Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Mr. Jenrick proposed an amendment to ensure full disapplication of Human Rights Act provisions for removals to Rwanda under both this Bill and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, including a ban on sections 4 and 10.

Edward Leigh supports the amendment, citing legal principles and established opinions that suggest judges were acting ultra vires in 2022 when they issued interim measures. He argues that it is within the Government's rights to ignore such measures.

Imran Hussain criticises Edward Leigh for disregarding international law and the Human Rights Act, suggesting that the Bill flouts these principles to harm vulnerable individuals.

Asks if Edward Leigh's position extends beyond UK application of ECHR or suggests scrapping it entirely due to perceived inefficiencies.

Supports the amendment, emphasising parliamentary sovereignty while acknowledging international agreements' significance. He cites historical legal authorities supporting parliament's supreme authority.

Questions whether the Government always acts correctly, citing low rates of interim measure grants by the Strasbourg Court and arguing for legal challenge mechanisms to prevent irrevocable harm.

Argues that under the scheme of the convention, failure to comply with interim measures amounts to a breach of Article 34 and questions the legal basis for ignoring such measures.

The Bill is unaffordable, unworkable and unlawful. Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda will not deter people from crossing the Channel; it is a waste of resources and goes against international agreements. The Government's plan is shambolic and impractical. The Prime Minister's decision to fast-track cases through courts disregards the current backlog in the justice system.

Asked whether it was right for a Strasbourg judge to impose an injunction without giving the British Government the chance to make their case.

Pressed the shadow Minister on whether, given that this is the last Session of Parliament and the Bill will likely pass unless Labour opposes it further, they should reconsider their stance.

Agreed with the shadow Minister that the Bill is an attempt to flout international human rights law and questioned its legitimacy based on this.

Stressed the importance of deterrence in tackling illegal immigration. Asked whether safe routes for legal immigration should be capped and at what level.

Agreed with the shadow Minister on the need for cooperation but stressed that deterrence is a key part of any effective policy.

Asked how many immigrants would be needed through safe and legal routes to address the problem, suggesting that without a deterrent, excess numbers would come by boat.

Asked whether Labour opposes reform of rule 39 interim measures despite other signatories to the ECHR working on this issue.

Argued that involving courts in decision making was envisaged from the start of the European convention on human rights, highlighting its importance as a check and balance. Cited international obligations to support her stance.

Clarified debate procedures: interventions should only be made by those present from the start of relevant speeches; prioritised speakers with amendments on the selection list; explained that clause stand part debates can range slightly more widely than normal but not as extensively as a Third Reading.

Wright raises concerns that the Bill could undermine the principles of international law by allowing the UK to unilaterally declare compliance with its obligations, potentially setting a dangerous precedent. He believes the language in the Bill is unnecessary and could send a misleading political signal.

Hayes questions why the Government seeks legal advice on compliance with international law if it does not determine such compliance. He implicitly supports the necessity of deeming compliance in some form.

Creasy expresses concern over the Government's legal advice and questions its consistency with standing up for the rule of law, suggesting it creates a contradictory situation.

Cash draws an analogy between the current Bill's provisions and those under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, suggesting that previous similar deeming provisions were also considered acceptable.

Mr Cash interjects positively on Ms Cherry's notwithstanding clause for Scotland, expressing gladness at the proposal.

Mr Hayes responds to Ms Cherry by arguing that the Bill is not an exercise of arbitrary power but rather specific legislation aimed at certain provisions, particularly those proposed by his party colleague.

Neill opposes amendments tabled by Robert Jenrick, arguing that they are unnecessary and could undermine international law obligations. He emphasises that interim measures under rule 39 of the European Court of Human Rights should be respected to avoid breaches of international law. Neill also points out the UK's involvement in the creation and functioning of the Court, highlighting its joint ownership with other member states.

Highlights legal inconsistencies and concerns about operability post-Brexit. Argues for equal immigration policies across UK, introducing a notwithstanding clause to address government's stance on Northern Ireland’s rights under the Belfast agreement.

Intervened to correct Mr. Robinson, providing an example of Rwanda hosting refugees from Libya to illustrate the safety and generosity of Rwanda in accepting refugees.

Responded to Mr. Robinson's assertion about Labour’s position, stating that Labour Members will scrutinise the Bill properly in the House of Lords and hold the government accountable.

Clarified her understanding based on the Angesom judgment, indicating that the Good Friday agreement extends to refugees in Northern Ireland, and questioned how this Bill undermines such rights.

Mr. Wright acknowledges Mr. Buckland's arguments about reducing legal channels for challenge by retaining only necessary language in Clause 1, expressing concerns that broader language may invite further litigation.

Mr. Cash questions Mr. Buckland on whether specific reforms to Rule 39 are settled, highlighting uncertainties around their implementation and potential legal challenges.

Mr. Robinson emphasises the need for clarity on Northern Ireland's unique position regarding asylum applications, arguing that current court decisions do not address specific local issues adequately.

Argues that removing refugees' right to an effective remedy undermines fundamental rights and liberties, impacting Northern Ireland's peace process and UK trade agreements. Highlights concerns about legal inconsistency in Government’s own assessments.

Intervened to argue that Winston Churchill did not initially support joining the ECHR and questioned the current interpretation of human rights law by the Strasbourg Court.

Supports amendment 11, arguing that it addresses a problem caused by rule 39 interim injunctions from Strasbourg courts. She cites examples where these rules have prevented the deportation of individuals who pose public safety risks. She emphasises the need for elected UK representatives to govern Britain and not foreign entities.

Asked why Suella Braverman fears foreign courts, implying that such apprehension is unnecessary or misguided. He questions the logic behind fearing a court system when other international alliances like NATO are trusted.

The amendment aims to remove a subsection from clause that asserts parliamentary sovereignty, which is an innovation in migration legislation and could undermine Scotland’s legal traditions. The speaker cites historical precedence against such codification and expresses concern about how this might affect Scottish governance.

The hon. Member supports the overall goal of the Immigration and Border Security Bill but opposes amendment 23. He argues that the Rwanda scheme is necessary due to the inability to return asylum seekers from certain countries. Loughton highlights issues with rule 39 indications in UK courts, suggesting they are opaque and do not provide proper judicial process. He believes these rulings should be reformed through cooperation with other European nations. The hon. Member supports giving ministers discretion over rule 39 indications while maintaining overall compliance with international law.

The Bill will not solve the problem as it is too simplistic. The UK takes fewer asylum seekers than many other European countries, with only 7% of migrants being asylum seekers. The real issue lies in the backlog and inefficiency of the system. Deterrence works when those without a legitimate claim are removed effectively; however, the current removal rate for denied asylum seekers is only 25%. Furthermore, the Bill's provisions will not deter individuals fleeing from countries like Eritrea due to its barbaric regime. The amendments aim to address constitutional and moral concerns, as well as to challenge the effectiveness of the Bill.

Intervened stating that the UK can lead the world by changing its laws due to a dualist system, in contrast to EU countries bound by their constitutional systems and charters of fundamental rights. This allows for greater flexibility in dealing with migration issues.

Argued that since other EU countries like France and Germany do not entertain asylum applications from Albania, the UK should apply similar criteria to Rwanda. However, this contradicts the argument presented by Tim Farron against declaring a country safe based on discretionary judgments.

Challenged John Hayes' claim that most people arriving on small boats are economic migrants. Pointed out that the Home Office grants them refugee status, not economic migrant status.

Argued against Hayes' view on human rights being metaphysical or God-given, suggesting that this is not a liberal perspective.

Elaborated that if the amendment were not accepted, someone would bring a case seeking a declaration of incompatibility. This could lead to the Bill being declared incompatible with the Human Rights Act and possibly ending up dead due to international law.

Critiqued the European Court of Human Rights for appointing non-lawyers and suggested that Britain should make laws independent from such entities.

Supported Robert Jenrick's point, elaborating on the appointment process of judges to the European Court of Human Rights and critiquing it as being dominated by political groups.

Johnson criticises amendments 11 to 18 and 23 to 25 for potentially violating international law and undermining human rights protections in the UK. She highlights that these amendments could prevent public authorities from acting in compliance with human rights standards, raising serious concerns about potential legal conflicts. Johnson also stresses the need for transparency regarding costs associated with the Rwanda policy, arguing for better oversight through new clauses 5 and 7.

Emphasised his support for the Bill in its unamended form. Cited historical context of migration in his constituency, arguing that shared sovereignty often leads to greater sovereignty. Supported the role of international conventions and courts such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Argued against repudiating these agreements due to diplomatic levers available to influence them. Believed maintaining membership in ECHR benefits UK's public influence and moral authority. Raised concerns about people dying in the English Channel and gangs profiting from small boat migration.

Interjected to thank David Simmonds for his explanation of the court and judges, finding it refreshing in contrast to previous arguments made.

She criticises the disapplication of sections 2, 3, and 6 of the Human Rights Act, stating it limits court protections and forces courts to ignore European Court of Human Rights rulings on Rwanda's safety. She also denounces clause 5 for refusing compliance with interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights as a serious breach of international law.

Supports amendments to tighten up the Bill, concerned with human rights cases that prevent deportation and abuse of taxpayer money. Wants to stop boats carrying migrants from reaching UK shores to protect British people's rights.

Supports amendments, concerned with lack of deterrence against illegal migration and supranational nature of ECHR. Argues for full sovereignty of UK Parliament over immigration matters.

Acknowledges concerns over effectiveness and legal challenges but believes in giving the Government a chance to implement the Bill. Suggests that while there are valid criticisms of the ECHR, changing it within this Bill is not ideal.

Argues that the current small boats programme is exploited by criminal gangs and imposes violence on vulnerable migrants. Supports the Government's Rwanda scheme as a deterrent to illegal immigration, despite high costs, because it protects vulnerable people and addresses unfairness in the asylum system.

Highlights that the Bill is necessary due to the exploitation of migrants by criminal gangs. Emphasises the need for an effective deterrent policy, such as the Rwanda scheme, which would deter illegal immigration through high costs and protect vulnerable individuals while ensuring safe and legal routes are part of a wider solution.

Intervenes to suggest that money spent on the Rwanda plan would be better used for creating safe and legal routes, which would allow refugees to build a life in a country proud of its humanitarian actions.

Supports Jerome Mayhew's point on costs and mentions that Rwanda might refund some resources if challenges arise, highlighting potential cost-effectiveness.

Points out that safe and legal routes need clear planning, including numbers, locations, and costs. Questions how Opposition plans for such large-scale migration would be implemented.

Emphasises the need to consider push factors within a holistic view of foreign policy, including counter-terrorism and geopolitical stability in regions facing migration crises.

Critiques Opposition members for lacking clarity on safe and legal routes, pointing out that substantial numbers have already come through such routes since 2015.

Emphasised the importance of setting a cap on safe and legal routes to accommodate genuine asylum seekers, while preventing those with no credible case from entering the UK. Highlighted the work done by local authorities in supporting resettlement programmes.

Paid tribute to the East of England Local Government Association for their support in resettling British passport holders from Hong Kong and Syrians. Stressed that it is more acceptable to constituents if individuals arrive through official channels rather than via smugglers.

Argued for the use of section 4 procedure, which allows courts to express a view on compatibility with the ECHR without directly interfering in parliamentary functions. Suggested this is preferable to using the section 3 mechanism.

Asked about circumstances under which the Government would comply with pyjama injunctions, implying a need for clarity and consistency in judicial enforcement.

Asked the Minister to clarify how the Government would prevent judicial review of ministerial decisions without legislative changes, highlighting potential legal challenges and procedural concerns.

Requested further explanation from the Minister regarding rule 39 and how the Government intends to handle judicial reviews on matters related to this amendment.