Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Patten of Barnes and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)]

I apologise for not taking part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, but I have made amends by sitting through the entire debate this afternoon. I am sure that, when I reflect on the last few hours, I will realise how much I learned. There are two points I would like to make.

First, I am surprised that, despite the intervention of the right reverend Prelate—and despite, I am sure, his prayers as well—some Members of the House continue to conflate the issue of what was once disgracefully called by a Minister the invasion across the English Channel with the general issue of immigration. We can deal with the issue of immigration—and there is nothing wrong with that at all—best of all by having a serious labour market policy. That is the only way we will deal with immigration that does not set one party against another in a sort of auction of prejudice. I hope we will stop making it more difficult to discuss this Bill by talking about it as though it were a key to deal with the issue of immigration.

Secondly, I was surprised to find a spokesman for the People’s Republic of China. Why did the Chinese say they were perfectly at liberty to break the joint declaration? They said it was a historic agreement; it was out of time; it was like a packet of peanuts that had passed its sell-by date. So, I am never going to believe that, simply because we signed something 10, 20, 40 or 50 years ago, it does not have any relevance today. But I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister whether or not he thinks this Bill is in line with international obligations, and I am looking forward, I suppose, to the contribution from the Chinese ambassador in the next debate.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Patten, I have sat through all of this debate. I rise because my name—or, at least, a name close to mine—was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, at one point. The reason I rise with a little diffidence is that I have to catch a flight later this evening. I anticipate that I will be able to stay to the end of this debate and still make the plane, but if that turns out not to be right, I hope noble Lords will forgive me and not think that I mean any discourtesy to this Committee or those sitting in it today. I hope everybody will appreciate that is the last thing I would want.

Unlike other speakers, I cannot disavow being a lawyer. For better or worse, I am a lawyer. Therefore, let me make two short points at the outset. First, international law obligations are important. We ought to abide by them, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said. I would expect Parliament not to legislate contrary to a treaty obligation unless there were absolutely compelling reasons to do so and, in those circumstances, to make that very clear. Otherwise, we should always be legislating consistently with our international law obligations.

Secondly, as I made clear from the Front Bench on a number of occasions, I support our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not always agree with the decisions of the court—I do not always agree with the decisions of our domestic courts either—but that is a separate matter. I support us being in the convention.

I will not refer to all these amendments. I start with Amendments 3 and 148, which go together. Essentially, they refer to the statement that the Secretary of State must set out as to whether the Bill is compatible with the convention rights. Section 19(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(b) were put into the Human Rights Act as a political point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made this absolutely clear when the Bill was going through this House. It was to keep people’s minds focused on whether the Government could say at that time that the Bill was compliant. It was never intended to be a legal bar. There is precedent in this House. The Communications Bill is a precedent for the Government being unable to state that the Bill was compatible with convention rights. When they were challenged, the challenges failed.

One cannot draw a line between being unable to make a Section 19(1)(a) statement and the Bill being in breach of convention rights. Section 19(1)(b) is very carefully drafted, and I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who asked what it means. That statement is in the form that it is in the Bill because those are the words in Section 19(1)(b). That is what Parliament told the Minister to say. The structure is that if the Minister cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement, he or she makes a Section 19(1)(b) statement. Rather oddly, all that Section 19(1)(b) says is, “I can’t make Section 19(1)(a)”. Is that sensible? With respect, I do not think it is. If it were up to me, I would take out Section 19(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(b), which add more distraction than assistance. They were put in for political rather than legal reasons, and that is why the Section 19(1)(b) statement is in the form that it is in.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Lord Patten of Barnes and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar

Report stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)]

I would like to follow what my noble friend just said, or at least the beginning of his remarks following the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. If the Chinese Communist Party, through its quisling administration in Hong Kong, was introducing legislation like this, we would denounce it. The Foreign Office would denounce it—it would be in its six-monthly report about attacks on freedom of speech and attacks on freedom in Hong Kong—and we would all cheer. It is astonishing that we are proposing in this country the sort of thing which we would denounce if the Chinese Communist Party were doing it in Hong Kong.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I may be labouring under a misapprehension, but surely there is a critical difference between this country and China. As I understand it, the proposed new clause would prevent a constable exercising a police power for the principal purpose of preventing someone observing or reporting on a protest. If we do not pass this amendment, that act—that is, arresting somebody for the principal purpose of preventing reporting on a protest—would still be unlawful: it would be an abuse of police powers to do that. The difference is that here we are being asked to pass legislation to make illegal that which is already unlawful. That is the concern I have with it. When I was a Minister, I was frequently told, “You should add this clause and that clause to send a signal”, and I kept saying, “The statute book is not a form of semaphore.” My problem with this clause is nothing to do with the content of it; I just have a problem with passing legislation to make unlawful that which is already unlawful.