- Written by Jennifer McKiernan
- BBC political reporter
Chancellor Rishi Sunak visits Dover to promote boat-the-boat policy
MPs have rejected House of Lords changes to the Rwanda bill aimed at deporting asylum seekers to the East African country.
All 10 amendments, including allowing courts to question the safety of Rwanda, were rejected. The government insists Rwanda is safe.
The Supreme Court previously ruled that the Rwanda plan was illegal because it could lead to human rights violations.
Labor says one deportation costs as much as sending six people into space.
The bill aims to allow the UK to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda by declaring it a safe place.
Home Secretary Michael Tomlinson told the House of Commons on Monday that the Rwanda Security (Asylum and Immigration) Bill was an “essential element” to securing Britain's borders.
He said the bill does not conflict with the government's international obligations.
Tomlinson also criticized “coordinated legal challenges” that “continue to frustrate and delay” the removal.
Labour's Stephen Kinnock supported all of the Lords' amendments to the bill and said his colleagues were fulfilling a “patriotic duty” by scrutinizing the bill.
The shadow home secretary said the government needed to give “full consideration” to the Supreme Court's judgment, calling Tory MPs an “absurd bill” that “frankly makes a laughing stock of our system”. He claimed that he was forcing the government to do so.
Labor backbencher Neil Coyle said a national audit showed the scheme could cost taxpayers nearly £2m for each of the first 300 asylum seekers sent to Rwanda. I asked if Mr. Tomlinson was aware of the results of the hospital's investigation.
“Does the Minister know that Virgin Galactic can send six people into space for less than the cost the government wants to send one person to Rwanda?” he said.
“Isn’t it time to reconsider this absurd policy and exorbitant cost?”
Last summer, Virgin Galactic's six-seater flight to the edge of space cost £2.14 million.
First Rwanda flight canceled just before takeoff in June 2022 due to legal issues
Conservative backbencher Richard Graham responded that critics of the costs were “totally missing the point” in saying they were a “huge disincentive” for people trying to enter the UK without a genuine reason. Ta.
However, former Attorney General Robert Buckland was one of the few rebel Conservatives who supported parts of the Rhodes Amendment, questioning whether Rwanda is and remains a safe destination. He said he was concerned about “legal friction arising” over the matter.
Sir Robert was also keen to underline his support for amendments to exempt people who supported British forces, such as Afghan interpreters, from being deported to Rwanda.
“We hope that the government will be very wise and sensitive to the position of Afghan refugees and future refugees and will not include them in this plan. We have nothing to lose by making this special insertion,” he said. It seems to me.''
MPs rejected all of the Lords' amendments by a majority of around 70 in a series of votes, meaning the bill will be sent back to the Lords in its original wording.
On Wednesday, peers will decide whether to try to dilute the bill again before Congress's Easter recess.
Downing Street said it believed there was still time to start deportation flights to Rwanda by June.
