← Back to House of Commons Debates
Deportation Flight to Jamaica
10 February 2020
Lead MP
David Lammy
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
ImmigrationParliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 36
At a Glance
David Lammy raised concerns about deportation flight to jamaica 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
Raised an urgent question about the deportation flight set to leave on Wednesday, questioning whether there are British nationals among those scheduled to be deported and emphasising the importance of addressing the Windrush scandal. He stressed that the government has yet to release the lessons learned review and criticised the tone of the Minister's response.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
Emphasised the negative impact on thousands of people affected by the Windrush scandal, noting that 164 were detained and deported, and another 5,000 denied access to public services. Questioned why deportation flights have resumed in light of this and expressed concern about deporting individuals who arrived as children.
Kevin Foster
15:33:00
Stated that the Windrush review has not been suppressed, but was due to be submitted by Wendy Williams. Defended the deportation of serious and persistent foreign national offenders, noting the legal requirement under the UK Borders Act 2007.
Henry Smith
15:33:00
Asked if the views and feelings of victims of crime should be taken into account in the criminal justice system, to which the Minister agreed.
Diane Abbott
Ind
Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Criticised the dismissive attitude towards the concerns raised about the deportation flight, emphasising the need for certainty regarding individuals' immigration status before deportation. Raised issues such as incommunicado detention and lack of clarity on how many deportees came to the UK as children.
Several hon. Members
15:33:00
Multiple members rose but did not contribute speeches.
Steven Baker
15:33:00
Asked for the minimum threshold at which someone becomes classified as a serious and persistent offender, to which the Minister responded that it typically involves sentences of 12 months or more with consideration given to the nature of offending patterns.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Constituency Not Provided
Expressed concern over the potential deportation of individuals who are entitled to British nationality, including those from care systems. Criticised the Home Office for not taking responsibility and asked about the mental health assessment of deportees.
Kevin Foster
Con
Constituency Not Provided
Clarified that no one on the flight is eligible for British citizenship, based on legal rulings. Emphasised adherence to criminality-based legislation and defended the deportation policy as necessary for public safety.
Suella Braverman
Con
Fareham and Waterlooville
Defended the Home Office's approach, stating that British citizenship is a privilege not a right. Rejected accusations of ignoring political realities and emphasised the need to enforce the law on serious offenders.
Battersea
Called for an urgent halt to the flight due to ongoing concerns about the Windrush scandal, arguing that further harm might be inflicted if the Home Office does not take stock of recent lessons learned.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Asked what the least serious offence is among those on the flight, seeking to understand the range of criminality involved.
Daisy Cooper
Lib Dem
St Albans
Inquired whether potential victims of human trafficking are included in the deportations and requested a clear response from the Minister.
Vicky Ford
Con
Constituency Not Provided
Asked for assurance that each case on the deportation list involves persistent or serious offenders, given previous court cases related to protests against such flights.
Clive Lewis
Lab
Norwich South
Challenged the Home Office's approach as state-sanctioned racism and suggested that the Government is ignoring lessons from the Windrush scandal, leading to potential harm to vulnerable individuals.
Steve Double
Con
Constituency Not Provided
Argued for a clear distinction between legal duties to remove serious criminals for public safety and respect for those contributions made by the Windrush generation.
Janet Daby
Lab
Lewisham East
Questioned whether there is differential treatment based on political influence, referencing the Prime Minister's past drug use in comparison to deportees' convictions.
Caroline Johnson
Con
Sleaford and North Hykeham
Confirmed that all individuals on the flight are adults convicted as adults, not young offenders, addressing concerns about youth and rehabilitation.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
Requested specific details such as individual sentences, ages at arrival, and any impact of mobile phone coverage issues on deportees' cases.
Constituency Not Provided
Clarified that those being deported are serious or persistent offenders with offences including manslaughter, rape, drug dealing, and robbery, reinforcing the legal basis for their deportation.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Asked about mental health assessments of those on the flight, highlighting vulnerability among deportees in light of past failures acknowledged by the Home Office.
Alex Chalk
Con
Cheltenham
Asked if the Government would be liable to judicial review for not deporting those guilty of serious or persistent offences as required by legislation passed in 2007.
Kevin Foster
Con
Torbay and South Devon
Agreed with Alex Chalk that the Government has a legal duty to deport such offenders. Stressed that this duty was not based on nationality but on criminality, and argued against Labour's current stance by referencing their actions when they were in government.
Lilian Greenwood
Lab
Nottingham South
Cited the Windrush scandal to argue for suspending deportations until a lessons learned review had been completed and considered. Questioned whether it is fair to punish people for past mistakes they have already served time for.
Alicia Kearns
Con
Rutland and Stamford
Asked if the Minister agreed that foreign offenders who harm communities should be deprived of British citizenship. Also questioned whether most deportations are to the EU, with the answer being yes.
Erith and Thamesmead
Questioned the fairness of punishing people for past mistakes they have already served time for. Highlighted a specific case of an individual deported after committing a crime at 17.
Scott Benton
Con
High Peak
Argued against conflating the Windrush scandal with foreign national offenders, and questioned Labour's motives in trying to play party political games on this issue.
Nadia Whittome
Lab
Nottingham East
Asked if deporting individuals would go against their own recommendations from a lessons learned review regarding those who have lived in the UK since childhood.
Erewash
Argued that the Opposition should focus on the criminal behaviour of perpetrators, not criticise the Government for implementing the law.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Asked about the number of individuals scheduled for deportation to Jamaica and how many had been in the UK since childhood.
Ben Everitt
Con
Dorset North
Agreed that foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes should be deported, regardless of Labour's stance.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Expressed concerns about the implications of the deportation flight and asked whether individuals had access to legal representation before being deported.
Claudia Webbe
Lab
West Ham
Asked if any of those scheduled for deportation had access to legal advice or representation.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Questioned the availability of legal aid for individuals who needed it, given cuts to legal aid over the last decade.
Shabana Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham Ladywood
Decried the Government's stance as wilfully obtuse and argued that deportations should not proceed until an independent review has been published, due to concerns about citizens being wrongfully deported.
Kate Green
Lab
Stretford and Urmston
Asked how the Government had ensured children's welfare under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 before making deportation decisions.
Stephen Doughty
Lab Co-op
Cardiff South and Penarth
Highlighted repeated failures in the Home Office system leading to wrongful detentions and deportations, asking for statistics on costs associated with these mistakes.
Government Response
Defended the Government's handling of the Windrush scandal and the upcoming deportation flight. Emphasised that the lessons learned report was not suppressed and would be published when received from Wendy Williams. Stated that serious or persistent foreign national offenders must be deported under UK law. Confirmed that those set to be deported are not British nationals or citizens. Emphasised the legal duty to remove serious or persistent criminal offenders, arguing against conflating them with Windrush victims. Stressed adherence to legislation from 2007, highlighting the majority of deportations going to the EEA.
▸
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.