’s portrayal, pointing out that his government has made significant progress but questioned the effectiveness and ethical implications of the Rwanda scheme.

Ms. Thewliss criticises previous immigration policies that have led to the Windrush scandal and other issues. She highlights specific cases of constituents who are unable to reunite with family members due to closed visa application centres or conflict zones, arguing that there is no safe and legal route for them. She also raises concerns about the government's international obligations and the legality of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Mr. Corbyn interjects to support Ms. Thewliss, stating that walking away from international law will not protect those in need and sends a negative message to the world about UK’s commitment.

Argued that the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and international law is clear, citing rulings by Lord Denning, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Bingham and Lord Reed which he believes contradict claims made in debate. Asked if Joanna Cherry was familiar with these rulings.

Responded that the UK Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and cited the Miller case as an example where the Supreme Court ruled Parliament cannot legislate its way out of international obligations. Emphasised distinction between domestic law and international legal obligations.

Introduced a time limit for speeches due to the number of speakers present.

Cited recent cases and rulings from the House of Lords Constitution Committee, as well as the Supreme Court's judgment in the Rwanda case, asserting that parliamentary sovereignty trumps international law. Referred to a specific claimant whose case was dismissed by the Supreme Court on grounds related to parliamentary sovereignty.

Johnson expresses concern over the lack of clear evidence that the Rwanda policy will act as a deterrent to small boat crossings. She highlights the Home Affairs Committee's findings which suggest that there is no silver bullet to end such crossings and that the policy lacks a clear evidence base and full costings. Johnson also points out the difficulty in obtaining financial details from the Government regarding the costs associated with the Rwanda scheme.

MP Roger Gale briefly intervenes to address time constraints and informs that subsequent speakers will have a reduced speaking time of six minutes.

The Government's approach to asylum seekers and refugees is flawed due to their failure in creating capacity within public services, mismanaging economic affairs, and careless international relations. George argues that the country’s capacity to admit migrants should be determined by considering public service and economic capacities, emphasising skills shortages affecting health, housing, and other sectors. He also points out severe issues such as the NHS waiting list increase, housing crisis, poor school capacity, and stagnant GDP growth. The speech concludes with criticism of the Conservative Party's inability to govern coherently.

Despite reservations, Bob supports the Bill due to its necessity in addressing an urgent situation. He acknowledges that operational solutions are crucial alongside legislation but is cautious about constitutional constraints. The speech emphasises the need for international law compliance and individual rights protection while highlighting specific clauses he finds problematic.

The Bill will not work, as it is unlikely to deter people from crossing the English Channel. It will lead to legal challenges which will be adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights, creating chaos and expense. The Bill seeks to reverse a finding of fact by the Supreme Court through clause 2, declaring Rwanda safe regardless of reality. This contradicts the rule of law as it puts Ministers above judicial oversight, undermining human rights and international legal norms.

Acknowledges the principle of checks and balances within the UK constitution but argues that the Government must use its sovereignty responsibly. Emphasises the emergency faced by illegal migration, stating the Bill seeks a balance between the will of Parliament and judicial oversight. Highlights the importance of comity between constitutional arms. Urges caution in amending the Bill to avoid inviting disaster from the courts.

Critiques the reliance on safe countries list introduced by the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004, noting opposition from Conservative party at that time. Argues that safe and legal routes are effective in preventing small boat crossings from Ukraine and Hong Kong. Expresses concern about the moral implications of passing asylum responsibilities to another country, advocating against isolationism.

Defends the partnership with Rwanda as world-leading and innovative for tackling mass migration challenges. Highlights successful resettlement efforts by Rwanda and emphasises moral imperative to address people smuggling trade. Acknowledges legal challenges but stresses soundness of principles. Urges implementation of measures from Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including one-stop shop, to save court time. Calls for faster processing and removal of individuals without right to stay.

She argued that designating Rwanda as a safe country is contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling and undermines the rule of law. She highlighted that the policy affects less than 1% of asylum seekers arriving in the UK, questioning its effectiveness as a deterrent. Maria Eagle criticised the government for prioritising political gimmicks over effective administration and suggested reallocating resources to address the actual issues.

He supported the Government's policy, stating that constituents want action on illegal migration. Conor Burns provided historical context showing both parties have made promises regarding immigration control but failed to deliver. He emphasised the need for decisive action and unity in addressing the issue. He cited local examples to illustrate the urgency of tackling illegal migration effectively.

Supports the Bill's aim to deter illegal migration but questions its effectiveness. Suggests significant amendments are needed to make it watertight and proposes that the Government should be open to these changes.

Ms. Creasy argues that the Bill breaches international law, specifically article 13 of the ECHR which requires member states to provide effective remedies for human rights infringements. She cites legal challenges and financial costs associated with the Rwanda programme as reasons against it.

Mr. Kruger supports the Bill's objectives but raises concerns about its practical operation and legal challenges, particularly regarding international law supremacy over domestic law. He suggests that further improvements are needed to ensure parliamentary sovereignty.

Supports the deterrence policy despite personal reservations. Argues for a fair asylum system alongside hard deterrence, citing international context and necessity of breaking criminal trafficking trade models.

Argues against negative perceptions of immigration and criticises the Government's migration policy, highlighting three main issues: backlog in asylum applications due to lack of resources, substandard accommodation for asylum seekers, and illegal boat crossings. Emphasises that legal routes should be available to prevent trafficking.

Supports efforts to reduce small boat crossings and improve asylum processes, suggesting cross-channel diplomacy with France instead of Rwanda and advocating for a modernised international law on migration. Stresses the need to stop dangerous journeys and prevent crime caused by illegal people-smuggling networks.

The bill is a new low for the Conservative government, seeking to legislate despite evidence that Rwanda is not safe. He criticises the overpromising on immigration by the Conservatives and their inability to stop boats crossing the channel. Efford argues that Rwanda has received £400 million but has taken no asylum seekers, raising questions about the effectiveness of the policy. He also highlights that the number of places available in Rwanda is very small (100-200 per year), questioning its deterrent effect. Furthermore, he accuses the Conservatives of ignoring international laws and conventions while Rwanda abides by them.

[INTERVENTION] - Asks Clive Efford if he agrees that the Rwandan authorities have hoodwinked the UN as well.

[INTERVENTION] - Asks Clive Efford for his reflections on Labour's policy or absence thereof.

Supports the Bill, recognising it as one of several tools to stop boats and break criminal gangs. Emphasises that while she is not an enthusiastic supporter of the Rwanda policy, it can provide a deterrent. She stresses the importance of returns agreements in stopping the trade. Doyle-Price criticises Conservative Members for falling out over small elements of policy and warns them against giving Opposition victory tonight.

The Bill's objective is supported, but it does not adequately address illegal immigration issues due to its flaws and constraints. The speaker emphasises that Northern Ireland is significantly affected by illegal immigration and highlights how the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights impacts the effectiveness of the bill in Northern Ireland. He argues that without addressing this charter, Northern Ireland will remain a gateway for illegal immigrants who can use legal arguments under EU law.

Mr. Leigh supports clause 2 of the Nationality and Borders Bill due to its potential effectiveness in reducing illegal migration, despite legal hurdles such as ECHR constraints. He cited examples like the situation at RAF Scampton and highlighted public dissatisfaction with current immigration policies.

Mr. Kevan Jones argued against clause 2, criticising it as a step towards dictatorial parliamentary democracy that disregards evidence and international treaties. He warned about wasting public money on ineffective solutions and damaging Britain's international reputation.

Supports tackling illegal immigration to protect borders, upholding moral duty towards refugees. Criticises opposition to government efforts by Labour, legal system, and criminal gangs. Advocates for fair approach through safe routes while condemning judicial activism over human rights treaties.

Opposes the Bill for breaching international law, undermining rule of law, and stripping individual legal protections. Argues that it exacerbates issues in asylum system and does not provide solutions to real problems faced by public services. Criticises lack of focus on targeting people traffickers and providing safe routes.

Intervened to correct language used in debate, ensuring accurate reporting of terms such as 'crass'.

Supports the Rwanda policy as part of a deterrent strategy against illegal immigration. Argues that while it is not perfect, it addresses unique circumstances faced in the English Channel by acting as a deterrent to criminal gangs and migrants. Emphasises the importance of legal safeguards in the Bill and the need for cost-effective measures to manage public resources efficiently. Highlights improvements made by the Home Office and local authority collaborations.

Critiques the Bill as a retaliatory measure against the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing it undermines international treaties and conventions. Expresses concerns about the cost and effectiveness of the policy, questioning its compliance with human rights standards. Points out that Rwanda is not proven to be a safe country for refugees and questions the legality of excluding Rwandan nationals from the scope of the Bill.

Welcomes the Bill but expresses discomfort with its proximity to breaching international law. Argues for a balanced approach that maintains diplomatic relationships and achieves tangible results. Emphasises the need for a practical solution rather than an idealistic one, advocating for support of the Bill despite reservations.

Critiques the Government's approach as dysfunctional, highlighting long asylum application wait times and inadequate support for refugees. Expresses concern over international obligations and human rights issues, particularly regarding LGBT individuals in Rwanda. Advocates for addressing root causes of migration through better international cooperation rather than punitive measures.

Nicholas Fletcher argues that Doncaster is full and expresses concerns about illegal immigration turning neighbourhoods into ghettos. He criticises the impact of high immigration on local services, housing, and community safety. Fletcher supports the bill for controlling immigration and stopping boats carrying immigrants.

Joanna Cherry criticises the Bill as akin to Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech, arguing it undermines human rights and international law. She emphasises that independent legal advice shows the Bill breaches international obligations such as the refugee convention. Cherry also highlights alternatives like creating safe routes for asylum seekers.

Mr. Daly supports the Rwanda policy, arguing that it reflects public opinion and addresses illegal immigration. He cites his experience in Calais to challenge claims about UK's treatment of migrants and argues that many come for economic reasons rather than persecution. He believes the policy should be legally robust despite rule 39 injunctions.

Ms. Nici supports Mr. Daly's position, arguing that France and other safe countries provide asylum options, and migrants choosing to cross the Channel illegally are making a deliberate choice rather than being coerced.

Mr. Shanks criticises the government's attempt to define facts that are not so, and expresses concern over the moral implications of the bill, which he believes does not address the root causes of illegal immigration or provide a genuine solution. He highlights Home Office statistics showing that 6 out of 10 individuals crossing the channel will be recognised as refugees through asylum processes, questioning how the clause can serve as a deterrent.

Mr. Mayhew argues that the bill is supported by constituents who want effective control over illegal migration. He mentions the effectiveness of previous measures such as bilateral agreements with Albania, increased co-operation with France, and upstream destruction of equipment used for crossing the channel. Mr. Mayhew emphasises that the Rwanda clause is part of a suite of policies to deter illegal immigration and respects international treaties preventing refoulement.

Critiques the Bill for being absurd, dehumanising immigrants, and failing to address real issues. Highlights Rwanda's lack of action despite receiving funds from the UK Government.

Defends the Bill as necessary due to challenges in returning asylum seekers to their home countries or safe alternatives. Emphasises that the treaty with Rwanda guarantees against refoulement and thus makes it safe for transfers.

Ms. Hillier criticises the Government for implementing a poorly conceived policy aimed at deterring boat arrivals, stating it has not been proven to be effective and highlights numerous flaws in the scheme. She emphasises that the current approach is causing chaos within the asylum system due to a backlog of cases and argues that proper policy-making should involve ensuring a policy works before announcing it publicly. Hillier also points out financial scrutiny issues with the Home Office, particularly regarding transparency on funding for Rwanda.

Mr. Baker supports the Bill, arguing that a country must protect its borders and that illegal migration is rising across Europe while UK numbers are down by a third due to current measures. He emphasises the need for a multifaceted approach including deterrents and highlights potential cost savings from preventing high levels of illegal immigration.

The Bill will not work because of internal contradictions. If Rwanda is deemed safe and desirable, deportation there cannot be a deterrent. He questions the success of Brexit, Britain's soft power status, and other unrealistic claims made by the Government.

Emphasised that Africa faces significant challenges leading to migration. Criticised Opposition for not offering constructive alternatives. Believes the Bill will act as a deterrent and is supported by precedents from previous Governments' actions. Rejected Labour's assertion that it won't work.

Asserted that Rwanda is not a safe country, questioned the effectiveness of the Bill in addressing the immigration backlog. Suggested the policy is a distraction from Government failures and lacks practicality.

Opposes the Bill, citing moral objections to its language and practical objections to its inefficacy. Argues that it will not work as a deterrent and diverts funding from essential areas such as health services and social care.

Supports the reasoned amendment as it highlights that the bill does nothing to make Rwanda safe for refugees, instead asserting this fact while prohibiting courts from disagreeing. Criticises the policy's origin and motives, pointing out that it was a diversionary tactic during a scandal but continues to be used to maintain political support despite clear evidence of its failure. Also mentions the financial implications, noting the £400 million cost without tangible benefits.

Intervened to question whether the policy is a guise for international development funding, suggesting that the Government's dislike of such spending might be driving this specific targeting of Rwanda with significant financial aid (£140 million or £200 million).

Supports the Bill, arguing that it is necessary to address concerns raised by the Supreme Court and ensures legal certainty. Emphasises the moral imperative of stopping boats carrying vulnerable individuals across dangerous shipping lanes. Addresses concerns about spurious claims being made for unfit-to-fly status.

Requests clarification on the number of people who will be deported to Rwanda under the Bill. This implies opposition as it seeks more details about a controversial aspect of the legislation.

Suggests that there should be an opportunity for formal amendment to the Bill's long title and scope, indicating support by proposing procedural changes to enable better consideration of amendments.

Acknowledges that the Minister has addressed certain points in his speech but requests further legal advice updates to address lingering concerns, indicating ongoing opposition and a need for reassurance.

Challenges the Minister's assertion by pointing out divisions within the Conservative party regarding support for the Bill, indicating clear opposition and highlighting internal disagreements.

Requests an intervention from the Minister to further address concerns about the Bill's implications and its reception among Conservative MPs, indicating continued opposition.