Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

The Speaker confirmed that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Tomlinson opposes Lords amendment 3G, arguing that it is unnecessary and that there are already existing legal routes for those who supported UK forces. He emphasises the Government's commitment to not remove to Rwanda individuals with positive eligibility decisions from the review of Afghan relocations.

Cherry raises concerns over polling data showing that a majority of voters think the Government should either accept amendments to the Rwanda policy or scrap it altogether. She criticises the Minister for turning the matter into a political football.

Shannon suggests accepting those who can demonstrate support to British forces in Afghanistan and views the current back-and-forth as an example of democratic embarrassment. He calls for a way forward before procedures are brought into disrepute.

Leigh inquires about the legality of detaining illegal migrants under habeas corpus and asks if detention will be possible before offshoring them once the Bill comes into force.

Wright seeks clarity on the relationship between the Rwanda treaty and the Bill, specifically questioning whether an assessment of safety for the purposes of this Bill is the same as compliance with the Rwanda treaty.

Cash notes Lord Hoffman's opinion on treaties versus statutes, emphasising that a clear and unambiguous Act prevails over treaties in legal terms.

Saville-Roberts questions why Rwandans are excluded from being returned under this legislation if Rwanda is truly considered safe.

Foster explains that returning a Rwandan to Rwanda would take them back home, not to a third country, thus clarifying why Rwandans are excluded from this legislation.

Hussain requests for specific cases like his constituent who served with UK forces but faces difficulties in joining family due to administrative issues, highlighting why amendment 10F matters.

Creasy brings up a constituent's case where an Afghan who served with UK forces for 15 years is unable to join his family in the UK due to administrative issues, emphasising the unsustainable nature of denying eligibility.

Kinnock argues against the Bill, describing it as unworkable and unaffordable. He cites a permanent secretary's comments on its ineffectiveness and highlights legal challenges, such as the Supreme Court ruling that Rwanda is not safe. Kinnock emphasises that the amendment does not prevent flights from taking off but rather addresses fundamental issues with the policy.

Eshalomi interjects to agree that the plan is a gimmick, citing a permanent secretary's view on its lack of effectiveness as a deterrent.

Barker agrees with Kinnock and questions the feasibility of providing 25 courtrooms and 150 judges for legal challenges, considering current court backlogs.

Leigh interjects to question the Labour Party's stance on respecting parliamentary authority if they were in power and faced similar opposition from the House of Lords.

Hussain agrees with Kinnock, highlighting the dangerous precedent set by entering into treaties that declare countries safe without a mechanism to reassess safety if circumstances change.

Ms. Thewliss criticises the lack of parliamentary scrutiny on Rwanda's status as a safe country, and highlights that the Irish High Court ruled against UK's plans. She also mentions an increase in small boat arrivals despite the proposed scheme and argues for proper support for Afghan refugees who are unable to utilise existing schemes.

Mr. Grady congratulates Alison Thewliss on using every available procedure to oppose the bill, emphasising the SNP's unwavering opposition.

Mr. Grant agrees with Alison Thewliss and mentions that funds allocated for deportation could be better utilised in rescuing stranded Afghans from Pakistan.

Mr. Loughton argues that the debate is preventing progress on the bill, criticising opposition for not providing alternatives to handling illegal asylum seekers. He defends the government's position by stating that safeguards are in place regarding treatment and protection of Afghan refugees.

Supports Lords amendment 3G for its sensible and measured approach, allowing for flexibility if circumstances change. Supports Lords amendment 10F as it honours commitments to those who have risked their lives supporting British troops.

Supports the revised form of Lords amendment 3G, believing it strikes an appropriate balance and avoids future primary legislation. Supports further movement on Lords amendment 10F to clear up matters once and for all.

Calls the refusal of the Government to accept Lords amendment 10F disgraceful, highlighting its watertight nature. Emphasises moral and strategic duties towards those who have served Britain.

Urges the Government to compromise on Lords amendment 10F, citing deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan and the need for protection guarantees. Emphasises a debt of honour towards those associated with British forces.

Mr. Tim Farron argues that the Government's scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is ineffective, wasteful of public money, and a violation of human rights. He supports Lords amendments 3G and 10F for independent verification and protection of Afghan veterans.

Mr. Michael Tomlinson argues against the amendments, stating that they do not meet the challenge set by his Conservative colleagues who seek a parliamentary moment for discussion. He urges passing the legislation to stop boats and suggests sending a clear message to the other place.

Ms. Katherine Fletcher interjects during Mr. Tim Farron's speech but does not provide detailed arguments or position within the given excerpt.