← Back to House of Commons Debates
Not specified in the provided text - Amendment 45, page 2, line 33, leave out “a safe” and insert “an unsafe”
16 January 2024
Lead MP
Alison Thewliss
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Asylum & Refugees
Other Contributors: 57
At a Glance
Alison Thewliss raised concerns about not specified in the provided text - amendment 45, page 2, line 33, leave out “a safe” and insert “an unsafe” in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The amendment aims to change the classification of Rwanda from 'safe' to 'unsafe'. Alison Thewliss is advocating for this change due to concerns about human rights violations, asylum seekers’ safety and the potential risk involved in returning individuals to Rwanda. She highlights that there have been reports indicating a lack of adequate protection and support for refugees arriving in Rwanda.
Rosie Winterton
Lab
Sheffield Central
Rosie Winterton reminds Members to use proper address when speaking in Committee. While she does not provide a detailed argument against Alison Thewliss's proposal, her intervention suggests that she may have reservations about changing the classification of Rwanda from 'safe' without further debate or clarification.
Rosie Winterton
Lab
Crewe and Nantwich
Proposes several amendments designed to tighten the criteria for removals to Rwanda, ensuring ongoing monitoring of safety conditions and limiting legal challenges through suspensive claims. Includes measures that would prevent individuals from using false or misleading information about their circumstances to avoid removal.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Desmond Swayne raised a point of order, questioning whether Rosie Winterton's speech was appropriate for this stage of debate. He suggested that her comments were more suitable for Second Reading and urged her to focus on the amendments being debated.
Responding to criticism, Rosie Winterton clarified that she was addressing both amendments and clause stand part issues. She defended her right to speak comprehensively about relevant topics during the debate.
Michael Fabricant intervened, questioning Rosie Winterton on how many illegal asylum seekers Scotland is accommodating per head of population compared to England. This suggests he was concerned about the policy's implications and its fairness across different regions.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Swayne again interrupted, arguing that clause 2 focuses on the safety of Rwanda. He implied that Winterton's comments were irrelevant to the specific issue at hand.
Winterton addressed Swayne’s concerns, expressing frustration with constant disruptions and promising to keep her speech on track. She also acknowledged that she would address Tim Loughton's questions about Amendment 45.
Loughton intervened, questioning the validity of designating Rwanda as an unsafe country and raised concerns about potential implications for refugees already settled there. He highlighted issues such as fairness to Rwanda and the well-being of recently resettled refugees.
Robert Jenrick
Reform
Newark
Jenrick argues that the current bill does not work due to its inability to create a sustainable deterrent against illegal migration. He emphasises that the proposed amendments are necessary to prevent legal challenges from undermining the policy's effectiveness and to ensure quick removal of migrants to Rwanda within days, rather than months.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Bryant intervenes to disagree with Jenrick's assessment that the proposed amendments will make the bill work. He argues that these measures are unlikely to act as a deterrent and would not achieve their intended purpose.
Tim Loughton
Con
East Worthing and Shoreham
Loughton supports Jenrick's case for deterrence but questions whether his amendments might undermine the policy's effectiveness, potentially leading to its rejection by the Rwandan Government. He suggests that this could nullify any deterrent effect.
Rob Roberts
Green
Dulwich and West Norwood
Roberts questions Jenrick's argument, citing the success of the Albania scheme as evidence that stricter measures are not always necessary for effective deterrence. He notes that legal routes have often been blocked, leading to increased illegal migration.
Caroline Lucas
Green
Brighton Pavilion
Lucas criticises Jenrick's amendments for overriding individual legal protections and suggests they would not be fair or justifiable, even in cases where decisions might contain errors.
Pete Wishart
SNP
Perth and Kinross-shire
Wishart questions Jenrick's belief that his amendments are necessary, pointing to the success of existing measures like the Albania scheme without such strict legal restrictions.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
The speaker rose, but the content of their speech is not provided in this snippet.
Stephen Kinnock
Lab
Aberafan Maesteg
Argues against the unaffordability, unworkability, and unlawfulness of the Rwanda scheme. Emphasises that it is a distraction from practical solutions like international cooperation with Europe.
Janet Daby
Lab
Lewisham East
Intervenes to express concern about wasting public funds on the unworkable Rwanda scheme.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
Points out that eligible Afghans are not being resettled, highlighting the need for safe and legal routes.
Andrew Gwynne
Ind
Gorton and Denton
Emphasises the necessity of cooperation with European law enforcement to combat criminal smuggling gangs effectively.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Mr Cash argues that Clause 2 should be amended with clear and unambiguous wording, ensuring parliamentary sovereignty over international law. He highlights the importance of legal clarity to prevent judicial challenges and underscores the democratic mandate for such legislation.
John Redwood
Con
Wokingham
Intervened by noting recent briefings suggesting that the current law will lead to an increase in judicial cases and additional judges, implying this undermines the effectiveness of Clause 2.
Kevin Foster
Con
Torbay
Acknowledged Mr Cash's example of Germany's approach to integrating international law into domestic constitutional law, noting differences in legal frameworks between countries.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Supported Mr Cash's argument by emphasising the supremacy of Parliament over judicial interpretations and historical precedents set by British constitutionalists.
Diana R. Johnson
Lab
Kingston upon Hull North
Ms Johnson raised concerns about the proposed amendments, arguing they violate international law and principles of liberty. She highlighted that these would prevent suspensive claims and allow removals despite breaches of domestic and international law, including fundamental human rights protections like the prohibition on torture. The amendments also exclude people who have made serious allegations about Rwanda's safety from asylum protection. Moreover, preventing judicial review undermines common law protections such as habeas corpus.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Mr Hayes intervened to argue that under previous Governments of all political persuasions, illegal immigrants have been deported notwithstanding personal circumstances or destination claims. He implied Ms Johnson's position would prevent any deportations.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Mr. Hayes supports Mr. Buckland's amendments, reiterating the importance of understanding the separation of powers within the British constitution. He emphasises that Parliament should not act arbitrarily but rather uphold its role in legislating effectively.
Richard Graham
Con
Gloucester
Mr. Graham seeks a balanced approach between absolute conviction from the Opposition and support for amendments that aim to deliver a functioning policy without discarding individual rights under domestic and international law.
Robert Jenrick
Reform
Newark
Mr. Jenrick questions whether the Ministry of Justice can recruit sufficient tribunal judges to process claims swiftly, emphasising the practical challenges in implementing the policy effectively.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
Mr. Kruger acknowledges that recruiting additional judges implies anticipating a significant number of claims from migrants, rather than swift detention and removal as desired by the Government.
Olivia Blake
Lab
Sheffield Hallam
Blake argues that the Bill and its clauses, such as clause 2, are part of a hostile environment policy which makes life difficult for asylum seekers. She highlights issues like long waiting times for decisions on claims, inadequate housing conditions, inability to work, risk of destitution, and limited support available if they become destitute. Blake emphasises the need for safe and legal routes for refugees escaping genocide or conflict zones. She questions the Government's assertion that existing safe routes are sufficient. Blake also raises concerns about offshoring obligations and outsourcing responsibilities, citing Rwanda as an example. She refers to Human Rights Watch reports detailing torture in Rwanda and criticises the UK Government for previously condemning extrajudicial killings and torture in Rwanda.
Alex Sobel
Lab Co-op
Leeds Central and Headingley
Sobel interjects to suggest that the debate would be different if there were a broader range of safe and legal routes for refugees, arguing this would reduce the number of small boats crossing the channel.
Loughton interjects to support extending safe and legal routes but also argues that even with such routes, fake asylum seekers would still use people smugglers. He suggests the need for deterrent measures.
In another intervention, Loughton questions why France receives more asylum applications but rejects twice as many compared to the UK, suggesting differences in handling genuine refugees versus fake applicants.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Mr. Leigh supports amendments to discourage illegal immigration through policy measures such as offshoring asylum processing, arguing that current policies are ineffective and unappealing for deterrence.
Patrick Grady
Lab
Unspecified
Mr. Patrick Grady questions the logic of using Rwanda as a deterrent when crossing the Channel is already dangerous and life-threatening, implying that the risk to life should be sufficient deterrence.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Ms. Alison Thewliss criticises Mr. Leigh's suggestion that asylum seekers could easily fabricate stories to avoid deportation, accusing him of making unfounded claims about asylum seekers.
Richard Graham
Con
Gloucester
Mr. Richard Graham supports Mr. Leigh's position by highlighting that all Government Members want to address the immigration crisis, differing mainly on how far to override domestic and international human rights laws.
Ruth Jones
Lab
Newport West and Islwyn
Ms Ruth Jones supports new clause 6, which seeks to monitor the Rwanda treaty on a statutory basis and place conditions on when the classification of Rwanda as ‘safe’ can be suspended. She highlights that the current scheme has failed, with no asylum seekers sent to Rwanda despite costing £400 million. Ms Jones emphasises the importance of strengthening border security and addressing the criminal gangs profiting from illegal crossings. She advocates for Labour’s plan to introduce new powers and a cross-border police unit, clear the backlog through fast-track systems, end hotel use, improve enforcement, and ensure proper handling of asylum seekers.
Rob Roberts
Lab
Delyn
Mr Roberts argues that Rwanda's political stability is uncertain due to regime changes. He emphasises the need for due process, allowing appeals remotely from Rwanda via video conferencing technology. He stresses that limiting appeal rights excessively would undermine Britain’s legal framework and fairness.
Michael Shanks
Lab
Rutherglen
I argue in support of new clause 6 as it ensures that if evidence emerges indicating human rights abuses or mistreatment of migrants, the Government's declaration of Rwanda as a safe country can be suspended. The amendment is uncontroversial and necessary to ensure legal decisions are based on reality. I urge Members to read the Home Office’s information note which presents numerous examples of breaches of human rights law in Rwanda.
Rob Roberts
Lab
Delyn
During an intervention, Mr Roberts questioned whether voting down the Bill would prevent any further attempts to address immigration issues within this Parliament.
Nigel Evans
Con
Cannock Chase
Mr Evans intervened to remind Members of procedural rules regarding interventions, asking them to look forward for clarity in Hansard reporting.
Jane Stevenson
Con
Wolverhampton North East
Supports the amendments tabled by her colleagues, believing they will make the Bill more effective. Argues that the current asylum system is flawed and needs to be deterred, citing examples of people smugglers profiting from vulnerable individuals. Expresses frustration with Opposition parties prioritising global issues over UK citizens' interests.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Intervened to question the practicality of the amendments, suggesting that legal limitations prevent asylum seekers from claiming status through means other than arriving in the UK. Emphasises the reality that most refugees stay close to their home countries.
Miriam Cates
Con
Penistone and Stocksbridge
Supports amendments that prevent individual migrants from delaying deportation through court challenges. Argues that the Bill must serve as an effective deterrent to illegal immigration, which requires swift detention and deportation of all individuals arriving illegally in the UK. Emphasises that the public supports such measures, with polls showing strong backing for immediate deportation policies.
Intervened to support the amendments by highlighting that 70% of people who claim asylum after arriving illegally in the UK abscond, thus emphasising the need for stronger clauses and amendments.
Jane Stevenson
Lab
Wolverhampton North East
Intervened to suggest focusing on foreign aid and helping safe developing countries provide asylum instead of a mass influx into the UK, implying opposition to the amendments.
Matt Warman
Con
Braintree
Critiques amendment 10, arguing it could undermine legal success and send a signal that Britain is stepping back from international commitments. Emphasises the need for practical action and reform within existing frameworks.
Questioned why being sent to Rwanda should be a deterrent if it is safe and secure.
Emphasised the importance of clear and unambiguous wording in legislation, referencing parliamentary sovereignty and the use of 'notwithstanding' to ensure clarity.
Joked about a potential 'Safety of France Act', implying irony regarding current immigration policies.
Questioned whether India is truly safe for every UK national, citing an example case involving Jagtar Singh Johal detained in India for over six years.
Asked about the allocation of judicial resources and whether they could be used to prosecute alleged criminals rather than handling immigration cases.
Interjected to clarify a previous statement made by Sir Simon Clarke regarding the possibility of bringing back similar legislation if this bill fails on Third Reading.
Inquired about the necessity for 150 additional judges given the narrow grounds for individual appeals under the proposed clause.
Clarified that new clause 6 aims to put the monitoring committee on a statutory footing, potentially subjecting it to scrutiny by UK courts.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Ms. Thewliss criticised the Bill as being despondent, pathetic and ridiculous. She stated that it is an affront to human rights and undermines international obligations. The UNHCR does not buy the Government's assurances regarding Rwanda’s suitability for asylum seekers. She highlighted that over 70,000 people have crossed the Channel since the Rwanda deal was signed, yet only a few hundred would be removed under this scheme. This indicates that the policy is ineffective in deterring migration and fails to address the humanitarian needs of refugees.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.