Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

It would be in circumstances where compliance is not possible.

Turning to Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the text that the Minister read out placed a great deal of importance on the phrase “does not require” a Minister to do something. However, it does empower a Minister to do it. Would what it empowers the Minister to do not be in breach of our international obligations?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I now turn to Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The noble Baroness indeed anticipated me as I was turning to that point. As she says, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, had touched on that. I have the statement by the United Nations human rights chief. The Government repudiate the charges that he places when he says:

“The combined effects of this Bill, attempting to shield Government action from standard legal scrutiny, directly undercut basic human rights principles”.


We disagree with that.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Will the Minister answer a very simple question? Did the United Kingdom vote for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take his post? If so, by what right does it now repudiate his views?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Whether or not we as a country voted for him to take his place does not exclude the possibility of disagreement with anything that any official, be he ever so high, may have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I think the terms of Article 9 of the treaty are clear. The Act comes into force the day that the treaty comes into force. As to the specific Rwandan legislation to which the noble and learned Lord refers, I am not able to give a categorical answer from the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Will the Minister answer a couple of rather simple questions? Has he read the Rwandan legislation? Does he believe it is in conformity with the treaty?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The answer to the former is that it does not fall to me to read the Rwandan legislation; but, given that decisions are taken collectively by the Government, I can answer the noble Lord’s second question in the affirmative.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, the words that I am about to utter are largely not mine. They are the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, who I am delighted to see in his place, in the preface he wrote to a paper on Rule 39 written by Professor Richard Ekins, professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford, and published by Policy Exchange last year.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann said:

“A ruling of a court such as the European Court of Justice”—


though I think he probably meant, if noble Lords will forgive me, the European Court of Human Rights as his words certainly apply to it—

“is binding upon the parties only if the court had jurisdiction to make it. If it did, a party must comply and cannot complain that it was wrong. If the court did not have jurisdiction, the parties can ignore it.

The European Convention on Human Rights confers upon the Strasbourg Court jurisdiction in all matters ‘concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention’: article 32. It exercises this jurisdiction by the judgments of its Chambers, which, after submissions and argument by the parties, become final in accordance with articles 42 and 44. In this paper, Professor Ekins demonstrates that the Convention does not confer upon the Court, still less upon one of its judges, a power to make orders binding upon a Member State which require it to do or refrain from doing something on the ground that it might at a later stage be held to have been an infringement of the Convention. Not only is there nothing in the language of the Convention which expressly confers such a power but the usual aids to the construction of a treaty – the travaux preparatoires, the subsequent practice of the court – reflect a clear understanding that no such power exists.


What has happened is that one of the rules which the Court has itself made to regulate its own procedures has included a power to ‘bring to the attention of the Parties any interim measure the adoption of which seems desirable’ to avoid a violation of the Convention. The existence of a power to fire such a shot across the bows is practical and sensible. It does not involve the assertion of any jurisdiction to impose a legal obligation. But what has happened in the court’s recent jurisprudence is that this advisory power has been assumed to be a power to grant legally binding interlocutory relief. As Professor Ekins demonstrates, a court cannot in this way enlarge its jurisdiction by its own bootstraps. And if the Court had no jurisdiction to make such an order, Member States are free to ignore it”.


The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to Article 32, which gives the court the power to interpret and apply the convention. It does not, however, give the court the power to add something to the convention which simply is not there. As Professor Ekins said in the concluding words of his paper:

“In rejecting the Strasbourg Court’s actions in excess of jurisdiction, the UK … would not be failing to honour its international legal obligations; it would be inviting the Court to honour its own legal obligations”.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to follow those who have supported some of this group of amendments. I do not want to follow on to the territory of the European Court of Human Rights. A number of previous speakers, though not the most recent one, have expressed my views perfectly well.

I take issue, briefly, with the lamentable use of the phrase “foreign court” by the Prime Minister, which I regard as an extraordinary breach of British diplomatic history and practice. When he winds up, I would like the Minister to answer the following questions. We accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. We have no member of that court at the moment, lamentably, due to diplomatic ineptitude. Is that a foreign court? We accept the International Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, do we not? We are delighted when the International Criminal Court indicts Mr Putin for abducting Ukrainian children. Do we accept it? Is it a foreign court? We are pretty pleased when the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea rules that the Chinese are ultra vires in seizing large chunks of the South China Sea. Is that a foreign court? I could go on. We have been trying to sustain the dispute settlement procedure of the World Trade Organization against the worst efforts of our closest ally, the United States. Is that a foreign court? We accept its jurisdiction. Could we please stop talking about “foreign courts”, and realise that it is in the interests of this country to stick with the obligations it has undertaken to obey such tribunals?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak very briefly to group 5 amendments. Specifically, I go back to the answer that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, gave to me earlier. Yes indeed, the plenary court—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

It was very observant of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, but I was in here. I left to get my notes that I needed, but I am touched by his interest.

On the issue from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the plenary session on 13 November did indeed undertake to de-anonymise the individual single judges involved in adjudication, but that has not yet happened, and there is no timetable for that. So I suppose each of us is half right.

The important thing to state, again, is that the wider context, as touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is that the public are exceedingly concerned about the issue of illegal migration. It cannot be brushed aside when we talk about arcane legal and legislative points. People are angry and they want answers. As a Parliament, we have to find a way to face up to those very difficult issues. The point I made a week or so ago is that if there is a change of government, the Labour Party is most likely going to have to face those challenges as well. Instead of just criticising the Government, it will have to come forward with some really significant proposals to address those issues.

The Strasbourg court, as it happens, has never asserted or conferred, via member states, the right to authorise the court to grant interim relief in terms of the ECHR convention treaty. Indeed, domestic courts—the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court—have found quite the contrary, as was mentioned by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches earlier.

There is a concern about this battle between parliamentary sovereignty and accountability in this House and in the other place, and the idea that a decision which could have very profound public safety ramifications—this is a tiny minority, but it could possibly—is taken in foreign court with an anonymous judge where the Government are not permitted to present evidence in a timely way. There is no real accountability. I am sorry to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, finds it disobliging to call it a foreign court, but that is how many voters, taxpayers and British citizens see it.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My complaint about the use of the term “foreign court” was not due to any discomfort, but because people such as himself and the leader of his party encourage people to call courts which are not foreign courts “foreign”. They are courts of organisations which we have endowed with certain powers, and which often have British judges on their tribunals. That is my complaint.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being present at Second Reading. I am afraid that my health has not been great, and I was a bit worried about my blood pressure—which might have been accentuated by listening to the debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation.

I have added my name to Amendment 70, tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I do not need to say much because the speeches have been wonderful, except to make a plea to my noble friend the Minister regarding Amendment 75. I have always been proud of this country. However, many have put their lives at risk, and many have suffered the ultimate sacrifice. If we reject looking after them, if we do not allow them this, I am afraid that I will not be so proud of this country or of the party that I am in.

I make a further plea to the Minister and my noble friends. I understand entirely the concern regarding migration. It is happening all over the world—illegal crossings, the small boats and so forth. I understand that but let us not just be so dogmatic that we have not an inch of humanity.

I said that I was the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which I am delighted to be. I started off in the other place, listening to my old colleague Anthony Steen, who was passionate about this; listening to him, I realised what the victims go through. Subsequently, I have been lucky, or unlucky, enough to meet many of these victims. It is not a hypothetical thing. Yes, there are some abuses, but how many of those are really abuses? We must not think —I speak particularly to our own Benches—that everybody who claims that they are a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking is trying to get an easy ticket into this country. It is heartbreaking to see those people and listen to their stories.

I tried this with my noble friend who previously held the position; I pestered him about trying to meet some victims. He was lucky enough to return to the Back Benches before I could implement that request. But I say to my noble friend the Minister, and we have heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that he has a great deal of humanity. We cannot not make exceptions. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said with regard to people who have served the Crown, there is another thing with regards to victims of modern slavery, which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, touched on—that is, prosecutions. If we deport somebody to Rwanda while we are trying to have criminal cases, unless my noble friend assures me otherwise, we are not going to get the evidence to put those modern slavers away. I urge my colleagues, my noble friends, not to be so dogmatic about this. There must be some exceptions. We must show humanity if we can call ourselves British.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly about Amendment 75, which the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, introduced so movingly. My noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup added some extremely powerful arguments. I have been raising this issue about those who either fought for us or served us in Afghanistan.

If we were to combine Amendment 75 with a fast-track treatment of the reconsideration which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, told the House a short time ago was now being undertaken for one category of these people—I am seeking confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that those who serve the British Council are also included—there would be absolutely no incentive for people in that category to try to cross the channel in boats. Could the Government get on with those two bits of a solution to one part of this problem —one in which, frankly, our honour is at stake?

I want secondly to raise those parts of these amendments — we will come to other ones later in the grouping—that relate to children. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out that we would be acting in contravention of our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—I sat beside Lady Thatcher when she signed it. We need to take that seriously. Is it not the case that the committee set up by the United Nations to watch over the implementation by all member states of their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child has told us—and we are represented on that committee—that we are acting in contravention of it? Could the Minister perhaps answer that question?

If that is so, I hope that it will inform the response that the Government make to the various amendments, in this group and in other groups, that are designed to meet our obligations under the convention. I hope that we do not go off again into a rather sterile discussion about whether this sovereign Parliament has the right to rip up the obligations it signed itself not all that long ago. I do not think that is the point; the point is about the human beings whose lives are at stake.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Amendments 2, 5 and 34, tabled by the same noble Lords and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I also offer supportive comments on Amendment 7 to Clause 1, tabled by the noble Viscount, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. The most reverend Primate is present but cannot attend the entirety of this debate and the right reverend Prelate cannot be with us this afternoon.

It will be a very slight augmentation of the wisdom of this House to know that we on these Benches do not favour the outsourcing of asylum claims to other countries or territories—which is rather different from what the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was saying about the outsourcing of power. We recognise, however, that the courts have deemed this lawful in certain circumstances and that we have a Bill from the other place which is designed to deal with a particular designation that the Supreme Court deemed to fall outside our obligations under the law.

I accept that the recent treaty between His Majesty’s Government and the Republic of Rwanda makes legally binding, with additional enhancements, the 2022 memorandum of understanding between the two Governments—for example, the commitment under the new asylum procedure that no person relocated to Rwanda under the treaty will be sent to any country other than the UK, if the UK so requests. However, as the House knows, the International Agreements Committee of this House recommends not ratifying until further evidence is available.

None the less, there remain very significant concerns about the contents of the Bill, not least about using legislation to make a declaration of fact in order to correct a court that has heard evidence. It is clear that the Government have gone to a great deal of effort to provide evidence to persuade critics of the feasibility of removal to Rwanda as a safe and properly functioning process while at the same time trying to satisfy their policy aim, and critics of a different stamp, that the limited capacity of the scheme will be a deterrent to those who make long and dangerous journeys to cross the channel.

The purpose of these amendments is to match the Bill more closely to the requirements of the Supreme Court judgment, so that it is more just and less open to challenge. For the sake of the people whose lives will be affected by yet more upheaval, who as it stands will not even have the opportunity to have their claim heard in this country, we cannot afford to get this wrong. Courts and tribunals must be able to make a judgment about the safety of Rwanda based on a consideration of the facts. We are not primarily discussing the suitability of Rwanda; we are discussing its safety for people who, by definition, have highly complex lives and circumstances.

The treaty introduces safeguards and checks, as it should, but these are not yet in force. I share the view that more is needed. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, an agency the Government have worked with in a highly effective way over many years, should provide that positive judgment of safety. Until then, the Government are taking an unreasonable risk by sending anyone to Rwanda.

These amendments offer practical steps which strike the kind of balance we are wise to pursue in this revising Chamber. They do not wreck the Bill, nor remove the objective of deterrence from it—and we can debate in due course the degree of inhibition that brings to the process. Rather, these amendments would provide an adequate mechanism for addressing concerns about the UK’s compliance with international law, and, appropriately, given the name of the Bill, the safety of Rwanda as a destination for the processing of asylum claims intended originally for the UK. These amendments are important for the preservation of judicial oversight and for the maintenance of the separation of powers, which is a fundamental component of our constitution. It is for Parliament to make laws and it is for the judiciary to judge cases, including the lawfulness of government decisions, and to make findings grounded on the basis of evidence.

Amendment 7 seeks to make it plain that the Bill replaces the Supreme Court’s finding of fact. A Bill cannot change the actual situation on the ground in another country; it can only mandate that evidence to the contrary is disregarded. We have a duty of care in international law towards asylum seekers who arrive in this country. Legislating that Rwanda is a safe country does not necessarily make it so for the potentially vulnerable people who might be sent there. However, the Bill’s primary purpose is to disregard the UK’s own Supreme Court’s finding that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers.

Let us be clear what we are doing. The Law Society has said, unequivocally, that it is inappropriate for the Government to undermine the judiciary in this way and that the Bill threatens the balance of powers in the United Kingdom. The amendment would put in the Bill that a judicial finding of fact is being replaced. I hope that we give these amendments a fair wind.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I give my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. In doing so, I express slight puzzlement that the Government seem to have difficulty in accepting the amendments. The Government tell us again and again that nothing in the Bill is contrary to our international obligations. Okay, they should then just accept the amendments and make it clearer than it was before. One may have one’s doubts as to the reasons the Government are not going to accept the amendments, but, basically, their position is that of the Red Queen in Alice: “It is so because I say it is so”.

I will address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, because they were extremely far-reaching, damaging and disruptive of our ability to support a rules-based international order. He seemed to not take into account that it was this sovereign Parliament that ratified our membership of the United Nations in 1945. The Charter of the United Nations contains the charter for the General Assembly, and the General Assembly appoints the High Commissioner for Refugees. Therefore, I do not think his argument about lack of accountability stands up. If you think about it, contradicting any role for the High Commissioner for Refugees to give advice to us about whether Rwanda is a safe place is an extraordinarily far-reaching and damaging claim to make.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, it is not simply a question of seeking advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The amendments clearly state that, unless positive advice is obtained, no one can be removed to Rwanda. So the decision will no longer be the decision of the Secretary of State; it will be the decision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That is the point. It is not just advice; it is advice which would be binding, according to these amendments, on the Government.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. He interrupted me before I got to the answer to his question—but that is fine. I had been going to say that the doctrine, according to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is that every member that has signed the refugee convention—well over 150, I think—and ratified it, including our sovereign Parliament, has the right to reinterpret the convention as it wishes. You have only to stop and think for one minute what that implies to realise that it implies complete chaos and the law of the jungle. If all 150-plus members of the United Nations refugee convention are able to stand up and say, “Well, actually, this is what I think the convention means, and I don’t care a damn what the High Commissioner for Refugees says”, then we are living in chaos. It is to avoid that that these amendments are being put forward.

I strongly support the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, who expressed extremely eloquently the reason this country has a real interest in paying attention to these matters.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I thought it might help the Committee, before this debate with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, rumbles on, for me to clarify that he is quite right. This amendment, as currently drafted, requires positive advice from the UNHCR, and not just advice, positive or negative. In the current iteration of the amendment, the reason for that is that the Prime Minister expressly said that the Bill is designed to assuage the concerns of the Supreme Court, which were based predominantly on the negative advice from the UNHCR about the situation in Rwanda—such was the nature of the evidence of the UNHCR and the credence that our Supreme Court gave to it.

However, if that formulation is too rich for their blood, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, or the Government, are welcome to amend the amendment or offer their own, which requires only advice positive or negative by the UNHCR before either the Secretary of State or Parliament can look again at whether Rwanda has changed subsequent to the treaty and is now, or in the future, a safe place for asylum seekers and refugees.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I do not wish to pursue that course at all. I am not one of the proposers of this amendment; I am merely supporting it.

The arguments that I am adducing relate to the state that this country would be in if it issues forth into the world and says it has an absolute right to interpret a United Nations convention which it ratified many years ago, and which it has supported through thick and thin ever since, and now wishes to contradict. That is a serious matter and I do not believe that the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, ought to carry weight, because the implications of them for our position in the world and our support for a rules-based international order would be extremely damaging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Clause 1(3) is just a simple restatement of the various facts of the Bill.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has rather disappointed me, because he declined totally to address any of the points that your Lordships’ House voted for a few weeks ago—in particular, the 10 criteria by which it would be possible to judge whether the Government’s statement that Rwanda was a safe place was actually true or not. Could he now stand up and deal with those 10 criteria? It would be quite interesting for the Committee to have his account of the Government’s view of those criteria and whether they have been met; if they have not, when they will be met; and what tests they will put them to.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this is Committee, and I am speaking to the various amendments in this group. As I have just reminded my noble friend Lord Hailsham, we will get to another group which debates the clauses in the treaty—as regards the various committees and so on that are in place—later in the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Under the terms of the Bill, a person will be relocated if they have made a protection claim—that is, an asylum claim—in the UK. But, to be clear, we can also remove those who do not. On the other point, we have heard a very lively debate on other examples from around the world; I am afraid that I am not an expert on those examples, so I am not able to opine further.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I was living in hope that the Minister would respond to my comments. On an earlier group he declined to answer my questions about the compatibility of what is being proposed by the Government with the criteria set out by this House some weeks ago, with a majority of 43, as being necessary to have been operationalised and in effect before Rwanda could be considered a safe place. Will he now take the opportunity to work his way through those 10 points? I am of infinite patience, but he said that he would do so on a later group. Can he now do so, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the two amendments tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which are entirely valid. It strikes me as a bit odd that the Government assure us, again and again, that nothing in the Bill is in breach of our obligations under international law. They say that with great determination, and I am not suggesting that they do not believe it, but, in that case, these clauses are completely, totally and utterly unnecessary. On the other hand, if the Government have doubts about it—and certainly, the Home Secretary was bound to give a warning that he was not absolutely sure this would pass muster under our international obligations—then of course they want to put clauses like this in, which totally invalidates the claim that they are not breaching international law.

I ask the Minister to reply to a very simple question; I know there is a reluctance to reply to questions, but let us try this one. For a very long time, this Government —this country—worked to the principle of “My word is my deed”. Is that still so? Yes or no?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s determination to stop the boats, and I commend the provisions to disapply six sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 and to leave open to a Minister of the Crown whether to comply with an interim remedy from a court or tribunal that prevents or delays removal. I wish the Government success and hope the Bill will succeed, but it needs further tightening to avoid potential legal challenges that would prevent it from achieving its aims.

My Amendment 32 therefore is to disapply, for the purposes of the Bill, the relevant international arrangements and other law that prevents the UK from controlling its borders. The first reason for this amendment is a practical one. It is pointless to make a law that is unlikely to work. That, sadly, seems to be the case for the present Bill unless it is amended. The second reason is a deeper one. There is no doubt that there is a popular wish for the small boats to be stopped, and that one of the reasons why the Government were elected was to control our borders. Unless they make a law strong enough to withstand whatever challenge might be brought to it through national or international law, the Government will fail the people on whose support the laws made to govern Britain should be grounded. Trust in the democratic system, with its political parties, Parliament, Government and the judiciary, will be lost.

I do not accept the narrowness of contemporary theory about the dominant position that international treaty law should command. The apparent demand that international law should trump UK law is a form of legal and ideological utopian internationalism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not have the figure to hand, but I imagine it is readily available from Westlaw.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, “Answer yes or no, does our word continue to be our bond?”, or words to that effect. It continues to be our bond within the circumstances of the incontrovertible constitutional position set out in Clause 1(4)(b). The United Kingdom and this Government take their obligations—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I wonder whether I can encourage the Minister to try that out on some foreigner with whose country we are signing a binding agreement, by telling him, “We will shake hands on that but, by the way, we can do what we like afterwards”. He ought to try it; he would find it quite an interesting experience.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

That would be a treaty commitment of the sort that is the strongest bond that two countries can enter into, as we have been reminding the Committee. The conventional statement of constitutional reality—as I described it and as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough described it in his submission, citing AV Dicey—was little more than a reassertion of the position that applies in law and that always has.

The Bill, as currently worded, enables Parliament to come to the same conclusion and provides a statutory finding that decision-makers, including courts or tribunals, will conclusively treat Rwanda as a safe country. Amendments 9 and 13, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, seek to remove the provision that recognises the sovereignty of Parliament and the provision that confirms that the validity of an Act is unaffected by a domestic court’s or a tribunal’s view that there is a conflict with international law. That is at the core of the Bill, and many of its other provisions are designed to ensure that Parliament’s conclusion on the safety of Rwanda is accepted by the domestic court. The treaty, alongside the evidence of changes in Rwanda since summer 2022, to which we referred, will enable Parliament to conclude that Rwanda is safe, and the new Bill provides Parliament with the opportunity so to do.

I note that Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, is a probing amendment that makes it clear that the primary responsibility of the courts is to uphold the constitution of the United Kingdom, including the constitution’s fundamental commitment to the rule of law. That amendment again sets out the status quo. But the rule of law, as a concept, is difficult to tie down in a series of short statements, and I fear that the noble Lord’s amendment would be productive of debate in the abstract, producing perhaps more heat than light.

I again assure the Committee that the United Kingdom continues to be bound by and respects its legal and international obligations. The Bill is predicated on both Rwanda’s and the United Kingdom’s compliance with international law in the form of the treaty, which itself reflects the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom and Rwanda. It does not legislate away our international obligations. The purpose of the Bill is to say that, on the basis of the treaty and the evidence before it, Parliament believes those obligations to have been met—not that we do not care whether they have been. I repeat that the Government take their international obligations, including those under the ECHR, very seriously. There is nothing in the Bill that requires the United Kingdom to breach its international obligations.

As noble Lords will know, states take different approaches to their different international law obligations. Some states treat international law as automatically forming part of their domestic law, but the United Kingdom and other countries with a similar background, including many Commonwealth countries, with which we share so much, have a dualist system in which a treaty ratified by the Government does not alter the laws of the state unless and until it is incorporated into national law by domestic legislation.

On Amendment 32, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, this legislation provides that a court may grant interim relief, which prevents removal to Rwanda, only where it is satisfied that there is a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm. As my noble friend put it in her submission, the Bill needs tightening. We do not accept the amendment proposed by her and my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. None the less, I invite the Committee to consider that in the course of the discussion and the interventions which were made on my noble friends, matters of interest and importance emerged.

We do hold that law has to command public support and that it should emerge from public consideration, whether through our common law, which does no more than evolve to meet certain essential propositions that bargains should be sustained and that harm should be punished and compensated for, or whether it emerges from a representative Parliament. None the less, the law dare not risk moving too far from the confidence of the public. The risk to the maintenance of institutions and public peace of judicial activism and overreach moving too far away from what the public is prepared to appreciate is, I think, the point that my noble friends took.

My noble friend Lady Meyer added to the discussion by stating that while the Bill was, in her words, not perfect—that has been something of a leitmotif running through the submissions which we have heard today, and indeed at Second Reading—it is none the less not holding itself out as a silver bullet. It is not perfect because—to quote my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere—in a dull and sublunary world, very few things are capable of perfection. However, as my noble friend Lady Meyer pointed out, it is rather a pragmatic response to an urgent crisis. I commend my noble friends for their thoughtful analysis of the problems facing other countries grappling with the impact of mass migration, and the risks to their own domestic systems which have been identified as flowing therefrom.

I have said to the Committee and will say again that, as I think we heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, other countries are watching keenly the experience of this country in moving legislation of this sort. It is clear that this is a huge problem. I readily accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said from the Opposition Front Bench as the last submission to this group about the need to work with our partners abroad to devote resources to smashing the pernicious grip of criminal gangs on people’s lives. However, as I said at Second Reading, we are doing all of that now and there is no simple answer to the problem, and that is why the Bill is being advanced.

I will revert to Amendment 32. As I said, the legislation provides that a court may grant interim relief preventing removal to Rwanda only where it is satisfied that there is a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm. That is the same threshold which can lead to a temporary suspension of the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act. These measures are necessary to ensure compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and to ensure that the grounds by which people can challenge removal are appropriately narrow. This amendment also undermines the safeguards that we see as necessary to ensure that the Bill and the Illegal Migration Act are compatible with the United Kingdom’s international obligations. The Illegal Migration Act and the Bill include provision for a person subject to removal to a safe third country to make a limited class of suspensive claim on the grounds that they would face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm were they to be removed.

The threshold for serious and irreversible harm is a high one. The harm in question must be both imminent and permanent. This reflects the test applied by the European Court of Human Rights when considering whether to indicate an interim measure under Rule 39, meaning that the United Kingdom courts will have to consider these questions before they are progressed to Strasbourg, further undermining the case for Strasbourg to intervene.

I turn to Amendment 80 tabled by noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn. The Northern Ireland position was also adverted to in the debate on group 1 by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. She is not in her place, but I apply my remarks across the House. The Bill will apply in full in Northern Ireland, as it will across the whole United Kingdom. Nothing in the Windsor Framework or the Belfast/Good Friday agreement changes that. I seek to provide reassurance to the Committee in relation to the constitutionally vital point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn.

The Government’s position is clear that the Bill’s provisions relate to administrative matters of asylum procedure and as such do not engage Article 2. This is because the Bill does not relate to the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, rights given effect in domestic law in Northern Ireland and underpinned by EU law before the end of the transition period, or the specific rights contained in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement which concern Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances. Any suggestion that the relevant chapter of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should impinge on the Bill implies that the rights in the agreement are far more expansive than is the case. The Government will continue to defend the application of the Bill on a United Kingdom-wide basis.

I offer further reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his colleagues on those Benches, with the letter written by my learned colleague in the other place the Minister for Immigration, Michael Tomlinson KC, to Sir Jeffrey Donaldson of the DUP dated 19 January 2024. He said that as he set out in debate and at Second Reading on 12 December, the Bill applies across the entire United Kingdom, and

“neither the Withdrawal Agreement nor the Windsor Framework do anything to cut across that position. I do recognise, however, the concerns raised by your colleagues in Parliament as to whether the Bill may have specific interactions in that regard”.

Nothing in the Bill affects the required incorporation into domestic law of the ECHR, as required in the agreement, or the ability of domestic courts to consider issues of compatibility. Nor does the Bill alter the capacity of the domestic courts to overrule incompatible legislation of the Northern Ireland Assembly with convention rights. The noble Lord referred the Committee’s attention to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Government have underlined consistently that the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not form part of domestic law anywhere in the UK, including Northern Ireland.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I support both amendments in this group, but I am particularly pleased to be able to speak in support of Amendment 14, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham is a co-signatory, although he is unable to be present today.

The Bill will prevent potentially thousands of children ever claiming refugee protection in the UK, however serious their protection needs may be and, disturbingly, regardless of the fact that they may not have had any say in the decision to travel here irregularly. Let us be absolutely clear: this means that vulnerable unaccompanied children who have fled unimaginable horrors will arrive to find that they will be detained and then potentially accommodated by the Home Office outside the established care system. All of this is not in order for their asylum cases to be heard and assessed but simply to deter others.

Given that no return agreements are yet in place, and that the Government have not provided any new information about how returns will exponentially increase, the overwhelming majority of individuals will be left to languish in perpetual legal limbo, as we have heard, and financial precarity. I argue that this is unacceptable for any asylum seeker, but for an unaccompanied child it is simply unforgivable.

Last year, close to nine out of 10 separated children were granted refugee status. Some 99% of unaccompanied children arriving from Afghanistan and Eritrea were granted status. It is these children—those with a genuine need for protection—who will be left outside the asylum system unless the Government change course.

Children’s development is intrinsically linked to secure attachment and safety, but the state is choosing to prescribe for them an uncertain and harmful future. This is counter to the Home Secretary’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children and to prevent punishment of a child on the basis of status or the activities of their parents, as obligated by both domestic and international law.

The amendment would grant re-entry to the asylum system for those separated children the Secretary of State is unable to remove. It is a pragmatic measure that would go some way towards protecting children from these adverse impacts, which are neither tolerable nor justifiable. I urge the Minister to relent on these amendments.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He quoted a letter that the Minister very kindly sent to me two days ago about the reaction of the Committee on the Rights of the Child of the United Nations. That communication demonstrated that the committee found that if we did not amend the Bill—and the amendment we are looking at now is obviously required—we would be in breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That convention was signed by the late Baroness Thatcher. I do not believe we should be in the business of ignoring the view that we will breach that international obligation we undertook in 1990.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, my noble friend Lord Scriven has signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. All of us on these Benches wholeheartedly support that amendment, in addition to Amendment 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord German.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I am sure we will return to the principle of the doctrine of necessity in later amendments. The use of Article 16 was debated during Second Reading, when a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Howard, suggested its use—indeed, that has been cause for debate. The noble Lord will be aware that that remains very much at the Government’s disposal, as it does at the disposal of the EU, because that was an agreement that was signed. On the principle of necessity, as I said, I will defer to my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart, who I am sure will discuss this with the noble Lord in other amendments that we are scheduled to discuss.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about Article 13(8) of the protocol, which deals with how subsequent agreement interact with the NIP. The EU, from our perspective when this has been raised, continues to reject any changes to the NIP itself. However, in saying that—and I am going by the discussions we are having with the European Union at this time—my experience is that it is not just the substance of what is being discussed with the EU at the moment but the tone of the engagement as well. While there are differing opinions—I accept fully that some are saying that a delay, which has been proposed, would strengthen the Government’s position—our view remains that the EU is very clear on our position on what we are seeking to do with the Bill, but that has not prejudiced the tone or substance of our engagement with the EU.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I welcome very much his willingness, expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to consider a proper process of reporting back on what is going on in Brussels. Having lived all my life in a profession where words mattered, I find it very difficult that the words through which the process in Brussels is referred to keep shifting all the time. Sometimes, they are technical discussions; sometimes they are talks. The word “negotiations” somehow never quite seems to come out of the Minister’s mouth, but how on earth do you conclude a negotiation without negotiations? I simply do not understand; it seems that we are in an Alice in Wonderland situation.

It would help greatly if the Government were prepared to give a careful and systematic account of what is going on from their point of view. We know the Commission’s point of view. It has said on a number of occasions that its mandate, which it used last October, is not exhausted. Does it have to say more than that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I was left by some of the strictures and anticipations of my point from noble Lords looking for synonyms for the words “long-standing convention”. However, in light of having been criticised for going on a bit long and the hour, I will confine myself to repeating—or rehearsing—the point noble Lords anticipated I would make.

It is a long-standing government policy and convention accepted by Governments of all parties not to comment on legal advice provided to the Government. A number of noble Lords who have been present in this debate or at Second Reading will understand personally the importance of that, having acted as internal or external counsel to His Majesty’s Government.

I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the protocol and its place in relation to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The protocol puts that agreement at the forefront; the problem is that, in its implementation, it is undermining it.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

The Advocate-General has just given the totally conventional response about the Government not publishing their legal advice. In that case, why did the Government publish a four-page document in the summer setting out their legal advice?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the Government set out their position at the outset to assuage, hopefully, the concerns of Peers and Parliament generally about the steps which they intended to take. I do not intend to go beyond that on the Government’s legal advice.

I was going on to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—about the matter of necessity. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, paid me a restricted compliment earlier. May I respond in kind by saying that I am grateful to him for the wise, kindly, and friendly manner in which he has always engaged with me since I started in this House? I look forward to further engagements with him and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and others on these points.

The noble Lord I think was the first to pose the question, how would it be possible for the Government to depend on the doctrine of necessity when the Government have put their signature, have become a party, to the protocol, having negotiated it? Do those facts, of themselves, prevent the Government from relying on this? Because, as the noble Lord said, the doctrine of necessity cannot be relied on by a party which by its conduct has caused the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, nods his head.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the Bill we are debating today is deeply flawed, on grounds of both practice and principle. Moreover, it is a completely unnecessary piece of legislation, as anyone can see who takes the trouble to read the report of the Northern Ireland protocol sub-committee of your Lordships’ House, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, which was published just before the Summer Recess. That report makes it clear that, on the main issues dogging the implementation of the protocol—the need for a fast-track procedure and the safeguards protecting the EU’s single market in Northern Ireland for trade in agri-food products—the gap between the Commission’s and the UK’s positions is now very small. That seems to be the view of the Commission; is it that of the Government? If so, what is the rationale for this objectionable piece of legislation?

The practical flaws in this legislation are pretty obvious. It is said by the Government to be designed to bring the Commission to accept the UK’s version of the protocol. Has it had that effect? There have been no meaningful negotiations since February, so it does not seem to be working terribly well. Negotiations are now at last beginning; I noticed that the Minister described them as “technical contacts”, which was not terribly encouraging. I hope—we must all hope—that they succeed in bridging those rather narrow gaps that remain because, if the activation of the unilateral measures provided for in this Bill lead to retaliatory action by the EU, both Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will be left worse off for an indefinite, open-ended period until another lot of negotiations begin.

It is also said by the Government that unilateral action is needed to safeguard the Good Friday agreement—an objective shared by every noble Lord who has spoken. But will this course of action be helpful or will it make things worse? The latter view seems to be that of the Irish and US Governments, the Commission, the non-unionist parties in Northern Ireland who hold a majority of seats in the Assembly and of most reasonably objective observers. Clearly, the views of the unionist community must be listened to with care, but the principal party on the unionist side of the Northern Ireland divide, the Democratic Unionist Party, actually bitterly opposed the Good Friday agreement, so may just possibly not be the best judge of what is now needed to safeguard it.

Then there are the considerations of principle against the course of action proposed. These are, if anything, even more compelling than the practical ones. We are being asked to approve unilaterally changing the protocol in a way for which there is no provision in the text negotiated and ratified by the Johnson Government, and which the manifesto that won the Government their majority in the other place said they were committed to implementing.

What then should we think of the so-called “doctrine of necessity” set out in an official document published in conjunction with the laying before Parliament of this Bill and purporting to provide the legal justification for the UK to unilaterally break the terms of the protocol? If the doctrine does exist—which I seriously question in anything like the circumstances of the Northern Ireland protocol—it presumably applies potentially to all the UK’s international commitments and obligations, ranging from the UN charter to Article 5 of the Atlantic alliance to every other commitment entered into and ratified following parliamentary approval. That is absurd and extremely dangerous. The doctrine of necessity was the doctrine that President Putin applied when he invaded Ukraine and the doctrine to which President Xi would turn if he wished to use force against Taiwan. We should have nothing to do with a doctrine which is so clearly the very antithesis of the rules-based international order to which the Government continue to pay lip service while ignoring its implications.

Overall, this is an unnecessary Bill which, in its present form, will do more damage than good and which thus requires radical amendment or not to be pursued at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Nicholson, for allowing me to speak out of sequence so that I could give evidence to the European Affairs Committee. I reassure my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft that I have been following as much of this very important debate as I can. It is a huge pleasure to be here to support the Government on this Second Reading of the Bill.

The House heard my views on the sad deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland many times when I was on the Front Bench. I do not need to repeat them, as many noble Lords have made the point this afternoon. Clearly, the attempt to apply the protocol is no longer delivering the original intention of supporting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but undermining it. Unionism has lost confidence in it, the status quo is highly unstable and risky, and change is needed.

That change is needed for economic as well as political reasons. Those who argue, as some have today, that Northern Ireland is benefiting from the protocol are simply wrong. Since the entry into force of the protocol, the UK’s economy has grown by 7.5% and Northern Ireland’s by 5.5%. PMI surveys in Northern Ireland have been consistently lower than the UK’s, and have actually been negative in the last four months. Exports from Great Britain to the EU have grown faster than those of Northern Ireland to the EU, which suggests that the supposed export boom from Northern Ireland to Ireland is a bit of a fantasy or an artefact of trade diversion. The Government are well within their rights to try to remedy this situation and bring forward this Bill. I note that it passed the other place unamended; that fact must influence the approach taken in this House.

The Government have made their view clear too, in their statement on 13 June, that the Bill is

“justified as a matter of international law.”

Of course, it is possible to find lawyers who take a different view—we have heard many distinguished lawyers today—but the Government are entitled to proceed on the basis of their own legal analysis, and that analysis is not disproven just by the existence of alternative opinions.

This Bill is essential not only on its own merits but in order to strengthen the hand of the British Government in their negotiations. If a negotiated agreement can be reached, that is obviously much better, but it is very hard to see that an agreement that does not amend the protocol very significantly will do the job. I work on the assumption that it is the intention of the Government to achieve a negotiated settlement of that level of ambition. The Prime Minister said in Parliament on 7 September that she preferred a negotiated solution, but

“it does have to deliver all the things that we set out in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/22; col. 237.]

Some of the more recent mood music from the Government has been less clear-cut on that point, so perhaps in winding up my noble and learned friend the Minister will confirm that is still the Government’s approach and that they are not looking to endorse a negotiated settlement that delivers less than that. On the assumption that is still the Government’s policy, it is absolutely clear that they will need this Bill to deliver it. I will conclude by saying why.

As has been pointed out on several occasions and is well known, I was responsible for negotiating the protocol as we now have it. That negotiation, such as it was, has an important lesson for today. The crucial point is that any negotiation, if it is to find the right balance between the parties, needs to have a meaningful “walk away” option for both sides. We did not have that in 2019. This Parliament and this House had passed a law prohibiting us from leaving the European Union without a deal. The choice we faced, therefore, was on the one hand to see the endless continuation of negotiations with the EU from a position of weakness, some subversion of our efforts by Members of this Parliament and others in the political scene and perhaps see the referendum overturned altogether, or on the other hand do the best deal we could, accept the risks, and deliver the referendum result. I make no apology for choosing the latter, even though our forebodings have been amply justified by events.

The point of this Bill is to avoid that situation being repeated. If this Bill becomes law, the British Government—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Will the noble Lord confirm that what he has just said amounts to saying that he was negotiating under duress in 2019 and the duress was applied by the British sovereign Parliament?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

I have made the point many times that we were operating within the constraint of a law that usurped the functions of the Executive and prevented us conducting negotiations. I have made that point many times, and I make it again today.

If this Bill becomes law, the British Government will regain agency over events. If they cannot reach an agreement through negotiation, they will be able to use the powers in this Bill to correct the current unsatisfactory situation under international law. The incentives on both sides will still be to reach agreement, but there will still be a “walk away” option, which means that a proper negotiation can take place.

If noble Lords prevent this Bill passing, they will put this Government into the same position I faced in 2019. Once again, there will be no “walk away” option. The Government will have to try to get the best negotiated outcome that the EU will allow them to have. They will be a petitioner for the EU’s grace and favour, not a negotiating partner. If the Government are not happy with what is on offer, the outcome will be even worse—the continuation of the current unsatisfactory situation and the current protocol.

I urge noble Lords not to make the same mistake as in 2019. Give the Government the powers they need to conduct a meaningful negotiation. Do not make them a supplicant in Brussels. Allow them to get the job done.

Northern Ireland Protocol: First Treasury Counsel

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am not aware of that, but I would say that the Government abide by the convention that legal advice given to the Government is not disclosed, so I would be surprised if that had taken place.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has stated the convention about not providing the advice the Government receives on legal matters. That is interesting, but it happens to be exactly contrary to what was said. Perhaps if he looks at Hansard he will see that, when this matter was debated shortly before the Recess, the Government spokesman said quite categorically that the Government would be bringing forward a separate document setting out the basis for the legal case. He has just contradicted that.

I have a second question. Could the Minister, perhaps just now, cite word by word any part of the Northern Ireland protocol that authorises either party to it, the European Union or the United Kingdom, to unilaterally depart from its terms. Could he please cite that?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the terms of the protocol specifically anticipate that it will change in line with developments. I refer the noble Lord to Articles 13(8) and 16 in that regard.

Withdrawal Agreement: Attorney General’s legal opinion on the Joint Instrument and Unilateral Declaration

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I must say that I entirely disagree with his analysis. The whole point of the present withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol is to ensure that we adhere not only to the terms but to the spirit of the Belfast agreement. That is why the backstop has been formulated in the manner in which it has. We will leave the backstop only when, or if, there is a need to put in place alternative structures that do not require a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I reiterate my belief that we will never actually enter the backstop in the first place. We have that period up to December 2020 in which to address this issue and it is not beyond the wit of man or alchemist to resolve such an issue.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the Attorney-General stated:

“A unilateral declaration by one party to a bilateral agreement constitutes an authentic interpretation of the treaty if it is accepted by the other party”.


Does he not find that a little odd? It would not then be a unilateral statement at all but a joint statement. On what authority did the Attorney-General say that the EU has agreed to the UK unilateral but it will not object to the UK unilateral statement? I see no trace of that in any of the documents.

Secondly, the use of the arbitration procedure remains shrouded in mystery as a result of the provision in the withdrawal treaty that any dispute involving the interpretation of EU law has to go to the European Court of Justice and not the arbitration panel. It that likely to be the case in most of the disputes?