Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and John Redwood

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

Where would the proposed returns unit send illegals to, and what if the countries concerned did not want to receive them?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, as we often get this point about returns from Conservative Members. What I find fascinating is that, when we look at, for example, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are clearly safe countries in principle, we see that 80% of the applicants from those countries whose asylum claims fail are not being removed by this Government. For instance, the Home Office rejected asylum applications from 1,750 Pakistanis in 2023, yet Home Office data shows that just 620 people were removed to Pakistan in 2023. A clear proportion of those would have been asylum seekers—some may well have been foreign national offenders. The key point is that there are many, many countries to which it is more than possible to return people, yet the Government are simply failing to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) asked an extraordinary question in Home Office orals on Monday about a foreign national offender in her constituency who has been convicted of a sexual offence and has asked to be returned to his country of origin, but the Home Office has not facilitated that or allowed it to happen. Clearly, there is something going seriously wrong with returns. As I have mentioned, we have seen the number of returned failed asylum seekers plummet by 44% since 2010. We should be focusing on those countries with low grant rates, because that is where we can clear some of this backlog and return people to their country of origin when they have no right to be here.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and John Redwood

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

Well, that is an interesting one; I did not have talking about the sub-postmasters scandal on my bingo card today. Parliament is free to legislate in any way it wishes, but it has to do so in full recognition of the view of the courts. I know that a number of eminent legal experts have raised concerns about the Government’s proposed approach on the sub-postmasters. We have to see precisely how the detail looks, and it is our duty in this Parliament to scrutinise it carefully to ensure that we are not setting dangerous precedents. I would argue that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Bill before us would set a profoundly dangerous precedent because it seeks to directly overturn the findings of the highest court in our land, and that is a toxic approach.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Has the shadow Minister not seen all the comments and budget lines that the Government have put out stating that they are co-operating extensively and fully with continental countries in trying to crack down on the awful trade that is leading to deaths in small boats? The proof is that money is sent to France to help the French with their task. There is no evidence that they are not co-operating.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The co-operation with France is to be welcomed. The problem is that it is too far downstream. We need far better co-operation upstream, which is about sharing data and fixing the issue with the databases—the shadow Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition visited Europol recently to come forward with very practical and detailed plans around getting the data-sharing right. That may address the issue of the falling number of prosecutions of criminal smuggler gangs on this Government’s watch and the number of returns and removals falling by 50% since 2010. Again, we go back to the point about putting more energy and resources into the pragmatic and sensible things that can actually make a difference, as opposed to being distracted by this madcap Rwanda scheme.

It is mark of a liberal democracy that courts are independent of Parliament and the Executive. We on the Labour Benches believe passionately that that separation of powers is a fundamental and immutable element of what makes us proud to be British. Not only are we opposed to the specifics of the Bill, but we are deeply troubled by what it represents in a broader sense.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and John Redwood

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

In February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, set out the Labour party’s core principles for our defence and national security, which are based not on party politics but on Britain’s strategic national interest. They are: an unshakeable commitment to NATO; non-negotiable support for our nuclear deterrent; a resolute commitment to international law, universal human rights and the multilateral treaties and organisations that uphold them; and a determination to see British investment directed first to British industry not just because of how we think about defence and national security but because we seek to build a more resilient economy and a country that can stand more firmly on its own two feet. At the heart of those four principles lies a commitment to our armed forces personnel: the men and women who are the lifeblood of our defence and national security; those who serve to protect us.

The Conservative Government have been complacent when it comes to our armed forces and our national security more widely. Just as threats against the UK are increasing, the Prime Minister decided to break an election promise and cut the size of the Army by 10,000. Under the Government and this Prime Minister, our country is becoming less safe and our brave service personnel increasingly undervalued and under-rewarded.

I was only recently appointed to the shadow Defence team, but standing at the Dispatch Box to highlight the weaknesses that sit at the heart of the Bill is already starting to feel like groundhog day. The Bill is a missed opportunity. It was a one-in-a-Parliament opportunity to ensure that our world-class armed forces are supported by world-class legislation, but glaring gaps at its heart mean that it will fall short and fail to live up to its full potential. If the Government had chosen to support the Lords amendments, we would have been guaranteed a more robust approach to dealing with serious crimes committed by service personnel, and we would have had clear accountability and transparency about the role of central Government in delivering the armed forces covenant.

Labour supports the Bill, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure that its content matches the ambition. As I set out last week in this Chamber, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel and veterans, and their families. To that end, we have worked closely with hon. Members in this place, noble Lords in the other place and service charities to amend the Bill in the interests of our service personnel.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can the hon. Member help the House by explaining what he thinks the Government might be able to do but could not if the Bill had the protections that he wanted over central Government action?

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and John Redwood

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, but at present I have not had a conversation with our Front Benchers on this topic.

My party’s Brexit spokesperson, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), made it clear in an interview on last weekend’s Marr show that Labour only withdrew from the talks due to the inability of the former Prime Minister to deliver her own party. He stated:

“We took a judgement call that some of the proposals that the Prime Minister put forward she would not be able to get through her own party”.

I think this confirms that our side was ready to compromise on a deal if the Prime Minister could have delivered her own party. The good will was clearly there. Now all the focus should be on finding a way to put that deal back on the table, to study it, to debate it, to amend it, to vote on it, and ultimately to use it as the basic vehicle for sorting out the shambolic situation we find ourselves in.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I appreciate the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I agreed with his opening remark that we want this to be over with and to move on, but my worry is this. Does not his idea require guarantees and statements from the European Union? What would they be, and how could we secure them?

[Stephen Kinnock]

At the heart of our amendment, and of the withdrawal agreement Bill, is a document that has absolutely been signed off by the EU27. It is there; it is ready to go; it is off the shelf. The changes—the 10 concessions—relate to the political declaration on the future relationship. So the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that the European Union would, I think, bite our arms off if we were able to come forward and say, “This is the deal. It needs some tweaks, but, in essence, this is where we need to go.” That is why I think it is so vital for us to use the extension period for a purpose.