Public Order Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

I am debating the amendments to which I am speaking.

Clause 9 is unworkable in its current form. That is why I support these amendments and will vote for them should a Division be called.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, we need a little calm in this situation. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, made a very wise, temperate speech, and we would all benefit from reflecting upon what he said.

There is an extraordinary irony behind this. As this Bill goes through your Lordships’ House, we are also debating the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. Only yesterday I noticed a very interesting account in the Times of what the retiring vice-chancellor of Oxford University had said about free speech. She said that her students—all students—must be able to listen and reflect upon things of which they deeply, instinctively disapproved. She made the point that if they did that, they could strengthen their own views or maybe, on occasions, change them.

This clause is disproportionate. We debated freedom of speech in your Lordships’ House when I raised it many months ago, when there was an attempt to muzzle Members of this House. People were complaining to the commissioner, and the commissioner, very rightly, discounted the claims. The committee led by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, decided that we needed to tighten up the rules in our House to further protect freedom of speech. We must not claim for ourselves that which we would deny to others. It is important that freedom of speech is protected.

There are many laws that deal with those who abuse freedom of speech. One of my reasons for having doubts about the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill stemmed from the advice I was given by a wise parliamentarian who talked to me when I first came into the other place some 52 years ago. He said: “Before you form an opinion on any Bill, ask yourself if it is necessary.” I am not sure that this clause is, in any form, necessary. What certainly is necessary, however, is that, if the clause is included in the Bill—I hope it will not be, but if it is—it must be in a form amended along the lines advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, in his very wise speech.

There is a danger—some of us are guilty of this occasionally—of indulging in slogans. A slogan is not the same as a principle. A slogan is not something that should drive Members of your Lordships’ House when we are jealous of our reputation of being able to scrutinise with objective care the Bills that are placed before us. In a way, the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, was making a similar point in her brief speech when she said that we really had to reflect on what was being said. My own suggestion to the Minister, which I hope he might act on, is that he should invite in those who have tabled amendments—I am not seeking an invitation, but I would readily accept one—such as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who made a very interesting and thoughtful speech in introducing this debate, and see whether there is not some common ground. My own recommendation would be that we remove this clause, have a proper conference on this issue, and see what is necessary to protect the proper freedom of women while not inhibiting freedom of speech, especially of those who have deep religious convictions on this matter.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I hesitate to intervene on the noble Lord, who is very wise on these matters, but given that he is a huge champion of the other place, I wondered what his opinion was of the enormous majority that there was in favour of the clause there.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness what my opinion is. My opinion is based on real sadness that, since 1997, the other place has progressively ceased to be a House of scrutiny. MPs devoted just two hours to the Report stage of this Bill. What happened in 1997 was that there was an exuberant Conservative who tested the patience of the Labour Government with their great majority. The noble Baroness deserves a proper answer to her question. His name was Eric Forth; he is, sadly, no longer with us. I begged him, and so did my noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold, because we were shadow Leader and Deputy Leader of the other place, to be a little bit selective, but he was not. Night after night, he kept up the Labour Party, so what did the Labour Party do? In exasperation, it brought in programme Motions, which means that every Bill has a limited amount of time. What did the Conservatives do? They protested, saying, “We won’t allow that to happen when we come back into government.” Of course, it is such a convenience for the Executive that they did allow it to happen when they came back into government. That is why every Bill is subjected to inadequate scrutiny in the other place, so it is incumbent on us to give it the proper scrutiny that our lack of timetable Motions enables us to give it.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I agree with what my noble friend is saying about timetables, but in response to the noble Baroness, perhaps he would address this point. The truth is that Members of Parliament voted for Clause 9 in very large numbers. They did so because they were aware of the very considerable concern in their own constituencies about what was going on outside abortion clinics.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

They might have voted for all sorts of reasons. We have already heard that Stella Creasy refused vote for the Bill because it had gone wrong as far as she was concerned. Of course I will give way.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

I want to clarify that I am not suggesting that we should not stop problems outside abortion clinics. I am trying to find the best solution so that women are protected, but understanding that not everybody who wants to express an opinion should be guilty of a public order offence. I think that is the difficulty. I would like the noble Lord to comment on that issue of how we find the rational ground, because I believe that the people who voted in the other House are much closer than some of us in this House to constituents who are having these challenges.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I was a constituency MP for 40 years, so I have a bit of knowledge of it. We must make sure we do not inadvertently criminalise large numbers of people. As for the large majority in the other place, I have talked about the scrutiny and that is all entirely accurate. If this House has any point or purpose—and some are suggesting at the moment that it does not, but I believe passionately that it does—then we have to go into things in a little more detail and to have the opportunity to ask the other place to reconsider, to think again. At the end of the day, we must not forget that the other place has the final say, and that is entirely right.

As somebody who believes passionately in both Houses, I recognise that that is the elected House; I do not want us to be replaced by an elected House because then we will build in the sort of conflict that we are seeing across the Atlantic at the moment. I want us to be able to live up to our reputation of being a House of experience and expertise. That may mean that we send certain things back, and I have practised what I preach because I have voted many times against clauses in government Bills, and I am prepared to do so again because I believe that is my duty if I think they are not right. At the end of the day, however, they will have the final say. I have gone on long enough, but I have been slightly provoked; I hope I have answered the interventions that have been made. I hope that we will think again before we pass this clause in its present form. That is our duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

May I remind my noble friend that he and I cast many votes during the debates on Brexit, regardless of what the House of Commons was doing, because we thought we were right?

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I agree with that, but I think my noble friend is overlooking the fact that, in the House of Commons, it was not a whipped vote when they were talking about Clause 9; it was what is sometimes laughingly referred to as a free vote. I personally always took the view that, when I was not a Minister, a vote was a free one, but I am conscious that that was not always the view—perhaps not even of my noble friend. If my noble friend wants to intervene again, of course he can.

I would like to say a word about one or two of the amendments. I start with Amendment 80. The substantive offence is that provided in Clause 9(1). I ask rhetorically what can be the reasonable excuse for an interference? I agree with the view expressed by my noble friend Lady Sugg. I suspect that I know the intended purpose of the amendment: to allow the defendant to introduce the defence of free speech before the courts. However, if Parliament decides that Clause 9 should not have the defence of free speech—and that is what the clause provides—then such a defence should not be available in a court.

On Amendments 81 and 86, in my view the matters are of far too much importance for the designation of zones to be left to local authorities, as advocated, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The abrogation of the right of free speech and the abrogation of the right of association should be left to Parliament and not to local councillors.

The phrase “intentionally or recklessly” in Amendment 82 is wholly unnecessary, with one exception. It seems to me that the concept of intent is incorporated in the definition of interference as contained in Clause 9(3). The exception is the word “impedes” in paragraph (c), because I acknowledge that an act of impeding could perhaps be committed without intent. Ministers should clearly reflect on the criticism that has been expressed as to the scope of what is included in the definition of interference. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lady Sugg said about the expression of opinion. I am sure she is right about that, and it has been supported by others in the Committee.

Amendment 85 is in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my friend the noble Lord, Lord Beith. I almost always agree with him but on this occasion I am bound to say that I think he is wrong. With the exception of the point he made about the poster outside the church, I have very great difficulty in seeing anything that could be said within the church that could interfere with somebody seeking access to an abortion clinic, save for that which has been addressed by Amendment 97, in the name of my noble friend Lady Sugg.

As to the penalties provided in Clause 9(4), I am much more relaxed and would not seek to argue against some amelioration of the sentences set out in the Bill. In general, I think that Clause 9 is a proportionate response to a very serious mischief, and I hope that we will not water it down substantially.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I agree with part of what the noble Lord says. Obviously, it is important that all those who come to seek asylum in the UK have the opportunity to have their applications considered, and that all those who are genuine asylum seekers are of course afforded all that this country can offer by way of protection. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the recent more productive talks with our French friends and allies. Has consideration been given to building, at joint expense but with a considerable amount from us, decent hostel-type accommodation in France, where the British officials who are now assessing applications can work and where people can be given a proper assessment and clean living conditions?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I hear what my noble friend says. Clearly, the recently concluded negotiations with the French concerned the use of Border Force officials within the French detection mechanism on the French coast, but I will certainly take back my noble friend’s suggestion to the Home Office.

Police: Vetting, Misconduct and Misogyny

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

It is not in my gift to do anything about it, but I will take the noble and learned Lord’s suggestion back to the Home Office and make sure that there are further discussions on the outcome of this report, and indeed this discussion.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is frequently said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but on this occasion it is broke and it does need fixing. Will my noble friend take that message, from all sides of this House? In particular, will he reflect upon the very sensible suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, who really does know what he is talking about?

Police and Crime Commissioners and Panels

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have answered the question about the point. I have the turnout figures: in 2012, it was 15.1%; in 2016, it was 27.4%; and in 2021, it was 33.9%. We cheerfully accept that those are not the greatest numbers—certainly not relative to national elections—but, in a local context, they are not bad.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

In most democratic contexts, they are pretty awful numbers. Did my noble friend see the report in the Times this morning quoting the chief constable of the West Midlands, in which he expressed great concern that crime figures were being inflated by including so-called intimidatory gestures, which resulted in no charges but created a fair amount of bureaucracy? Could this be something that the police and crime commissioners are asked to look into as a matter of urgency?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I absolutely think that it is, but police and crime commissioners are of course answerable to their electorate, so it depends on the electorate’s priorities. I imagine that the electorate of the West Midlands would share my noble friend’s concerns.

50th Anniversary of the Expulsion of Asians from Uganda

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Alton. I deliberately call him that. Today I follow everybody else as well and it has been a remarkable debate, with some powerful, moving and wonderful speeches, many peppered with anecdotes—some very amusing, such as that of my noble friend Lady Bottomley.

I sat in Committee Room 14 on Tuesday of this week, where I helped greet our new Prime Minister. I felt a surge of pride such as I have not felt for the last two or three years, a period during which I have been sometimes at the end of my tether, feeling ashamed of my party and ashamed for my country. It was a new dawn on Tuesday, as far as I am concerned.

I began to think of other moments during my 52 years in Parliament when I felt similar pride. I thought of that day when it was decided that we should enter the European Union, and I shall always be sad that that was reversed. I thought of that remarkable Saturday morning when we debated the Falklands, and when the leader of the Opposition, Michael Foot, made it possible for us to send a task force by giving his support in a great speech. Then I thought of those days in 1972 when, like my noble friend Lord Dykes—I am just one day older than he is—I supported the very brave decision of Edward Heath. That has been referred to many times in this debate, and rightly so, because there was a Prime Minister giving true leadership on a difficult issue and doing what was right. By doing right he not only gave great relief to a remarkable group of people but did great good to our country, because the people who have come over here have attained great office in the professions and have continued the tradition of our nation of shopkeepers by keeping shops on corners where there would not be shops any more today. They have done a remarkable service and made a real contribution.

It is right that we should be saying these things, as we said them 10 years ago in the debate that my noble friend Lord Popat introduced then—again, he did it with distinction but also with prescience, because a lot has happened since then. He himself has done so much since then, becoming a Minister of the Crown and a trade envoy. He was just newly in the House of Lords at that time, and we sat close together and became friends. He has made a remarkable contribution.

We must take hope from what has happened this week. A truly remarkable young man—he is almost exactly half my age—has become our Prime Minister. I believe he will show real leadership and display those qualities of intellectual acuity, industry and love of family which have the possibility of making him a great Prime Minister. I hope for all our sakes that he becomes a great Prime Minister. I certainly hope that he is able to give the leadership that this country has lacked for the last three or four years. He is a breath of fresh air. I will not agree with everything he says or does—nobody ever can—but I believe that he has given real hope. This is a moment of pride, similar to that moment when Ted Heath made his decision, supported as he was by a Cabinet with a wonderful Home Secretary, Robert Carr, who encapsulated all the best qualities of public life in this country.

This is a very special day and a very special debate. We are all deeply in debt to my noble friend Lord Popat.

Ukraine Refugees: Mothers and Dependent Children Arriving in the UK

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I think we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, not just for introducing this debate in the way he has—with a sense of gentle urgency and uncritically but searchingly, if I can put it that way—but for much more than that. He has created a foundation and given practical help to many people over many years, and we are all, at least vicariously, in debt to him for what he has done. We wish him every possible success in his continued efforts.

It is now five months since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, and there has scarcely been a day when our newspapers and television screens have not been defaced by terrible pictures of horrible suffering and appalling destruction. Like the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, I fear that we are in for a very long haul. What on earth will all this cost to rebuild? Although we have rightly emphasised people in our publicity, we have to remember that many of their iconic buildings have been destroyed; the civilisation of which they are an important part in Europe, particularly their Christian heritage, has been damaged, in some cases beyond repair; and the cost of this, in which we must all share—both with our personal generosity, in so far as we can, and nationally —will be a prodigious sum. We must not just delude ourselves by saying, “We will make the Russians pay”, because that is very easy to say but to translate it into action is another thing entirely.

I have been troubled by a number of items on “Look North”, the evening news that follows the 6 pm news in my part of the world. I do not want to overemphasise them, because there have been many accounts of people showing real bravery, genuine concern, true hospitality and generosity, but there have been stories of families who have gone into woefully inadequate houses—filthy and not welcoming. There was one particular graphic story some months ago of a young woman, with her two children, who was weeping on the television and had been able to take some film of the habitation. I greatly welcome, as he knows, the appointment of my noble friend as Minister for Refugees, but I would be grateful if he could say something about how untypical this is. I stress that it is untypical, and we must not get it out of perspective or proportion. Nevertheless, if one mother with her children, fleeing for safety, is confronted with squalor, it is one too many. I would like to know how the figures are stacking up at the moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, talked about people finding it difficult to make ends meet. We all know that we are going through a real cost of living crisis and that Ukraine is a contributory factor. Several times a week, there are references in the Chamber to the great quantities of grain that cannot be transported across the Black Sea and taken to people in some of the poorest countries in the world. However, if those who are coming to our country are not being adequately supplied with what they need, I hope my noble friend the Minister, who I know is a man of great sensitivity and understanding, will tell us what is being done to try to bridge those gaps—because gaps there clearly are.

The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, referred to some of the problems of safeguarding and of people who exploit the young and frail, particularly children. We all know—we have read the stories—about single, middle-aged men being anxious to take in young Ukrainian women. I do not ask for a precise figure, but I ask my noble friend how many examples there are of that and how typical it is. I hope it is very untypical.

We have had some very good stories about schools. I know that in my own county, Lincolnshire, and others, young Ukrainian children without a smattering of English are being absorbed into school communities and made very welcome and looked after, in a moving and proper way. How typical is this? Have there been many problems reported?

Although it strays slightly beyond the debate and the scope of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, I declare a particular interest, in that my son is much involved in a project for twinning universities. The Government have been extremely helpful on this. The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, referred to young people with qualifications being able to use them, so I want to know how my noble friend the Minister and the Government see this prospect. I know that it was referred to at the G7 and that there is much hope for it. It is so important that, at a time of destruction and desolation, those in the very fine Ukrainian universities feel more than adequately helped by our country and our universities. There are some remarkable examples of thoughtful generosity in that regard. This is so important if we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, mentioned—and he is right—in for a very long haul.

We have to be realistic about how this will end, and I am just a little concerned here. It is right that we should be supplying armaments and other things, but there have been disturbing reports of our own stock of arms being significantly reduced in consequence. It is important that we are realistic when we talk about aims. The borders that existed on 24 February must be maintained because, without them, in a sense we are all defeated. However, we have to be very cautious in talking about regaining the Crimea and so on. That is important, especially if this drags on for two, three or four years—I hope it does not, but it could.

I wind up by saying again that I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, not just for introducing the debate in the calm and measured way he did but for what he and his foundation have done. It is an exemplary attitude on his part and one from which we can all derive proper inspiration. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister winds up, he will be able to give us some encouraging numbers and facts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

I had heard of the Vodafone Foundation in the context the noble Baroness mentioned, with a lot of noise, et cetera. I am very happy to meet it. In fact, I had a meeting yesterday with someone who does a programme with Vodafone in other countries, but I will now ask to meet the Vodafone people directly, because its involvement is trumpeted—that is the correct word for Hansard.

I have missed the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Khan, on PTSD. At the moment, it has not become a problem. This could be because it is not being reported. It could be because people are keeping things inside, because they just got away from a traumatic situation. I suspect it is beneath the surface. At the refugee groups I talk to, you meet people who are beautifully spoken—perhaps a mother with young children. You could easily think on the surface that you were attending a kids’ playgroup like those you go to up and down the country, but when you get talking, you can see what is just under the surface. I thank the noble Lord for flagging this. At the moment, it is not a problem, but we are on alert, via the local authorities.

I must conclude; I have probably gone well over my time.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I mentioned universities’ twinning schemes. Does the Minister have any comments on that area?

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

I have nothing but encouragement, as my noble friend knows, but they have not proceeded to the extent that I want. I had extensive conversations with the DfE about it, as he knows—who will be there next week, I could not tell him—but he is always on at me about it in a very positive and proper way. I am not oblivious to it.

In summary, if I may, I know that things are not perfect, I really do. Some people say that people criticise me all the time. Well, I am pursued around the House of Lords, particularly—and to a lesser extent by the House of Commons—by people with experiences, and I want to learn about them. Sponsorship is very difficult because, by nature, it is full of well-meaning people. Who would put their name down if they were not well-meaning, except, as has been brought up, when there may be a few really bad eggs? But most of those that have not worked out were not because of bad eggs, but because people did not really consider quite what it involved.

However, this is evolving. My real hope is that when it is done, instead of wrapping it up and burying it in the annals of civil service and governmental history, as happened with the Syrian scheme—it was completed and then moved off—that this becomes the way that we can deal with flows of refugees from all over the world, from whatever terrible disaster, which unfortunately happens all the time in our history. That is my hope and it all keeps me going, but I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, all of which are gratefully received.

Homes for Ukraine: Visa Application Centres

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I have pressed the FCDO, which is responsible for our on-ground response there, to make sure that this work is done. I am also commissioning a particular piece of work to help unaccompanied children, because I feel it is very important.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is several weeks since I raised with my noble friend the letter sent by a group of rectors and vice-rectors of universities. Can he tell me how many academics have now been issued with visas under this scheme, which is sponsored at this end by Universities UK?

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend the answer I wanted to because, ironically, I was due to have a meeting with the Minister at the DfE at 11 am today to discuss that when this Urgent Question came about. However, I will make sure that he has a Written Answer to that question.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I shall be extremely brief, noble Lords will be glad to hear. I should just like to draw attention to the state of public opinion, which is amazed by people arriving on our beaches in their tens of thousands. It was 30,000 last year; it could be double that this year. The public do not like it and they are right. It is very bad for the Government’s reputation. It is not so good for the Opposition either, in that the political system is failing to deal with an obviously very serious question.

The only way to deal with it is to break the business model of the traffickers. The Rwanda proposal is very far from ideal but for the present we have no alternative. I have to say, therefore, that it has my reluctant support.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to make three very brief points. First, I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Kirkhope that ping-pong should not be an endless game. We should focus today on the two things which are recent and have come to our attention since the Bill came before us.

The first is dealt with by Amendment D1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and supported by my noble friend Lady Stroud. The Government have very rightly said that Ukrainian refugees should be able to work when they get here—so they should. We do not need a different policy for other asylum seekers—a point made very eloquently by my noble friend Lady Stroud. I think we can focus on that today.

The other thing, of course, concerns Rwanda, where I strongly sympathise with the points made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the policy—and I strongly sympathise with the brief but trenchant intervention of Theresa May in the other place—it ought to be for Parliament to make the ultimate decision. To my mind, the right reverend Prelate’s amendment is far too long; my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s is straight and to the point. If we are to deport asylum seekers from this country to a third country, it should be with the approbation of both Houses. I hope this House will not indulge in too many votes tonight because we have to observe, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said, the constitutional conventions and proprieties which mean that ping-pong should not be an endless game.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the bulk of these amendments, particularly the Motion moved by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I want to make some very brief comments because this is not a Second Reading debate, thank God.

I think the Minister said that the practice of claiming asylum in the first safe country one reaches is accepted Europe-wide. I would challenge that because the bulk of the refugees who have come to Europe have come through safe countries, whether they are the 1 million Syrians who went to Germany or the Ukrainians who are on their way to this country and elsewhere. That proposition, I am afraid, does not stand.

One theme that I have noticed in the debate this afternoon is the question of the validity of the 1951 Geneva convention. The Government, while accepting the convention in theory, seem to be challenging it all the way along the line. When the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees makes a statement about the Geneva convention, we should be very careful before we challenge it, because who else has the international authority but the keeper of that convention: namely, UNHCR? When the UNHCR is critical of what is happening as regards Rwanda, we should listen to it.

Emergency Services: Ministers of Religion

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am sure it will be monitored, for the very reason that we need to be very clear that the police should be able to do the job that they have to do at the scenes of what might be quite critical incidents. They need to have the freedom to make those judgments but also be mindful of the wishes of people who might want to have a priest or religious leader with them at the time of critical illness or nearing death. I say to the right reverend Prelate that there is certainly further learning to be done on this, but I think this is a very welcome step forward.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, has thought been given to arranging for all of us to carry something similar to a kidney donor card in this context? One of the saddest aspects of the appalling murder of Sir David was that he was denied the last rites. He was a devout Roman Catholic; he would have expected to have them. If we could have a degree of co-ordination, so that all of us, if we wished, could carry such a card, perhaps that could be of some help.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will certainly take that suggestion back.

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

No, absolutely not. This Bill has been going through both Houses of Parliament for some time. I am sure that noble Lords have observed that people are dying at sea because of the actions of criminals facilitating journeys to the UK.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, are the Government accountable to Parliament or not? If they are, why should an issue as important as this, the deporting of asylum seekers to a third country, not be subject to an affirmative vote in each House of Parliament?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I do not believe that MoUs are subject to a vote in both Houses of Parliament.