scheme is taking somebody who is in the united kingdom and asking them to return to their home country, a european country, a highly developed country. it is a very different proposition. than asking somebody, in fact not asking, enforcing somebody to be removed from the united kingdom to a third country which they do not wish to go to. also, as he may know, very few small boat arrivals have been removed to albania. almost all of those individuals who have gone to albania have been foreign national offenders in our presence, time served, individuals were voluntarily chosen to return to albania and those who have been in the united kingdom for a long time. the success of this scheme rests on taking people off small boats, detaining them for very short periods of time and then

removing them swiftly to rwanda for the reasons i havejust set out. the reasons i have set out, i think that is unlikely to succeed in any scale on the way the bill is currently structured. i will give way. i’m structured. iwill give way. i'm crateful structured. iwill give way. i'm grateful to _ structured. iwill give way. i'm grateful to him _ structured. iwill give way. i'm grateful to him for— structured. i will give way. i'm grateful to him for giving way and would point out that people arrive in small boats because legal writs have been blocked. when it comes to his amendment to clause four of this disgusting bill already provides a very limited route for individuals to challenge their removal to rwanda based on their individual circumstances. yet my understanding is the right honourable member is seeking to go even further to overwrite individual legal protections, even decisions which contain errors when not be open to challenge under his amendment 22. how on earth is that fair orjust or justifiable? we how on earth is that fair or 'ust or justifiable?— justifiable? we have had this argument — justifiable? we have had this argument many _ justifiable? we have had this argument many times - justifiable? we have had this argument many times but. justifiable? we have had thisl argument many times but she justifiable? we have had this . argument many times but she is completely wrong. this country is one of the world's most generous countries for supporting those in

need around the world and since 2015 we have issued more than half a million thesis on humanitarian grounds, more than at any time in our history. on the point she makes that my amendment it is not correct to say we would not enable people to challenge on the individual circumstances, but they wouldn't be able to be suspense if. so individuals would arrive in the uk and within days, which is critical to the success of the scheme they would be removed to rwanda where they could bring forward claims as they could bring forward claims as they may wish, but they wouldn't block the flights and that is critical, without which the scheme will simply not succeed. i will not give way. what we will also say in this amendment as there are no grounds on which individuals would not be put on flights, once the home office are used to dealing with two fitness and travel requirements. that is a concept that is well known and understood, and i am certain would work. what with the amendment to do that is different? it narrows

down the reasons by which individuals could make claims and makes the scheme legally and operationally workable for the first time. now, dame rosie winterton like sir roger —— sir roger, we have tried to be constructive for bringing this amendment. the prime minister set test to me and anyone who shares my determination to tackle this issue and that was as follows, he would accept any amendment whether it strengthens this bill, if there were a respectable legal arguments in international law in their favour. we can argue about whether that test is the right one, personally i feel very strongly that there are times when contested notions of international law should not surpass either parliamentary sovereignty or, above all, the interests of our

constituents. and border security and national security are the prime responsibilities of any country. that was the test. we have met the test. we instruction a very eminent lawyer, john larkin casey, former attorney general of northern ireland, to provide us with an opinion. the opinion says each and every one of the moments in my name and that of the member for a stone are compliant with international mark, unless the goalposts have been shifted by the government. i see no reason why the prime minister and the minister cannot these amendments and enable us to strengthen decibel once and for all. i will conclude by saying this. at the outset i said there was one question hanging over this debates, what works. there is a further question. how much are we actually willing to do to stop the boats? how are we willing to take on the vested interests, balance the

trade—offs, take the robust steps that will actually work? the only countries in the world that affects this country, latterly australia and greece, have been willing to take the most robust action. are we? well, i am. the most robust action. are we? well, iam. iwant the most robust action. are we? well, i am. i want to stop the boats and secure our borders. this is a difficult issue. but we are not a parish council struggling with some kind of intractable legal issue. we are a sovereign parliament. the power is in our hands. we have agency. the law is our servant, not our master. i would urge all right honourable and honourable members to support the amendments in my name and those of my honourable friend the memberfor stone, and create a scheme that actually works. that is what our constituents expect for us, thatis what our constituents expect for us, that is the promise the prime minister has made to them and the

whole country. minister has made to them and the whole country-— whole country. opposition front bench stephen _ whole country. opposition front bench stephen kelly. _ whole country. opposition front bench stephen kelly. thank- whole country. opposition frontl bench stephen kelly. thank you. whole country. opposition front i bench stephen kelly. thank you. i rise to speak— bench stephen kelly. thank you. i rise to speak in _ bench stephen kelly. thank you. i rise to speak in favour— bench stephen kelly. thank you. i rise to speak in favour of- rise to speak in favour of amendments any classics. they are just out by reminding the house and anyone watching at home that the labour party is opposed to decibel in its entirety. for the simple reason that we are opposed to the rwanda scheme in its entirety. we have been absolutely clear that we need to stop the conservatives nor puts chaos, and we need to fix our broken asylum system, but those aims can only be achieved by way of measures that are based on common sense, hard graft and international cooperation. as opposed headline chasing and government gimmicks from the benches opposite. the benches opposite like to accuse us of opposing everything the government is doing to stop the tory smile puts

chaos but that is simply not the case. we fully support measures such as the deal with albania because thatis as the deal with albania because that is the sort of sensible pragmatic action that can make a tangible difference, and we have repeatedly made our support for this course of action crystal clear, if only the benches opposite the kotick lesson. but the labour party will never support any proposal that is unavoidable, unworkable or unlawful. i will give way. unavoidable, unworkable or unlawful. i will give way-— unavoidable, unworkable or unlawful. i will give way-— i will give way. would he agree with me the government _ i will give way. would he agree with me the government is _ i will give way. would he agree with me the government is being - i will give way. would he agree with i me the government is being extremely neglectful with the public purse by throwing money at the rwanda scheme that simply will not work? mr; that simply will not work? my honourable friend is right, it is quite remarkable that a party that used to pride itself on being a party of fiscal rectitude is throwing £400 million of taxpayers'

money at the government of rwanda for precisely nothing. the only thing they have got so far as they sent three home secretaries to rwanda but not a single asylum seeker. the rwanda plan is all of the above. it is unaffordable, unworkable and unlawful. it is unaffordable to the british taxpayer because a truly staggering £400 million of taxpayers' money is on the way to the rwandan government without a single asylum seeker landing in rwanda. it is unworkable because we know the rwandan authorities are only capable of less than 1% of the 30,000 to cross the channel in small boats in 2023, according to the court of appeal. in orderfor the deterrent according to the court of appeal. in order for the deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible and surely even the most ardent support it would acknowledge that such a tiny chance of being sent to rwanda is ever going to deter someone who has risked life and limb to cross

continents to escape from persecution and violence. the forei . n persecution and violence. the foreign office _ persecution and violence. tue: foreign office recently persecution and violence. tte: foreign office recently admitted that hundreds of afghans eligible for resettlement have not been brought into the uk, they exemplify the need for safe legal roots and is it not the case that those are exactly the people who are risking life and limb because they cannot get the legal and safe routes that the government should provide? the honourable lady is right and a case in point is the afghan schemes, the arab scheme has more than less collapsed, the sars is not working at all and which nationality is always on the top two or three to be crossing on the small boats? the afghans. it is pretty straightforward. free apple of the rwanda policy because it is not a deterrent. it is a distraction. far better, as a shadow home secretary and myself are set out many times, to redirect the vast quantities of taxpayers money that has been put

into the scheme into a new cross—border police unit and any security partnership with euro poll which can smash the criminal smuggler gangs upstream. t which can smash the criminal smuggler gangs upstream. i think he is makin: a smuggler gangs upstream. i think he is making a really _ smuggler gangs upstream. i think he is making a really important - smuggler gangs upstream. i think he is making a really important point. is making a really important point about how we need to be incorporating much more intensively with the law enforcement agencies across europe. the brutalfact is these gangs are putting people into boats that were made for rivers, not see, in treacherous conditions. who in their right mind would go in one of those dinghies in the english channel right now? but people are being forced to do that by these gangs. we need to smash the gangs are guilty do that by working with our colleagues across europe to make sure we bring that to an end. —— we can only do that. mr; sure we bring that to an end. -- we can only do that.— can only do that. my honourable friend is right. _ can only do that. my honourable friend is right. if _ can only do that. my honourable friend is right. if we _ can only do that. my honourable friend is right. if we can - can only do that. my honourable friend is right. if we can accept i friend is right. if we can accept international cooperation with our european partners and allies, this has to be at the heart of dealing

with the gangs, that possibility of cooperation is fundamentally undermined than we have a government thatis undermined than we have a government that is flagrantly prepared to break international law, which should underpin the trust that is a prerequisite for all of this cooperation to happen. this cooperation, based onjoint working and intelligence sharing, with their partners and allies, is only possible if britain is deemed to be a trustworthy partner and i praise me to the third reason for the legislation we are opposing, and for opposing the amendments. because we find ourselves in an utterly extraordinary position. we find ourselves debating a government policy which has been found to be unlawful by the highest court in our atlanta. amendment 35, which i will come too shortly, reflects that very fact. we find ourselves confronted

by a government that is seeking to legislate for an alternative reality. whilst ministers appear to believe they can pass a bill which determined that this guy is green on the grass is blue, that does not make it so. the grass is blue, that does not make it se— make it so. has it escaped the honourable — make it so. has it escaped the honourable gentleman's - make it so. has it escaped the i honourable gentleman's noticed make it so. has it escaped the - honourable gentleman's noticed that there was one claim that was dismissed by the supreme court judgment on rwanda, and that was in the case of asn. the reason is very simple and the court made this pretty crystal clear in paragraph 144 of itsjudgment. pretty crystal clear in paragraph 144 of its judgment. that's the issue in question was undermined, as far as i issue in question was undermined, as faras i claimant issue in question was undermined, as far as i claimant was concerned, by clear and unambiguous words in an act of parliament, in other words the sovereignty of parliament. t the sovereignty of parliament. i thank the honourable gentleman for his comments, but the point with the sovereignty of parliament. of course

it is sovereign and we are sent in this place to meet law but we must make those laws with restraint. we must make those laws whilst respecting the judicial function, the separation of power is fundamental to our identity as a liberal democracy so whilst he does very often talk about the sovereignty of parliament, it is vital that his comments must always be founded on the principle of the checks and balances that the separations of paris give us. just to tease out _ separations of paris give us. just to tease out a _ separations of paris give us. tut to tease out a little bit more of what labour policy is on that specific issue he referred to, as he ruling out any consideration of this house determining to overturn the wrongful convictions of hundreds of sub—postmaster simply because that would be setting a new precedent in the relationship between this house the relationship between this house the courts? .,

the relationship between this house the courts? . , ., , the courts? that is an interesting one. i the courts? that is an interesting one- ididnt— the courts? that is an interesting one. i didn't have _ the courts? that is an interesting one. i didn't have it _ the courts? that is an interesting one. i didn't have it on _ the courts? that is an interesting one. i didn't have it on my - the courts? that is an interesting one. i didn't have it on my bingo| one. i didn't have it on my bingo card today to be talking about the suppleness masters scandal —— the sub—postmaster scandal. parliament is free to legislate in any way it wishes but it has to do so taking full recognition of the view of the courts and i note that a number of eminent legal experts have raised some concerns about the government proposal, the approach of the sub—postmaster is. we have to see precisely how the detail of that looks and it is our duty to scrutinise that very carefully and to ensure we are not setting dangerous precedents. what i would argue is there is no doubt whatsoever that the bill before us todayis whatsoever that the bill before us today is a deeply dangerous, profoundly dangerous precedent because it seeks to directly overturn the findings of the highest court in our atlanta and i would argue that it is a toxic approach ——

in our land. t argue that it is a toxic approach -- in our land-— in our land. i am grateful to the shadow minister— in our land. i am grateful to the shadow minister for _ in our land. i am grateful to the shadow minister for giving - in our land. i am grateful to the shadow minister for giving way. in our land. i am grateful to the - shadow minister for giving way. had he not seen all the comments and budget lines that this government has put out stating that it is cooperating extensively and fully with continental countries over trying to crack down on this awful trait which is leading to deaths in these small boats and the proof of thatis these small boats and the proof of that is money is sent to france in order to help them with their tasks? there is no evidence they are not cooperating. the there is no evidence they are not «reiterating-— there is no evidence they are not cooperating. the cooperation with france is to _ cooperating. the cooperation with france is to be _ cooperating. the cooperation with france is to be welcomed, - cooperating. the cooperation with france is to be welcomed, the - france is to be welcomed, the problem as it is too far downstream. what we need to see is far better cooperation upstream, which is about sharing data, fixing the issue with the databases, my honourable friend, the databases, my honourable friend, 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 and that may actually seek to address the issue, that the number of prosecutions of criminal smuggler gangs is going down on this government's watch, the number of returns and removals has gone down by 50% since 2010. again, we go back to this point about let's put more energy and resources into this pragmatic sensible things that can make a difference, as opposed to being distracted by this madcap rwanda scheme. if i canjust being distracted by this madcap rwanda scheme. if i can just make a little bit of progress. it is a mark of a liberal democracy that courts are independent of parliament and the executive and we, on these benches, believe passionately the separation of power is a fundamental and immutable element of what makes us proud to be british. we on these benches are not only opposed to the

specifics of this bill, we are also deeply troubled by what it represents a broader sense. th deeply troubled by what it represents a broader sense. in the christmas period _ represents a broader sense. in the christmas period the _ represents a broader sense. in the christmas period the labour- represents a broader sense. in the christmas period the labour front l christmas period the labour front bench and ominously briefed the times to say they would want to pursue an offshore processing model. is that correct that it is his position and that of the shadow home secretary, and if so, why would they want to do something which is known to be more expensive and less effective because you have to bring everyone back to the united kingdom one way or another? and so you create no deterrent whatsoever, but one wouldn't want to move forward with a scheme like rwanda. t one wouldn't want to move forward with a scheme like rwanda. i thank the former immigration _ with a scheme like rwanda. i thank the former immigration minister i with a scheme like rwanda. i thank| the former immigration minister for his comments and i did enjoy causing him and working with him on some occasions, and i thank him for his comments. what i would say is that if you look at the ukraine scheme,

thatis if you look at the ukraine scheme, that is an example of offshore processing. those obligations were processed in poland before they came to our country. look at the hong kong scheme. there are plenty of ways of doing upstream processing, offshore processing, and to coin a phrase, what matters is what works. what is absolutely clear, and it is difficult to imagine any scheme that can be more expensive than this one, but i am going to make some progress. what i would cite is the view of the bingham centre for the rule of law and countless other legal experts who have stated that their spell is contrary to the rule of law because it amounts to a legislative... 0f of law because it amounts to a legislative... of the jessel function. it is an assault on country's constitutional conventions which requires the legislature to respect the essence of the judicial

function. moreover, there is a staggering hypocrisy at the heart of this bill when you consider it in the context of the treaty that has been signed with the bookbinder because the purpose of that treaty is to bind the romantic government into respecting the rule of law and the principle of non—refinement. but how on earth can minister told the rwandan authorities to account on this matter is if they themselves are so politically and negligently failing to practice what they preach? tt failing to practice what they reach? , ., failing to practice what they reach? , . ., , ., preach? it is a little ingenuous to likin: the preach? it is a little ingenuous to liking the ukrainian _ preach? it is a little ingenuous to liking the ukrainian scheme, - preach? it is a little ingenuous to liking the ukrainian scheme, the | liking the ukrainian scheme, the only criteria for the ukrainian scheme is you have to be ukrainian and come from ukraine. up to november 2023 enforcement arrested 226 people force people smuggling into the uk and there were 124 convictions. that was in addition to arrests and convictions which happened on the continent. 0n

arrests and convictions which happened on the continent. on what figures for those figures declined? there has been a 30% drop since 2010 in the convictions of criminal smuggler gangs and there has been a 50% drop since 2010 in removals. i would be very happy to write to the honourable gentleman with the clear details of those facts, we have got the receipt. it is against this fundamentally flawed and farcical backdrop that we seek to modify the legislation that is before us today. our amendments are an attempt at 0ur amendments are an attempt at damage limitation, an effort to moderate the most egregious aspects of this nonsensical and counter—productive bill. 0ur amendment 35 acknowledges that in november of last year the supreme court upheld the court of appeal judge. it ruled that the rwanda policy was unlawful because there were substantial grounds to believe

people transferred there could be sent to countries where they would face persecution or inhumane treatment if rwanda rejected their asylum claims, a practice known as refoulement. when the plan was first announced, when israel signed a deal with rowenta in 2013 many of the asylum seekers who were sent from israel to rwanda were routinely moved clandestinely to uganda and in three cases refoulement to eritrea via kenya was only prevented by the unhcr intervening. little wonder that the israeli supreme court ruled that the israeli supreme court ruled that the israeli supreme court ruled that the scheme unlawful in 2018 and it was closed down. in december the government signed a treaty with the rwandan government which says migratory is prohibited and says anyone removed to rwanda from the uk must be allowed to stay there. the only country to which people can be

transferred from rwanda as the uk, which under the deal must also accept some of the rwanda's most honourable refugees and defenders sent back from the country. this fact in itself tells a story. the fact in itself tells a story. the fact that uk government and the rwandan government have agreed that britain might need to take some rwandan refugees is a stark admission of the fact that rwanda is not a safe country for many people. indeed, since the first 120 million pan payment by the british government to rwanda six row bindings have been granted safety and refuge in the uk. then there is the tragic fact that ministers are simply too afraid to address that in 201812 congolese refugees were shot dead by rwandan police for protesting against food shortages. 0ur amendment 35 therefore commits british courts and tribunals to recognise and deal with the specific

risks of refoulement associated with rwanda by removing the relevant text in clause two of this bill. 0ur amendment 37 makes it clear that decision—makers must be able to take the risk of refoulement into consideration when processing asylum claims. the bill designates rwanda as a safe country and therefore makes clear every decision—maker must conclusively treat the republic of rwanda as such. it states that the bill does not permit a decision maker to consider any matter, claim or complaint to the extent that it relates to the issue of whether the republic of rwanda will or may remove the person in question to another state in contravention of any of its international obligations, including its obligations, including its obligations under the refugee convention. yet, as the government has peevishly acknowledged, the facts on the ground can change. therefore it must be acknowledged that the decision—makers should make their own judgment that the decision—makers should make their ownjudgment based that the decision—makers should make their own judgment based on the latest court rulings. we see no reason not to let decision—makers to

theirjobs and make decisions based on all of the knowledge available to them as he situation evolves. as opposed to the frankly absurd idea that rwanda can be defined as safe in perpetuity. i turn out to our new clause six. the new treaty states that rwanda is committed to addressing concerns that are laid out in the supreme courtjudgment, including refoulement. new classics would simply help to ensure that rwanda can be held accountable on its treaty commitments by placing the monetary commitment on a statutory basis of prison conditions are when the classification of rwanda as safe can be suspended on accordance with material conditions and non—compliance with obligations under the rwanda treaty. as things stand, the government can vary the operating principles of the monetary committee without it being possible for such changes to be challenged in

our domestic courts. a new classics therefore addresses this unacceptable position by placing the monitoring committee on a statutory footing, thus making it to decibels and thus by definition more transparent and more accountable. we see no reasons why members opposite across this house should oppose the principles of transparency and accountability upon which our new classics are spaced and we hope they willjoin us in the lobby later. turning briefly to the amendment put forward by members opposite, i would point out that even one of their own colleagues, the chair of the one nation group has described many of these amendments as authoritarian and a betrayal of conservative values. and he is right. the bill in its current form is already an assault on our reputation as a country that upholds the separation of powers and the rule of law. the majority of amendments tabled by the benches opposite would take us even

further away from those basic democratic principles. so let me be clear. we on these benches for the public voting against the amendment that are being promoted by the benches opposite. —— will be proudly voting. the policy is unavoidable, unworkable and unlawful. this bill is an affront to the values we hold dear and we will always stand up for the separation of powers, for the rule of law and for ensuring that we can stand toe in the world. he’s can stand toe in the world. he's very kind _ can stand toe in the world. he's very kind to _ can stand toe in the world. he's very kind to give _ can stand toe in the world. he's very kind to give me _ can stand toe in the world. he's very kind to give me a - can stand toe in the world. tt2�*3 very kind to give me a second time. i have listened to him carefully and i have listened to him carefully and i do not have an answer to one of the central questions of the debate. is the government because my view that rwanda is a safe country, what is the view of the labour party? is rwanda a safe country? i think we would be interested to know and i know the government of rwanda be interested to know the position of the labour party. studio: lets leave the house of commons they are and that debate for a moment. we are going to take you to scotland for scotland's top

prosecutor has apologised to those who suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of the post office horizon scandal. lord advocate dorothy bain said she wanted to acknowledge the harm done to those who have suffered a miscarriage ofjustice. fist to those who have suffered a miscarriage ofjustice. miscarriage of 'ustice. at that meetinu . miscarriage of 'ustice. at that meeting. as _ miscarriage ofjustice. at that meeting. as officials - miscarriage ofjustice. at that| meeting. as officials repeated miscarriage ofjustice. at that - meeting. as officials repeated their assurances to scottish prosecutors but moving forward it would agree that when it was agreed that. this would retain expert evidence and support the integrity of horizon evidence. meantime scottish prosecutors continued to follow the approach that were sent out and advice issued to them on the 7th of august 2013. the post office failed to deliver these in time and as a result prosecutors took the decision

to take no further prosecutorial action in several newly reported cases. post office and crown 0ffice officials met again on the 6th of october 2015, officials met again on the 6th of 0ctober2015, during officials met again on the 6th of october 2015, during that meeting. as officials advised that they remained confident in horizon. indeed, the then ceo of the post office limited had given evidence to 0ffice limited had given evidence to that effect at a parliamentary select committee in february of 2015. advising that they remain confident in the horizon system. notwithstanding that, post office confirmed that they were unable to provide a final expert report or provide a final expert report or provide expert evidence which would support the integrity of the horizon system and event challenge in court. at that stage, in light of the failure to provide a second site report, a final report, or any

expert evidence regarding the horizon evidence, scottish prosecutors formalised what was by then the cautious approach. 0n the 20th of october 2015 prosecutors were advised to assess all post office cases and report for crown counsel instruction with a recommendation to discontinue or take no action in cases which relied on evidence from the horizon system to prove a crime had been committed. the post office did not disclose to prosecutors in scotland is the true extent of the rise and problems as they are now known to be. scottish prosecutors received assurances that the system was robust and of these were assurances that prosecutors without the benefit of hindsight were entitled to take at face value. they would not have known or indeed

suspected that the post office may not have been revealing the true extent of horizon problems. because of the failures by the post office, we now know that a number of people in scotland may have suffered a miscarriage ofjustice, and in circumstances like these, our justice system enables those who may have suffered a miscarriage of justice to appeal a conviction by virtue of an application to the scottish criminal cases review commission who made themselves review and refer a case to the high court for appeal. the findings in the english group litigation headed by alan bates which were later endorsed in 2021 by the english court of appeal when quashing 39 convictions of those it had held had suffered a miscarriage ofjustice or —— are significant, because it confirmed beyond doubt the extent of