Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow the two noble Lords, and in particular my noble and learned friend. I congratulate not just him on his remarks but the whole International Agreements Committee, a cross-party committee, on, among other things, the succinctness and clarity of this report, which I hope we will all take as a model for the vital work that the committees of your Lordships’ House do. That clarity and succinctness are so important to expressing the message, and I think we have heard it delivered with enormous precision. I shall try, therefore, not to be repetitive. There are many noble Lords to follow in this debate.

I have a few additional comments, if I may, on the treaty. It is light on numbers. The actual number of asylum seekers who would be sent—transported, even—to Rwanda under this scheme is not there. These numbers may exist in some private communications between the two states, but they are not in the treaty. What is in the treaty is the suggestion that it would be for the Republic of Rwanda to make a case-by-case judgment on accepting each individual asylum seeker. That is very interesting because, among other things, it would mean that the Republic of Rwanda would get to do a case-by-case assessment that it is now impossible to do through any Minister, official or court here in the UK. I find that strange.

I will also comment on the question of whoever comes back under this treaty: whoever comes back to the United Kingdom from Rwanda. There is a lack of clarity here, but I understand that Ministers in the other place commented that those who commit crime having been sent to Rwanda would be sent back to the United Kingdom—which again smacks of no little irony, because it would mean that criminals could come back to the United Kingdom but not recognised convention refugees under the scheme. That is a slightly odd view of deterrence, in my view, which we repeatedly hear is the Government’s ambition here. What kind of deterrence is that? Some might even suggest that there is the potential perverse incentive to commit crime if you want to end up in the United Kingdom.

I am of course conscious of the Prime Minister’s recent remarks in the special press conference that he held last week for the benefit of your Lordships. We are always available for anyone who wants to come and have a chat but, if they want to do it by press conference, so much the better. Much was said about “the will of the people”, a phrase that has gained so much currency in the polarised and difficult recent years in our country. A lot is said about the will of the people as if it is something that a charismatic—or less charismatic—leader has a direct telephone line to. Perhaps it is not even a telephone any more; perhaps it is telepathic. I suggest that, in a constitutional democracy, as we have heard outlined, instead of there being this sort of telepathic connection between any individual leader and the will of the people, it is Parliament that reflects the will of the people to the best of its ability and represents people in this country while championing the rule of law.

Of course, as we have heard from my noble and learned friend, in the safety of Rwanda Bill, it is suggested that Parliament is now of the view that Rwanda is safe. So everything hinges on Parliament, with the courts having been ousted. It seems to me that, if Parliament is to step up to that awesome responsibility—it is even more awesome than usual—with the courts having been ousted from their usual fact-finding role in relation to the anxious scrutiny of individual refugees’ cases and fundamental rights, it had better be pretty sure that Rwanda is safe. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, questioned the concept of safety—that is, what is and what is not a safe country—but I remind him that even the Government have used this formulation because Clause 1 clearly states that the Bill

“gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”.

Difficult or otherwise, that concept is a recognised concept of international law.

This is the case not just in relation to the refugee convention. I remind noble Lords that many of us and many international jurists now believe that non-refoulement is so vital to the international rules-based order that it has become a principle of customary international law, binding even countries that do not recognise the convention. That is how important these concepts of safety and non-refoulement are. Like it or not, whether or not it is difficult to debate, safety is in the Bill and it is for Parliament to be very sure before deeming these new facts.

That brings me to another part of the Prime Minister’s rhetoric. We had the sabre-rattling about the unelected House of Lords having to do the right thing but another part of his address was less strident, if I can put it like that. He said that

“we have addressed the Supreme Court’s concerns”.

That was the softer side—the good cop next to the bad cop. If Parliament is to address the Supreme Court’s concerns, my noble and learned friend and his committee must be listened to because, with all due respect to our Commonwealth partner in the Republic of Rwanda, everything that they say is triggered not by what we say or deem with the flick of a pen but by the legitimate and totally noble aspiration that Rwanda will become safer—and even Britain too; perhaps we will all become safer. It is that greater safety in future that our own United Kingdom Supreme Court—not a foreign court, let alone an international one—called for and which my noble and learned friend and his committee are suggesting we should test. His comments on the contradiction between current safety and the Home Office’s evidence to his committee were perhaps the most devastating part of his argument.

Before we hear all the lectures about unelected second Houses, et cetera, I think that your Lordships have a part to play on matters of the rule of law—especially in a country with an unwritten constitution and a Human Rights Act or modern Bill of Rights that is not entrenched and where, even the highest court in the land, our Supreme Court, does not have the strike-down powers that other democracies reserve for their constitutional or highest courts. In such a system, noble Lords are entitled to be a little more muscular than usual on matters such as this that were not in anyone’s manifesto; that risk being contrary to the domestic rule of law, including by ousting the jurisdiction of the courts or changing the reality that was found by the Supreme Court on 15 November; that risk breaching international law, as found not by a foreign or even international court but by the highest court in our land; and that risk breaching human rights that were baked in to the hard-won and precious Good Friday agreement—all this in what may be the last days of the Government, when the temptations to blow dog whistles and to be destructive to consensus and the rule of law are all too great.

For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships approve my noble and learned friend’s Motions.

Immigration Detention: Brook House Inquiry

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s view is that a time limit on immigration detention would significantly impair our ability to remove those who have breached our immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. It is likely to encourage and reward abuse, allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate the removal process until the time limit is reached. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made simply to push a person over the time limit, regardless of the circumstances of their case. That would undermine our ability to maintain effective immigration control and would potentially place the public at higher risk, in particular through the release of foreign national offenders into the community.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talks about abuse, but the abuse found in the Brook House inquiry report was by G4S staff, with terrible abuse perpetrated against some of the most vulnerable people. We believe in custody time limits in this society. Even suspected terrorists can be held for no more than 14 days. Why should these desperate people be held without limit of time?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the supplier has changed; as of 2020, Serco now looks after this particular situation. I would also say that the vast majority of people are in fact detained for less than 28 days: 65% are detained for 28 days or less and 23% are detained for seven days or less.

Refugees: Homelessness

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I will take that up with DWP colleagues, as it sounds very much like it is for their department. I cannot answer the question.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in the spirit of Christmas, will the Minister reflect on his answer to the right reverend Prelate that 28 days is “more than enough” for a recognised refugee about to be evicted, whose knowledge of English may be minimal, who may have children and who might have suffered trauma back home?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, I think so, because the refugee will have been processed under a legacy asylum case and will therefore have been in that accommodation for a very long time—over a year. They would have had ample time to learn English and embed themselves to some extent into British society. An extra month is perfectly generous.

Asylum Seekers: Deportation from France

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have seen those reports, and I certainly have seen nothing of the sort from any civil servants.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent decision of the Supreme Court is a decision of a domestic court, not a foreign one? Does he also agree that its rationale was predominantly based on not the European convention but the refugee convention and various domestic statutes?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, I agree with both those comments.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they propose to prioritise reducing violence against women and girls both domestically and internationally.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, we are absolutely committed to tackling violence against women and girls at home and abroad. We passed our landmark Domestic Abuse Act and are delivering the Tackling Violence against Women & Girls strategy and the Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan to help keep women and girls safe. Internationally, we are making progress through our flagship “What works to prevent violence” programme and pioneering work to end child marriage and female genital mutilation.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister. He will recognise that this Question was tabled in recognition of White Ribbon Day, which was just over a week ago. What additional resources have the Government deployed since last year’s White Ribbon Day to give greater support to victims of sexualised violence in our domestic criminal justice and asylum systems? What support have they given to international mechanisms charged with investigating and prosecuting sexualised violence as a weapon of war?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

On noble Baroness’s second question, the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict initiative is a key focus for the UK. We are a global leader on this. We have committed £60 million since the launch of this programme in 2012. In November 2022, the UK hosted an international PSVI conference with over 1,000 attendees. A political declaration came out of that, which was endorsed by 53 countries. It sends a clear message that these types of crimes must end and sets out steps on how to achieve that. We have also launched the PSVI strategy, which sets out how the UK will work to drive global action to prevent and respond to CRSV—conflict-related sexual violence—and that includes sanctions. I refer noble Lords to my noble friend Lord Ahmad’s comments on that in June. Regarding the domestic picture, significant amounts of money and resource have been committed. I am sure I will be answering more questions on that shortly.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Safe Routes

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I will certainly confirm that France is a safe country. How the French asylum system works is, I am afraid, well beyond my knowledge.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Returning to the issue of children in hotels, last summer, the High Court found Home Office practice in relation to housing vulnerable unaccompanied children in hotels to be derelict. Can the Minister inform the House what the response is to that High Court decision?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have tried to by saying how we are working with the councils that are specifically involved in those decisions. If I can get any more details together, I will definitely come back to the noble Baroness on that.

Illegal Immigration

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, regarding the Supreme Court’s decision, that as of 14 June 2022 it did indeed regard it as a fact that there was a risk of refoulement. However, that is a fairly narrow interpretation of the rest of the system that is currently set up in Rwanda. Again, I will not speculate on how things may change. I also note that the Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that there were cases where it could see the situation changing in the fullness of time. I expect that this is the area we are looking to explore.

As regards my noble friend’s suggestion of an affirmative SI, I am happy to take that back and enter that into the conversation that is taking place.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is of course quite right that when the facts change or, to put it better, are emphatically revealed by the Supreme Court, wise people change their minds. They do not attempt to legislate to change the facts. Will the Minister acknowledge that, contrary to various statements that have been made in this House by Benches opposite, the Supreme Court acknowledged the special role and expertise of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in evaluating the facts—that is, the safety of countries?

As for treaties, does the Minister agree that, whatever new treaty comes, there is a treaty in this area. It is a very well-established treaty called the refugee convention. It is so well established that aspects of it are arguably now part of customary international law. I know that the Minister cares about the rule of law. If the Government are going to disapply or abrogate the European Convention on Human Rights, will he encourage his colleagues to counsel what effects there might be on the behaviour of the Russian Federation and others—and those currently in jeopardy, including Ukrainian prisoners who are relying on interim orders for their lives and protection from the Strasbourg court?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness. The Supreme Court did acknowledge that the UN has a role to play in this; indeed, it was heavily referenced in the Supreme Court’s judgment. I also accept that a treaty already exists regarding refugees; that is incontestable. As regards what might happen regarding the ECHR, I have already said that that was not part of any of the discussions around this particular decision. This was a domestic court’s decision. I think it is a few steps away to discuss the ECHR, and the noble Baroness is well aware of my views on the subject.

Migrants: Barges

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can confirm that the Home Office went above and beyond the UKHSA’s initial advice in managing the legionella situation, which was to have no new arrivals to the “Bibby Stockholm”, and decided to evacuate the barge immediately. We have robust and well-rehearsed processes in place across the government estate to test for legionella bacteria and it is not unusual to identify it in water systems, which is why they are subject to regular testing.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister had the opportunity to consider, at least initially, yesterday’s devastating report from the public inquiry into the scandal that is Brook House detention centre? I will not waste your Lordships’ time with the details, but they are worth a read. Has he had the opportunity to read the published remarks of His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, and his comments about how he has been thwarted by Home Office Ministers in doing his job of independent review? I am sure that noble Lords would be grateful for a response.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 90F, 90G and 90H in lieu—

90F: Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause—
“IntroductionIn interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the United Kingdom’s obligations under—(a) the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;(b) the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees including the Protocol to that Convention;(c) the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions on the Reduction of Statelessness;(d) the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;(e) the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking Human Beings.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this Bill was not a manifesto commitment at the last election; it is rather the extended version of a populist slogan for the upcoming one. That distinction is even more constitutionally significant when the Executive propose to expunge the age-old common law jurisdiction of His Majesty’s courts to issue interim relief in expulsion cases, the judicial practice of considering international obligations, and the Human Rights Act 1998 duty to interpret legislation compatibly with convention rights and freedoms where possible.

Noble Lords, and in particular the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Etherton, rejected the Government’s suggestion that the previous amendment to Clause 1 offended our legal traditions. None the less, we have softened it still further, removing references to “acts and omissions” and intended compliance only in the spirit of dialogue with the other place. Now, it merely requires that those interpreting this measure give regard to the human rights treaties mentioned. Without this amendment, an eventual illegal migration Act 2023 could become effectively exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights under domestic law as soon as its provisions are brought into force.

Again, in attempted dialogue with the other place we have clarified the amendment to Clause 4 to ensure that the duty to remove—so central to the Government’s scheme—is revived the moment a first instance court dismisses an application unless permission to an appeal court is granted. Without this amendment, the duty to remove applicants would continue, even where our higher courts are still considering the safety of a third country such as Rwanda.

The amendment to Clause 52 has been tightened to provide that courts must not only attempt but ensure that they give reasonable opportunity to the Secretary of State to object before granting interim injunctions preventing removal. Without this amendment, no British court would retain its common law power to prevent removal, despite grave risk to a person subject to ongoing legal proceedings. Noble Lords will remember that the Government have already taken the power to ignore Strasbourg interim relief under Clause 53.

In summary, without these amendments, the Government could argue a power, or even a duty, to remove new arrivals—potentially even as we rest this summer—before the Supreme Court hears the Rwanda test case in relation to past arrivals this autumn. That is what is at stake: one of the gravest executive power grabs and abrogations of the rule of law in living memory. That is why the, yes, unelected but more independent Chamber should exceptionally stand firm to protect the constitutional role of our courts and the rule of law.

In a state of sadness and some disbelief that things have come to this in our beloved land of rights advancement, from Magna Carta to the post-war settlement, I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I simply cannot accept the proposition advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. As the House will remember from the last occasion, a court always has regard, if possible, to the international treaties binding the United Kingdom, as was made clear by Lord Dyson in the Supreme Court in the Assange case.

The noble Baroness’s amendment is simply unnecessary, and, in addition, it would have the effect of changing the constitutional relationship of our law and international law. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept her proposed Motion. I invite noble Lords to vote against it in the event that it is not withdrawn.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords. I have moved Motion A1 and I ask noble Lords to approve it.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—

1B: Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause—
“Introduction
In interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the intention that its provisions, and any acts and omissions made as a result, are intended to comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under-
(a) the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
(b) the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees including the Protocol to that Convention;
(c) the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions on the Reduction of Statelessness;
(d) the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;
(e) the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking Human Beings.””

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A. Ministers suggest that our Amendment 1, Amendment 7 as a consequential and Amendment 90 are wrecking and unnecessary. These criticisms are contradictory. If the Government take their international obligations so seriously, why should they be afraid to ensure that those charged with operating this proposed legislation, which clearly impacts on the rights of vulnerable people, understand that Ministers intend not to violate these rights? Why should Ministers have been unable to make a statement of their belief in ECHR compatibility in the Bill?

Alongside that strange logic comes a pseudo-legal argument from the Mickey Mouse school of jurisprudence that even to reference binding international obligations in domestic instruments somehow offends the sanctity of our dualist system. This is nonsense. It is because of our system, whereby international obligations signed by Ministers do not automatically become directly enforceable domestically without parliamentary approval, that successive Governments of both stripes have had to refer to various treaties or their contents in a host of relevant domestic measures. Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 expressly gave primacy to the refugee convention. In 2009, in the EN Serbia case, the Court of Appeal found that that provision did not constitute informal or backdoor incorporation or undermine the principle of dualism, which is designed to protect parliamentary sovereignty and not to insulate Governments from their obligations. The Children Act 1989 takes its central best interests of the child principle directly from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—two of numerous precedents.

The treaties in our Amendment 1 were chosen by truly cross-party, all-party and non-party consensus for relevance to the people, measures and rights engaged by this Bill. The Government’s real objection, and to consequential Amendment 7 and Amendment 90, is that no one, especially His Majesty’s judges, should be able to second-guess Home Office decisions. That is simply contrary to the rule of law on which any civilised society, let alone a great democracy, must be built. None the less, in the spirit of respectful dialogue, we have listened, compromised and amended our new Clause 1, softening its requirement to require having regard to the various conventions when interpreting the Bill. There is no way that that can now be regarded as incorporation rather than interpretation.

Further, the consequential Amendment 7 is reformulated so that the Section 2 duty to remove a person will stand, notwithstanding an application for judicial review, if a court refuses permission, or even just refuses to make an interim injunction. To respond further to concerns from the other place and the Benches opposite about so-called protracted legal knots, interim relief preventing a removal is to be granted under our new version of Amendments 90 only after the Secretary of State has had a reasonable opportunity to tell a court why this should not happen. Far from being wrecking amendments, these are wholly reasonable compromises to restore some semblance of legality and respect for international obligations, domestic judges and the rule of law. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

As I have said in this House many times, the purpose of these provisions is to prevent people smugglers encouraging fraudulent claims to be children. On the question raised by the right reverend Prelate as to whether Rwanda will provide appropriate care for the children, this matter was extensively canvassed during the Rwanda litigation, and the court was satisfied that sufficient arrangements had been made in the memorandum of understanding. I invite noble Lords to refer to the judgment in that regard. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his indication that he will not press that amendment to a Division.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords, particularly to the noble and learned Lords who gave their ruling on the backdoor incorporation point. Of course, Section 2 of the 1993 Act was much stouter than either version of our Amendment 1.

Dr King, not a judge but a man of God, famously said:

“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important”.


Across this House yesterday, we pleaded for kindness. Today, we come with a more modest plea: for the rule of law. I have moved the Motion and ask the House to approve it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 7B in lieu—

7B: Clause 4, page 6, line 6, at end insert “if the court seized of the application refuses permission, interim relief or the application.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)]

The original Question was that Motion D be agreed to, since when Motion D1 has been moved as an amendment to Motion D. The Question therefore is that Motion D1 be agreed to. The matter will be decided by a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 90D to the words so restored to the Bill—

90D: Page 54, line 3, at end insert “without attempting to give reasonable notice to the Secretary of State so as to allow representations as to why, notwithstanding ongoing proceedings as to the legality of a decision to remove the person, they should nonetheless be removed.””

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that Motion T1 is consequential on Motions already passed. I beg to move.

Motion T1 agreed.