-
Asked for confirmation that the Bill does not breach international law if passed.
-
Requested clarity on why the Home Secretary stated there would be no breaches of international law.
-
Sought assurance that a system will be in place to monitor the bill's success regularly if it is passed.
-
Supported the Albania agreement but questioned the effectiveness of returns for Albanian migrants, noting only 5% have been returned.
-
Cooper criticises the UK government for failing to protect borders and complying with international law. She points out that the Rwanda scheme has cost £400 million without sending any asylum seekers there, while backlogs in border security increase and criminal gangs take hold. She also mentions that Home Secretaries have criticised the policy and suggests alternatives such as setting up a new returns and enforcement unit to tackle illegal immigration.
-
Jenrick questions Cooper's previous stance on offshore processing schemes, suggesting that she supported a similar policy anonymously but now opposes it in public.
-
Cash expresses concern about the legal challenges the Bill may face due to its lack of comprehensive and unambiguous language. He believes that if the Act is not clear enough, it will lead to claims in the Supreme Court and potentially breach international law.
-
Thewliss argues against the Bill on grounds of legality and human rights. She states that it breaches international refugee laws and undermines public servants by asking them to engage in a fantasy of safety through legislation. She also criticises the government for failing to provide alternative support for asylum seekers not sent to Rwanda.
-
He emphasised the need for deterrence in dealing with illegal immigration, criticising Labour's approach as an 'intellectual vacuum'. He supported the Bill’s aim to curb people smuggling and protect human rights. He argued that France also disregards the ECHR when it suits them, and highlighted the importance of passing this legislation now before another opportunity is missed.
-
She condemned the use of misogynistic language and expressed concern about attacks on the European Court of Human Rights. She argued that the Bill is unaffordable, unworkable, and unlawful, citing spiralling costs and a failure to address root causes of migration. Anderson proposed Labour’s alternative plan which includes clearing backlogs, ending hotel usage for asylum seekers, and improving enforcement.
-
She criticised Labour's opposition to the previous Illegal Migration Act and highlighted the need for Parliament to address the specific issue of Rwanda as per the Supreme Court ruling. She urged her colleagues to support the Bill to ensure a fair legal migration system, emphasising that when people go to Rwanda, they will be treated fairly.
-
The amendment is criticised for its lack of effectiveness, high cost, and potential to increase the number of trafficking victims. The speaker also argues that the Government's proposal is a misrepresentation of public opinion and undermines Britain’s reputation as a safe haven for refugees.
-
The speaker supports the Bill but believes it needs improvements. He emphasises the need to control borders effectively and criticises opposition parties for not supporting measures to stop illegal immigration.
-
The speaker argues that the Bill is financially irresponsible, citing high costs compared to funding for child sexual abuse cases. She also highlights the potential harm to victims of human trafficking if the amendment passes.
-
He criticises the Bill for failing to consider human suffering of asylum seekers and calls it an 'appalling piece of legislation'. He highlights that refugees are victims of war, poverty, and human rights abuse. Corbyn argues against offshoring obligations under international law and criticises the Government's approach as playing into racist narratives about refugees.
-
Bryant opposes the Bill for four main reasons: it will not work, it is based on exaggerations and misconceptions, it places Ministers above the law, and it undermines international human rights obligations. He argues that the Bill is a false promise and wastes money, while also criticising the Government's claim to be a servant of the law.
-
Grady argues that no one actually wants the current Bill. He notes opposition from various factions within the Tory party, the official Opposition, and the SNP. He emphasises the moral and legal issues of offshoring asylum seekers to Rwanda, questioning the policy's effectiveness and ethical implications.