Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Debate between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Faulks
Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025
Read Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (1 Sep 2025)
Wednesday 3rd September 2025
(6 days, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (1 Sep 2025)
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, but that does not lead me to have any sympathy at all for Amendment 203J.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord says that it would be “Trumpian” to take the course that is being suggested. Supposing that in the Supreme Court, the majority and the minority had been the other way round—and it may be that the majority was taking the correct view—there would be a decision of the Supreme Court which would be at odds with his interpretation and general understanding of the refugee convention. Why is that Trumpian? When we have a dualist system in this country, where we are capable of legislating for our own interests, why is it Trumpian to say that we cannot do that?