Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Government’s motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1D is a motion to disagree with the Government’s obligation in relation to the Bill to have due regard for international law and the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015. If the Government are confident that the Rwanda scheme will be fully compliant with international law and the aforementioned domestic law, I do not understand why they are rejecting this amendment again.

The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 3E would scrap the requirement inserted by the Lords that Rwanda be treated as a safe country only if and when protections contained in the treaty are judged by the independent monitoring committee to have been implemented and to remain implemented. Surely Lords amendment 3E is an entirely proper and legal amendment if the Government deem that the measure in their own treaty is necessary? Given that Members had no opportunity to debate that treaty prior to ratification, the amendment would at least provide some reassurance that the protections it contains will be put into practice.

The motion to disagree with Lords amendment 6D is a motion to deny individual grounds for legal challenge that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons, or that there is a real risk that Rwanda will remove or send those persons to another state. The Home Affairs Committee has always been clear that there has to be the opportunity for appropriate legal challenge as a necessary part of our fair asylum system.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s assurances about the specified category that could be used in the future, but amendment 10D sets out very clearly why such provisions should be included on the face of the Bill and our obligations to those who have helped us and our armed forces overseas. That amendment would be the right thing to add to the Bill.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

As I was watching Aston Villa smash Arsenal on Sunday, my thoughts turned to today’s debate because, as Aston Villa fans will know, the Emirates stadium is of course sponsored by the Visit Rwanda scheme, and Arsenal play with those words emblazoned on their shirts.

I strongly support the Government’s position as set out by the reasons articulated by my right hon. and learned Friend the excellent Minister for Countering Illegal Migration. More than that, though, behind all these amendments, this ping-pong, the Reasons Room, and this process, which is quite baffling to my constituents, lies a simple question: is this Parliament sovereign or not? I believe I was sent to this Parliament to make laws in the interests of my constituents in Redditch. They are a generous people—we have accepted refugees from around the world and given them a warm Redditch welcome—but in the interests of stability and security, and protecting those British values and the culture that we all care about, they also ask that we enact measures to enable our country to control our borders. This whole debate is really summed up by the question of whether or not we in the west are able to control our borders, because we all know that this is going to get much worse. Some 100 million people are on the move.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), talked about having more grown-ups in the room and talking more nicely. Perhaps the people smugglers will listen to that and stop putting people in small boats, but somehow I doubt it—it is complete and utter nonsense. We are sent to this place to make hard choices, not emote and do things that make us feel good in the moment. We have to stand on one side, with the sovereignty of this Parliament and the people of Redditch, and this Bill is the way to do so. Let us get Rwanda done. We will stop these boats and make our country safer.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We are at that stage in the legislative process where Government obstinacy sometimes overcomes rationality. There is no way that these can be described as wrecking amendments—I wish they were, but they are not. Lords amendment 3E simply uses the Government’s own mechanism to ensure, as Conservative Members have said, that Parliament has the opportunity to change its judgment when the facts change. Anyone who has any experience of the history of this region of Africa realises that there is built-in instability, and therefore we may well need to come back to this matter, although I hope we do not.

My Northern Ireland colleague the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked about Lords amendment 10D, and the ministerial response was that we should not worry because the fact that a number of veterans sit in Cabinet means that the system will work for those who served in Afghanistan. I am sorry, but so far, the veterans sitting around the Cabinet table have not ensured that. Many of us have dealt with individual cases, and all Lords amendment 10D would do is ensure that we live up to our commitment that those who served alongside us, putting their lives and those of their families at risk, will be secure. The existing scheme has not worked in that way, but Lords amendment 10D would ensure that it did in the future.

My final point is that I came to this place on the basis that Parliament was all about protecting its citizens and ensuring that they have safety but also access to law. Baroness Chakrabarti’s amendment 6D simply ensures that Parliament fulfils that role—it certainly is not a wrecking amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

15:27

Division 124

Ayes: 306

Noes: 240

Lords amendment 1D disagreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

15:43

Division 125

Ayes: 306

Noes: 240

Lords amendment 3E disagreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

15:57

Division 126

Ayes: 310

Noes: 240

Lords amendment 6D disagreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

16:10

Division 127

Ayes: 302

Noes: 244

Lords amendment 10D disagreed to.