← Back to House of Commons Debates
Illegal Immigration (Offenders and Other Risks) Bill - After Clause 5
18 March 2024
Lead MP
Michael Tomlinson
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Migrants & Borders
Other Contributors: 62
At a Glance
Michael Tomlinson raised concerns about illegal immigration (offenders and other risks) bill - after clause 5 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
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
This amendment seeks to disagree with Lords Amendment 1, which implies that the legislation is not compliant with the rule of law. The Government believes that this Bill does comply with international obligations and is based on a treaty between Rwanda and the UK. It aims to protect borders and prevent dangerous crossings in the Channel. The Minister also emphasises the deterrent effect of the bill and mentions cost concerns.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
Expressed concern about the Bill undermining the Good Friday agreement and questioned if consultations were done with the Irish Government regarding this legislation.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Asked for confirmation that DUP's concerns have been taken on board, citing Northern Ireland’s special circumstances and the Good Friday agreement.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Surprised at Government's stance given High Court ruling that legislation is incompatible with the obligation to accord with European law as per article 2 of Windsor framework and Northern Ireland protocol.
Tan Dhesi
Lab
Slough
Asked if the Government agrees that sending refugees to Rwanda is extortionate, unethical, unworkable, and unlawful due to the cost of £600 million for 300 refugees.
Kevin Foster
Con
Torbay
Defended the Government's position that immigration should be dealt with on a UK-wide basis and questioned if Labour Members understood the cost of housing current illegal immigrants in hotels.
Richard Graham
Con
Gloucester
Agreed that the amendments offered by the Lords are irrelevant to what the Bill aims to achieve, emphasising the deterrent effect of sending people to Rwanda on illegal immigrants.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Asked if Government intends for its scheme to be voluntary like the European one, pointing out the difference in approach.
Yasmin Qureshi
Lab
Bolton South and Walkden
Questioned how the Minister can accept Rwanda as a safe country when judges have ruled it unsafe, challenging the Government's reliance on the word of Rwandan Foreign Minister.
Kevin Foster
Con
Torbay
Recalled that the Supreme Court judgment was based on refoulement and not safety in Rwanda, implying criticism of Labour's argument is misplaced.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
Asked about changes since the Home Office document detailing human rights concerns in Rwanda was published and cited Supreme Court decision reasons.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Mr. Shannon asks for assurances regarding the protection of religious beliefs for those going through the system and being sent to Rwanda, expressing concern that protections may not be as strong in Rwanda.
Natalie Elphicke
Con
Bexleyheath and Crayford
Ms. Elphicke questions the Minister about delays in implementing age assessment criteria at Dover and Manston, expressing concern that without such implementation, there can be no confidence in age assessments.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
Ms. Cooper seeks clarification on reports about the Home Office paying individuals to go to Rwanda and questions whether these individuals will be subject to the same substantial payments to the Rwandan Government.
Neil Coyle
Lab
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Mr. Coyle criticises the costs involved in sending individuals to Rwanda, comparing them to the cost of space travel by Virgin Galactic, and calls for a rethinking of this policy due to its high expenses.
Stephen Kinnock
Lab
Aberavon Maesteg
Mr. Stephen Kinnock argued that the Lords amendments would uphold moral imperatives such as exempting Afghans who supported UK efforts from removal to Rwanda, protecting potential victims of modern slavery, and ensuring proper age assessment procedures for unaccompanied children. He pointed out that £2 million per asylum seeker sent to Rwanda was exorbitant compared to processing an asylum seeker in the UK at a cost of just £21,000.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Mr. Luke Evans questioned Labour's plan to smash criminal gangs and asked how much it would cost compared to the current measures.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Mr. Bill Cash cited a report by the House of Lords Constitution Committee stating that international law gives way to UK parliamentary sovereignty, challenging Labour's argument on international law compliance.
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
Ms. Rushanara Ali highlighted the Government’s lack of support for local services dealing with dispersed asylum seekers, indicating that they were not addressing real problems.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Mr. Sammy Wilson expressed surprise at the Government’s refusal to accept Lords amendment 8 and questioned whether it was because they did not want the number of removals reported.
Tan Dhesi
Lab
Slough
Mr. Tan Dhesi criticised the Government for chasing gimmicks with this Bill and suggested that they need to address the real problems instead.
Neil Coyle
Lab
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Mr. Neil Coyle highlighted how much money sent per asylum seeker could cover new police officers or nurses, criticising the Government for misallocating resources.
Kevin Foster
Con
Torbay and South Devon
Mr. Kevin Foster challenged Labour’s plan to remove people to a safe third country, asking which one they were referring to.
Rother Valley
Mr. Alexander Stafford questioned the number of additional immigrants Labour wanted to come from Afghanistan.
Hayes and Harlington
Mr. John McDonnell emphasised moral concerns around sending potential victims of trafficking or those who served UK forces in Afghanistan to Rwanda, advocating for amendments 9 and 10.
David Jones
Con
Clwyd West
Mr. David Jones argued that amendment 1 was unnecessary as the Bill would comply with both domestic and international law upon enactment.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
Ms. Stella Creasy suggested that the Government’s refusal to consult the Irish Government on this Bill could undermine their commitment to international law, specifically regarding the Good Friday agreement.
Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Ms. Margaret Greenwood cited a joint statement from civil society organisations branding the Bill as constitutionally extraordinary and potentially in breach of international law, criticising its ethical implications.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Mr Roger Gale did not provide a detailed argument but briefly called for adherence to the procedural requirements of debating Lords amendments specifically.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
My right hon. and learned Friend made an interjection supporting innovation in addressing illegal immigration, suggesting that the UK's approach is being observed by other countries as a potential solution.
Mr Bob Neill intervened to suggest that the Government should consider how they can reconcile their position with Lord Hope’s amendments, emphasising the need for Parliament to have the means to change its decision if facts change.
My right hon. and learned Friend was asked about how Parliament can assess future breaches of the treaty, highlighting the importance of maintaining a mechanism for reconsideration based on new evidence.
Yasmin Qureshi
Lab
Bolton South and Walkden
Ms Yasmin Qureshi pointed out two contradictions in Mr Wright's argument, emphasising that the Supreme Court had already ruled against designating Rwanda as safe. She argued that Parliament should not override judicial decisions merely because it disagrees with them.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Thewliss argues that Lords amendments are necessary to ensure compliance with international and domestic laws. She criticises the government’s disregard for commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights, refugee convention, and other treaties. Thewliss also emphasises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and reporting mechanisms to hold the government accountable. She raises concerns about age assessments of unaccompanied children, potential torture in Rwanda, and the fate of victims of modern slavery.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Mr. Cash argues that Lords amendment 1 would make clause 1(1) one of the most dangerous clauses seen recently, contradicting fundamental principles of British constitutional law by placing domestic and international laws on an equal footing, which undermines parliamentary sovereignty. He cites a report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee stating that Parliament can legislate contrary to UK's obligations under international law and quotes Lord Hoffmann’s judgment in R v. Lyons emphasising that English courts will not be bound to give effect to interpretations of treaties by international courts unless explicitly provided for.
Diana R. Johnson
Lab
Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham
Amendments aim to ensure full compliance with domestic and international law, require adherence to treaty implementation for declaring Rwanda a safe country, allow appeals on credible evidence, provide wider grounds for legal challenge, address safeguarding concerns regarding age assessment, demand transparency over removal timetables, and create exemptions for victims of modern slavery.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Intervened to question the selectiveness of facts presented by Diana R. Johnson regarding age assessment, highlighting that the independent Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee has proposed methods for improving accuracy in multiple ways.
Natalie Elphicke
Con
Dover
Requested intervention twice to question Diana R. Johnson on facts presented regarding age assessment and the importance of including methods recommended by the independent Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee.
Rother Valley
He argues that the Bill is needed to stop illegal immigration, reduce pressure on public services and save lives. He criticises the opposition for undermining the sovereignty of the House of Commons and supporting wrecking amendments.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
He intervenes to support his colleague's argument that Rwanda is a critical part of the policy, similar to Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders.
He questions the effectiveness of Rwanda as a deterrent if it is considered such a good place for deportation.
She supports her colleague's argument that France is also a safe country, implying similar logic applies to Rwanda.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Asked Joanna Cherry whether she was mindful that both the United Nations and the EU have designated Rwanda as a suitable place to accept refugees, challenging her argument against sending UK asylum seekers there.
Jill Mortimer
independent
Questioned Joanna Cherry's stance on Rwandan safety based on conversations with UNHCR officials who felt the UK was shirking responsibility, stating that Rwanda is a very safe place for refugees.
Caroline Johnson
Con
Sleaford and North Hykeham
Asked Joanna Cherry to consider Home Office evidence supporting the safety of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, suggesting that decision-makers should take this into account.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Asked Joanna Cherry whether it makes sense to allow Home Office evidence to be used in decision-making regarding the safety of Rwanda for asylum seekers.
Caroline Johnson
Con
Sleaford and North Hykeham
Argued against Lords amendments by highlighting Rwanda's welcoming nature and safety for refugees. Cited her visit to Rwanda where she saw positive impacts of UK-Rwanda collaboration, including housing and education provision for refugees. Emphasised Rwanda’s efforts in accommodating diverse groups such as LGBT individuals and refugees from various African nations.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Intervened to support Caroline Johnson, stating that Lords amendments weaken clause 4 of the Bill. He argued these amendments delay and obfuscate intentions of the Bill, undermining its purpose.
Claudia Webbe
Lab
Nottingham East
Critiqued the Government's stance on sending asylum seekers to Rwanda as inhumane and dangerous. Cited the Supreme Court ruling that Rwanda cannot be considered safe, emphasising that amendments from Lords are necessary to prevent injustice and protect human rights. Stressed the Bill’s conflict with international conventions and its £370 million cost.
Priti Patel
Con
Witham
Critiques Lords amendments, emphasising that they are unnecessary and intended to derail the Bill. Highlights the importance of voluntary removals and re-entry bans for effective immigration control. Emphasises the Government's need to focus on operationalising the partnership with Rwanda.
Caroline Johnson
Con
Sleaford and North Hykeham
Intervenes to agree that measures to assess the age of children are necessary as there are adults who will pretend to be children.
Hayes and Harlington
Intervenes to express concern about the mental health impact on Afghan refugees if they face deportation again. Argues that the Lords amendment is significant due to its implications for those at risk of being deported.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Carmichael argues that the Government lacks a strategic approach to tackling illegal immigration, viewing the Bill as a political exercise rather than a meaningful solution. He raises concerns about Rwanda's stability and its potential impact on safety for deported individuals, citing US State Department warnings regarding conflicts in the region. Carmichael also highlights the contradiction between Home Office guidance on human rights in Rwanda and clauses that ignore these considerations, emphasising the need for cooperation across parties to address the issue effectively.
Ellis rejects all 10 Lords amendments, asserting Parliament's sovereignty over the law. He argues that Parliament can pass any law and should adapt laws based on societal changes. Ellis emphasises the moral necessity of stopping illegal immigration to save lives lost in small boats crossing the Channel. He defends the Rwanda partnership as a necessary deterrent against human trafficking and highlights the Supreme Court’s invitation for Ministers to address issues identified, which the Bill aims to do through a binding international treaty.
Hayes and Harlington
On Lords amendment 9, we are in danger of reversing the work that this House has put in to ensure the protection of victims of modern slavery and trafficking; removing the amendment makes them vulnerable again, particularly to re-trafficking. The amendment merely asserts the decision maker’s opportunity to assess the impact on the physical and mental health of the individual and their potential to be re-trafficked.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Intervened to express concern that Lords amendments 2 and 3 may delegate too much authority to the monitoring committee, potentially undermining the Bill's integrity by allowing it to determine Rwandan compliance without parliamentary oversight.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Supports most of the Lords amendments being opposed as weakening the bill, but calls for assurances from the Minister regarding Northern Ireland's applicability due to court rulings. Criticises government inaction and proposes daily publication of removal statistics for transparency and public accountability. Supports amendment 10 for Afghan refugees.
Argues against Lords amendments that seek to challenge or delay the transfer of individuals to Rwanda, stating these are not about making the Bill work better but creating routes for challenges and delays. He emphasises the purpose of the Bill is to break the business model of people traffickers by providing an alternative safe haven in Rwanda instead of UK. Kevin Foster also points out that listing individual names and addresses would be inappropriate under amendment 8, suggesting it unnecessarily complicates the process without adding value.
Patrick Grady
SNP
Glasgow North West
Mr Grady argues that the Bill undermines established principles and conventions, moves away from a framework of international law protecting freedom and human rights, and serves to protect the Prime Minister's political interests rather than asylum seekers. He supports cross-party amendments proposed in the House of Lords which he believes are reasonable and sensible tests and requirements for assessing safety criteria based on the treaty signed with Rwanda.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Supports Lords amendment 10 to ensure safety for Afghans who helped the UK, particularly mentioning a constituent's aid worker and his family's resettlement. Criticises Northern Ireland court ruling on immigration policy, wishing for overturning it to align with other parts of the UK. Emphasises freedom of religion or belief globally and seeks assurances from Rwanda about religious protections. Supports Lords amendment 6 and provisions for victims of slavery or human trafficking, stressing the need for special protections for under-18s.
Wantage
The speaker thanked all contributors, reiterated support for Rwanda as a safe country and questioned the legitimacy of amendments that seek to undermine the Bill's purpose. He emphasised that asylum seekers should be dealt with through proper legal channels and not remain indefinitely in the UK.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
The speaker commented on an incident where a Member swore at a Doorkeeper, emphasising the severity of such actions and the consequences that may follow.
Clive Lewis
Lab
Norwich South
The speaker apologised for an earlier outburst directed towards no one in particular due to receiving a message causing consternation. He sought to clear the air by acknowledging his misconduct.
Government Response
The Government's position is that there is no conflict with international obligations, and the Bill aims to protect borders by preventing dangerous Channel crossings. The deterrent effect of the legislation is emphasised, along with addressing cost concerns related to housing illegal immigrants.
▸
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.