All 1 Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi contributions to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024

Read Bill Ministerial Extracts

Mon 18th Mar 2024

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

Main Page: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts
Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024

(9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 18 March 2024 - (18 Mar 2024)
Michael Tomlinson Portrait Michael Tomlinson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but I repeat that there is no incompatibility between article 2 and the Bill. He is right to cite the judgment, but there is to be an appeal, so it would not be right to debate it further at this stage. The Government’s position on this point is very clear, as set out in previous exchanges and also in the letter that is now in the House of Commons Library.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Portrait Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Rwanda cannot be deemed a safe country for refugees simply as a result of a unilateral declaration by the Government in the face of the courts and other independent organisations that have proved the contrary to be the case. But let me get this straight: it will cost nearly £600 million for just 300 refugees to be sent on a plane to Rwanda, which amounts to an eye-watering £2 million cost per person to the public purse. Does the Minister agree that that is precisely why this political gimmick of a Rwanda Bill is extortionate, unethical, unworkable and unlawful?

Michael Tomlinson Portrait Michael Tomlinson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I disagree entirely with all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made; I know that he is patient, and he will hear me respond to each and every one.

--- Later in debate ---
Michael Tomlinson Portrait Michael Tomlinson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have given way twice to the hon. and learned Lady, so I will make progress. We have been clear that the purpose of this legislation is to stop the boats, and to do that we must create a deterrent. That goes to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Portrait Mr Dhesi
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Tomlinson Portrait Michael Tomlinson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so I will make progress.

That shows that if you enter the United Kingdom illegally, you will not be able to stay. We cannot allow systematic legal challenges to continue to frustrate and delay removals. Those Opposition Members who support this amendment do not mind if there are continuing legal challenges that frustrate and delay removals, but we on this side are not supporting the amendments. It is right that the scope for individualised claims remains limited.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Portrait Mr Dhesi
- Hansard - -

On that point about the deterrent, will the Minister give way?

Michael Tomlinson Portrait Michael Tomlinson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, I am going to move on to amendment 6.

Amendment 6 seeks to enable United Kingdom courts and tribunals to grant interim remedies. As I have previously stated, one of the core principles of the Bill is to limit the challenges that can be brought against the general safety of Rwanda. This amendment completely undermines the purpose of the Bill and is not necessary.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Portrait Mr Dhesi
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for giving way. The Rwanda plan will not work as the deterrent that Ministers claim it will, not least because it will only account for less than 1% of all those seeking to cross the channel irregularly. Where is the plan for the other 99%? Will the Minister concede that instead of fixing their broken asylum system, the Conservatives have spent an eye-watering £5.4 billion on this, including over £4 billion on asylum hotels and accommodation? That is what is at the crux of the matter, and that is what they need to resolve.

Michael Tomlinson Portrait Michael Tomlinson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On deterrence, which I think was the thrust of the question, the Albania scheme brought into effect by the Prime Minister back in December 2022 proves the deterrent effect. Crossings on small boats by those from Albania were down 90% as a result of that agreement. That shows the deterrent effect.

Lords amendment 6 completely undermines the purpose of the Bill. It is unnecessary because the Bill already contains appropriate safeguards to allow decision makers and the courts to consider claims of an individual person in particular circumstances, if there is compelling evidence.

--- Later in debate ---
Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. Sometimes the mask slips in the Government’s response to amendments. Perhaps they have decided, very disrespectfully, to refuse to engage on any of the Lords amendments because, exactly as he says, they worry that lifting the lid on this box might show a total failure inside.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Portrait Mr Dhesi
- Hansard - -

The shadow Minister is making an excellent speech. Let us not forget the history: the Tories’ Rwanda Bill is the third new law on channel crossings in just three years. The first law has been partly suspended, because it had so many problems and actually made things worse, and the second Bill has still not been fully enacted. This third Bill is another gimmick costing the public purse £2 million a person. Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than constantly chasing gimmicks and trying to dupe the British public, the Government finally need to get a grip on the situation?

Stephen Kinnock Portrait Stephen Kinnock
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree with every word my hon. Friend says.

Just imagine if the amount of time, money, resource, energy and political capital burned on this hare-brained Rwanda scheme had been used to do things that might actually deliver, and just imagine if the Government had listened to Labour’s plan for delivering the change we need to see. We might have made some progress and seen things working. By the way, we supported what the Government have done with Albania. Why do we not see more of that, rather than this utterly ridiculous government by gimmick? What a waste of time and money.

The level of waste and this Government’s cavalier attitude to taxpayers’ money are utterly staggering. Where, oh where, is the plan for the remaining 99% of cases that the Government say will be inadmissible? Tens of thousands of people who are now ineligible to be processed and ineligible to claim asylum cannot be sent to Rwanda either. That backlog, the so-called perma-backlog, currently stands at 56,000 people, with most of them living in one of more than 300 taxpayer-funded hotels across the country, costing millions of pounds every single day.