Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Baroness Brinton

Report stage
Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 36, 37, and 38 in respect of Rule 39 interim measures. I am afraid that I will not observe or respect the admonition that we should brief necessarily. We are discussing the substantial and significant issue of parliamentary sovereignty, and the right of the British people to have their views respected and not blocked by an unelected House, especially when the elected House, the other place, has been able to make a decision in significant numbers.

In deference to the sensitivities of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I will, for the avoidance of doubt, be referring to “an international” rather than “a foreign” court. I am sure he will be pleased about that. These are fundamentally blocking or wrecking amendments, designed to make the Bill inoperable. They are designed to thwart the will of the people, expressed through an electoral mandate and the will of the other place, to reduce immigration and to fulfil the primary duty of government, which is to protect its borders and its people and, more importantly—I look to the Lords spiritual in this respect—the moral imperative to save lives in the channel and destroy the business model of evil people traffickers.

More specifically, these amendments subvert and traduce the long-held principle that our laws are made in Parliament and implemented by the courts—simply, the concept of parliamentary sovereignty—in favour of a nebulous, opaque concept of “the rule of law” and the ECHR as a living document. The former is essentially uncodified and lacks precise consensual meaning, but it is used to advance judicial activism by unelected, unaccountable jurists in an international court, undermining faith and trust in the court system, parliamentary democracy and government in this country and destroying the delicate equilibrium between the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. There is but one rule of law, and that is made in Parliament by elected representatives. That confers legitimacy on our proceedings. These amendments will assist in furthering the trend towards the politicisation of the judiciary.

Even the concept of the separation of powers, much lauded in this House, is itself alien to the constitutional settlement of the UK, and is certainly an evolving issue. It is unclear and prey to subjective interpretation, as we established earlier this week on Report when we discussed the deeming presumption of a safe list for asylum seekers, including Greece, in the case of Nasseri v Secretary of State in 2009. This was ultimately found by the Appeal Court and the House of Lords, under Section III of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act in respect of inhuman treatment, not to have violated those pieces of legislation. That was the Blair Government, who created an unrebuttable presumption that a list of countries was safe, so there is a precedent already set many years ago.

I wish to ponder briefly the idea of the rule of law, Rule 39 interim measures and the implications for parliamentary sovereignty and the myth of the ECHR, which is eulogised with rapture by so many noble Lords in the context of our own Parliament and judicial system. Advancing the rule of law as superior to parliamentary sovereignty—“the rule of lawyers”, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said in his excellent opinion editorial in the Daily Telegraph two days ago—is what we are looking at. It is about the subjective fiat of another court, over which we have no control. It is a modern phenomenon, as opposed to parliamentary sovereignty, and an example of judicial mission creep. That said, even Lord Bingham stated, after the case of Jackson v Attorney-General on the Hunting Act 2004:

“The bedrock of the British constitution is … the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament”.


He echoed the thoughts of such eminent jurists as Lord Denning and AV Dicey, to whom I referred in Committee.

As we know, and as my noble friend Lord Lilley alluded to earlier, the French have taken an altogether more robust view of the authority and sanctity of their own domestic legislation vis-à-vis the perverse and sometimes dangerous and damaging rulings of the ECHR. In November 2023, Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin removed an Uzbek national, MA, who was allegedly a radicalised Islamist extremist, despite a Rule 39 interim measure against this being done, the first time that the French Government have openly defied such an interim measure. Indeed, they also defied the Conseil d’État, the equivalent of the Supreme Court.

The French elite is more likely to question and challenge the état de droit, the French equivalent of the rule of law. In an article in Le Figaro—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The noble Lord said earlier that he wants to speak at length because he feels the issue is important to expand on. The Companion says about Report at paragraph 8.147:

“Arguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House or in Grand Committee should not be repeated at length on report”.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am interested that the noble Baroness for the Liberal Democrats is so keen to avoid debate but, for the avoidance of doubt, I have not repeated any points I previously raised.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Baroness Brinton

Committee stage
Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and to support her Amendment 72 to Clause 15. I do so as a man, because I am not embarrassed to say that the safety, health and welfare of women is not just a women’s issue. It is an issue for men and women, and anything that compromises that is an issue of public interest.

It seems to me, reading the amendment, it is pretty axiomatic that it is a good thing and I hope Ministers will look very favourably on it. The wider context we need to look at, though, is the whole issue of gender-critical views. Noble Lords will know that in June 2021 in the Forstater ruling, it was found that it was not an ignoble thing to have gender-critical views. The premise that they were not worthy of respect in a democratic society was repudiated by Mr Justice Choudhury in that ruling, which overturned an employment appeals tribunal.

I also draw your Lordships’ attention again to the excellent report that the noble Baroness referenced, from the author Matilda Gosling and the Sex Matters organisation. The ruling found specifically that gender-critical beliefs are now legally protected from discrimination and harassment in employment and specifically—the key words—in respect of service users. To further quote from that ruling,

“it is clear from Convention case law that … a person is free in a democratic society to hold any belief they wish, subject only to ‘some modest, objective minimum requirements’”.

So a lack of belief in transgenderism and a lack of belief that someone can change their biological sex are both protected by the Equality Act 2010, provided that there is a reasonable expression and manifestation of that belief.

So I believe that this amendment should be in primary legislation because there is a concern among many women in many of these organisations that do superb work—refuges, counselling and support services, and rape crisis centres—that further guidelines without statutory impact and force will not actually deliver the results they need and want. This is about clarity in the Bill, but, more fundamentally, it is about the agency and autonomy of women in the most difficult circumstances imaginable—women who are damaged, women who are angry, women who are vulnerable and women who have been mistreated, in particular by men but also by society as a whole. It is about their agency and autonomy, and this amendment makes that specific.

It is not about bigotry or discrimination in respect of trans people, or biological men who identify as women. It is not that at all; it is important to put that on the record. The report referenced earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gives much food for thought in terms of some of the impacts of self-censorship and a feeling that people have to change their policies in order to protect themselves from, sometimes, the pernicious attacks of trans activists, and their representatives and supporters in, for instance, Stonewall. That may give rise to things such as poor mental health, safety risks, self-exclusion, a poorer quality of service delivered, discomfort and forced compliance. So it exacerbates the very reason they had to access these services. Therefore, it is not just an arcane technical issue; it is about real-life, vital and imperative issues for a small group of women impacted.

I put on record my admiration for those women who have stood up and been counted on the gender-critical side in the so-called culture wars. It has taken great courage for them so to do. They include Maya Forstater, Jo Phoenix, Allison Bailey and Rachel Meade.

The wider context of the report is that the Government need to be seen—I hope that the Minister is mindful of the strength of feeling over this—to be taking real action and cutting through the confusion. The report says, among other things, that the GRA and the Equality Act 2010 need to be explicit in protecting women and the concept of women as a sex, and allow for information sharing. There is clear guidance on gender recognition certificates in the GRA with organisations, and those organisations should leave the Stonewall champion scheme and review their own training.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission also needs to issue guidance and model policies for organisations in the women’s sector, and for organisations with statutory bodies subject to the victims’ code. There should also be clear guidance for charity regulators, specifically on charities that provide single-sex as opposed to mixed-sex services.

This is a popular policy. In recent polling, the public are broadly behind this amendment in making the value judgment that it is important to have single-sex services for women in the most vulnerable position. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment; it has broad support across the House, and I support my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was not here to move his amendment. Given the debate we had on the previous group, I think he would have made the point that we need specific guidance for other specialist services as well. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.

I was very taken with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about older people. We assume that it is younger people who tend to be victims of domestic abuse, economic abuse and sexual violence, but that is not the case. Older people’s circumstances are often different, and they require more specialist advice. That does not mean that a person cannot be qualified to be a specialist adviser in two or three areas, but it means they have done the training and understand the differences. I am very mindful of that, and these Benches are supportive of it.

On the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, I am wondering how it would work. I think the noble Baroness is saying that trans women are incapable of understanding, helping or addressing trauma, yet trans women are already accessing women’s refuges because they have been victims of trauma.