When asked if the current bill was within the boundaries of what Rwanda deems acceptable (as they have stated that they will withdraw support for the deportation agreement if the UK violates international law), the spokesperson responded:
The stance of the Rwandan government pertains to the elements of international law.
There are additional elements of the legislation that are not solely focused on that, so I am open to considering any additional recommendations made by MPs.
The discussions are still in progress.
Filters BETA
According to a recent survey by Ipsos, a majority of 79% of individuals believe that the government has performed poorly. This sentiment is shared by 81% of those who voted for the Conservative party in the 2019 election and 74% of current Conservative supporters.
However, the poll indicates that only 24% of individuals believe that Labour would be more effective in managing immigration, a decrease from 29% in July.
The findings of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and the summary provided by the joint committee on human rights.
Additionally, she believes the government should provide a justification for not seeking a legislative consent motion from the Scottish parliament for the bill.
In a written communication to the leaders of the public accounts committee and the home affairs committee in the House of Commons.
In his letter Davies said:
After carefully considering your proposal, I have determined that it is not feasible to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the UK-Rwanda program at this time. This is because the success of the program depends on its ability to serve as a deterrent.
Due to the significant attention surrounding the plan and considering the concerns brought up during the PAC meeting on December 11th, I have chosen to create a report that will provide facts about the expenses incurred thus far and the Department’s projected costs when the plan is in action. Once this report is finished, I plan to present it in the house, and your committees may then decide if additional evidence is necessary.
I intend to release this report in the year 2024.
Meg Hillier, chair of the public accounts committee, and Diana Johnson, chair of the home affairs committee, released a joint statement in response to the letter.
Our committees have consistently urged the Home Office to be more transparent regarding the Rwanda asylum program. It is crucial for parliament to have complete knowledge of the details of a program that has garnered significant public attention.
Since the government has not yet been able to provide this information, we appreciate the National Audit Office’s upcoming efforts to keep taxpayers updated on the expenses of the plan, both currently and once it is put into action.
During the Commons session, Nicholas Fletcher, a member of the Conservative party representing Don Valley, expressed his support for the bill. He stated that his constituents were in favor of putting an end to the issue of small boats. He also mentioned that his election was influenced by Brexit and that he would not return to the Commons if the government failed to address the problem of small boats. This statement was met with a loud cheer from Labour MPs.
Conservative MP Matt Warman, a member of the One Nation Caucus, has announced his support for the bill, albeit without much enthusiasm. He believes it is the responsibility of MPs to address the issue of immigration and therefore urges their backing of the bill, even if it is not flawless.
David Simmonds, a member of the Conservative party, initially held doubts about Rwanda. He believed it would be a costly measure. However, after witnessing the situation in Calais and listening to input from officials, he came to the realization that it could serve as a deterrent for certain individuals. According to Simmonds, the policy and the current legislation have significant value.
12.27pm and 3.24pm.)
When questioned about whether the current iteration of the bill meets Rwanda’s standards (as stated by Rwanda, they will withdraw their support for the deportation agreement if the UK violates international law), the representative responded:
The stance of the Rwandan government pertains to the components of international law.
I will not dismiss any additional suggestions from MPs that may have been made, as there are other elements in the bill that are not directly related to this.
The discussions are still in progress.
Sammy Wilson of the DUP urges all MPs to back the goals of the bill. However, he raises doubts about its effectiveness and notes that the government has failed to learn from past mistakes with immigration legislation.
However, he argues that the bill poses particular challenges for Northern Ireland. According to him, Belfast, the second most populous city in the UK, faces strain on its housing resources due to a high number of immigrants. Additionally, he notes that the EU’s charter of fundamental rights is applicable in Northern Ireland. This could potentially result in asylum seekers from other parts of the UK seeking refuge in Northern Ireland in hopes of increasing their chances of being granted residency.
Jackie Doyle-Price of the Conservative party urges MPs not to overlook the potential benefits of this bill in the pursuit of perfection. Passing it would aid in addressing the issue at hand.
She informs her coworkers that, even though this legislation may not align with their beliefs, it will improve the situation.
Conservative MP for Dover, Natalie Elphicke, credits diplomacy for the successful collaboration between the UK and France in preventing illegal entry into the UK via lorries.
The speaker advocates for the use of diplomacy to negotiate a returns agreement with France. They believe that the UK should be sending individuals back to France instead of Rwanda.
Additionally, she suggests that the UK should initiate international talks regarding a fresh worldwide migration agreement.
She claims to want to halt the boats, but also expresses serious worries that the proposed bill will not achieve the government’s desired outcome.
According to Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, and Elphicke herself, the MP for the most impacted constituency, if they are all expressing doubts about the effectiveness of the bill, the government should heed their concerns.
Tommy Sheppard, a member of the Scottish National Party, expressed disappointment over the Conservatives’ focus on portraying migrants in a negative light. He believes they are using this issue as a political tool.
The speaker suggests that the government’s decision to shut down legal routes for asylum seekers has inadvertently contributed to the success of people smuggling businesses.
Simon Fell, a Conservative politician, claims that the government is not acting unilaterally. He states that there are other governments globally who are implementing similar plans.
According to him, supporting this bill is the most effective way to prevent boats from entering.
According to Caroline Lucas, a Member of Parliament for the Green Party, the bill is a “manipulative and malevolent assault on the UK’s top court”.
She claims that the bill will not be effective and will not discourage those who are already putting their lives at risk.
She describes it as “an act of cruelty performed by a failing administration”.
Source: theguardian.com
