Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot say that at the moment, but, as I have said, they will be published on a regular basis.

The monitoring committee will be supported in all its work by a new support team, as set out in Article 15.(8) of the treaty. The new support team will consist of individuals who do not work for either the UK Government or the Government of Rwanda. The monitoring committee has already met three times since its inception and has agreed to the publication of its terms of reference and enhanced monitoring plan, which are both available online as part of the supporting evidence document that the Government have published. Therefore, we consider that Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is unnecessary.

Amendments 81 and 82 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble friend Lord Hailsham seek to ensure that the Act does not come into force upon ratification of the treaty but instead requires secondary legislation to be laid before commencement requiring a JCHR report on the safety of Rwanda and agreement on this point from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, would introduce a new clause whereby the Secretary of State must lay a statutory instrument before Parliament every six months stating that their assessment is that Rwanda is a safe country. This Bill reflects the strength of the Government of Rwanda’s protections and commitments given in the treaty to people transferred to Rwanda in accordance with the treaty. The treaty, alongside the evidence of changes in Rwanda since summer 2022, already enables Parliament to reach the conclusion that Rwanda is a safe country. There is therefore no requirement for any further legislation or additional reporting prior to commencement.

The UK-Rwanda partnership is a long-term policy and forms part of a wider set of measures to tackle illegal migration. A review of the policy every six months or two years would be an inefficient use of both government and parliamentary time. Furthermore, as I have set out, this is not needed, as the functions of the independent monitoring committee have been enhanced to ensure that obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. These arrangements, which have been carefully agreed with the Government of Rwanda and will be binding in international law, will ensure continued compliance with all the terms of the treaty.

It is also worth noting that Article 4.(1) of the treaty sets out clearly that it is for the UK to determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under the terms of the agreement and the number of such requests made. The treaty does not place on the UK an obligation to make any such request. This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further consideration. As is the case in many scenarios, the Government would be able to respond and adapt as necessary.

I turn to Amendments 69 and 87 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. This legislation does not impact the financial agreement with Rwanda which was reached in 2022 through the memorandum of understanding for the migration and economic development partnership. Noble Lords will be aware that we have provided Rwanda with £220 million as part of the economic transformation fund and £20 million as an advance credit to pay for operational costs in advance of flights commencing. The spend on the MEDP with Rwanda so far is £240 million. In response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the £100 million is not a credit line, as he indicated last week.

There was an initial investment of £120 million in 2022 as part of a new economic transformation and integration fund, ETIF, created as part of the MEDP. The ETIF is for the economic growth and development of Rwanda. Investment has been focused in areas such as education, healthcare, agriculture, infrastructure and job creation. A further payment of £100 million was made in 2023 through the ETIF as part of the partnership. We anticipate providing another £50 million in the next financial year. This is not new but follows the same arrangement from 2022. We also made a separate payment of £20 million to the Government of Rwanda in 2022 in advance of flights to support initial set-up costs of the asylum and processing arrangements under the MEDP.

With regard to the question of whether there will be another tranche of funding for the Hope hostel in the next financial year, procurement of accommodation is for the Government of Rwanda. Accommodation costs are covered by the funding stream for operationalisation, and it is then up to the Government of Rwanda as to which accommodation they procure. This legislation also does not impact the process for removals to a safe third country, so the appraisal set out in the illegal migration impact assessment remains unaffected. The published economic note on this legislation explained that the exact cost will depend on the details of the implementation and the level of deterrence. The Government are already committed to disclosing further payments made as part of the economic transformation fund and the per-person relocation costs as part of the department’s annual accounts in the normal way.

Your Lordships will also be aware that the National Audit Office will be producing a factual report on the costs of this partnership. Officials have been working closely with the National Audit Office to ensure that they have the relevant information required for this. I cannot give any opinion on the date of publication, but it will likely be in the near future.

Finally, with the—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the elements of the ETIF and the MEDP, but could he place in the Library a more detailed breakdown? The £20 million credit line for operational does seem to be one part of a credit line. The Minister says that I was incorrect in stating that there was a total of £100 million. I will happily take him at his word if that is the case, but a more detailed breakdown of how much of the expenditure of the Rwandan Government will be UK taxpayers’ money would be helpful. Also, can he confirm whether this is being scored as overseas official development assistance or not?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to commit to providing as much detail as I can in the letter that the noble Lord requests. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the foreign development aid question, so I will have to look into that and come back to him.

With regard to Amendments 35 and 90 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, it is right that this Bill should apply to anyone arriving after the Rwanda treaty enters into force. It is the treaty, working together with the provisions in this Bill, that underpins the safety of Rwanda. As such, once the treaty is in force the basis for removal under this Bill is established. Clause 9(1) ensures that the Bill and the treaty come into force on the same day. This legislation builds on the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and other immigration Acts. To the extent that those Acts have retrospective effect, this Bill does nothing to change that.

Accommodating migrants in hotels is costing us £8 million each day. That is billions per year, which is clearly not sustainable. If people know that there is no way for them to stay in the UK, they will not leave safe countries such as France to risk their lives and pay criminals thousands of pounds to arrive here illegally. It is therefore only right that we stop the boats and break the business model of the criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people. The Government consider this partnership to be a vital investment and therefore I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the two amendments just mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cashman. I remind the Committee, in relation to the LGBT community, that when the law was changed in the mid-1960s in this country it did not end the persecution of homosexuals. For years afterwards, there was a constant terrorising of the gay community. “Queer rolling” is a term that noble Lords will remember—men being attacked simply because it was suspected that they might be homosexual, or they were in a particular place at a particular time of night. The situation was really grave.

When I was a young lawyer in the 1970s and 1980s, one found oneself in court representing people who were being framed for the offence of importuning, which is still a criminal offence in Rwanda. The police harassed and monitored particular venues known to be habituated by gay men. It took many years before we ended that cultural underplay, which exists in societies even when the law is changed. We know that this is the situation in Rwanda, which has a high level of persecution of gay people still.

I also support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs, which relates to freedom of religion and belief. Many of those fleeing Afghanistan are Hazara. It is a religious minority of the Shia tradition, and they are sorely persecuted in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I conducted an inquiry, which concluded at the beginning of last year, into the persecution of the Hazara. It is one of the main reasons that our security services put them on a high level of risk of being persecuted by the Taliban and other extremist groups. Unfortunately, they are likely to continue to be persecuted by others in Rwanda because of their particular religious beliefs.

I, too, feel that there is a misunderstanding about what “safety” means. In this Bill, when we talk about safety, it does not mean that, in declaring that Rwanda is safe, a person cannot say, “It’s not safe for me”. That is the point. When someone comes to a court and says, “This place is not safe for me because I am gay, or because of my religious beliefs or my non-religious beliefs”, those are bases on which any court protecting people’s human rights would declare that the place was not safe. I want that to be in the minds of noble Lords as they ruminate on this Bill and the amendments to this Bill—that questions of safety cannot be rubbed out of existence simply by a declaration of Parliament that a place is safe.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, spoke very powerfully in moving them, and I shall not seek to repeat anything that he said. It is a pleasure to follow the experience and knowledge of noble Lords who have spoken before me in this group.

I just wish to refer to two elements of why I have supported the amendments. I know that my noble friend Lord Scriven will speak to this group after me. The first is a general point with regard to the assessment of safety in a country where the Government have made a political decision that it can be nothing other than safe. This is what we debated on a previous group. That is illustrated in this group to an alarming degree. We can refer to the equality impact assessment with regard to the legislation; that assessment was carried out after the Bill had been agreed by Ministers, as I understand it. Ministers stated that Rwanda was to be a safe country.

The assessment says, in paragraph 3a, in consideration of the duty of eliminating

“unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act”,

that:

“We consider that removal to Rwanda would not risk discrimination or less favourable treatment as it is a safe country”—


and that is it. Ministers had already decided that it was a safe country, so equality impact assessments are now rendered almost completely pointless when it comes to Ministers deciding this.

That is notwithstanding the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, stating in this House that he could not say that Rwanda was safe yet, because safeguards were not in place. So we are in a situation where the contradictory nature of the decisions about safety, especially for those who may be more vulnerable than others if they are relocated, has now become political and not evidence based. That should be alarming for all legislators.

The second point that I wish to make is the inconsistency of what the Government are saying, because it is led from the political decision that was made for this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, quoted the current FCDO travel advice for someone travelling to Rwanda voluntarily. If they are travelling to Rwanda voluntarily and are LGBT+, they are warned by the Foreign Office that they

“can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities”—

that is the Government of Rwanda. So the Foreign Office advises voluntary travellers that they can experience discrimination and abuse from the Government. The Home Office is saying that, for someone being located there involuntarily, there is no possible experience of discrimination and abuse from local authorities. So which one trumps? Is it the Foreign Office or the Home Office that has the best advice to receive on this situation?

On the FCDO traveller advice, with regards to discrimination and abuse from local authorities, the Minister has an opportunity in responding to the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, to outline in clear terms at the Dispatch Box some examples of discrimination and abuse from local authorities. The reason why this is important is that it is the Government’s policy that those who are relocated to Rwanda, once they have been processed, will then become residents of Rwanda in local authority areas. The Government state in their travel advice that there is a recognition of a general concern about discrimination and abuse but that, with regard to this legislation, only specific and personal high-bar thresholds for potential discrimination and abuse can be considered.

The final thing I consider to be relevant is the country note for Rwanda, which is the basis on which the decision-makers will make their decisions, either for remedies or in seeking some form of injunction or relocation. It was cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The country advice that was withdrawn had an interesting comment on potential crimes against LGBTIQ+ persons:

“Lack of reporting of crimes against LGBTIQ+ persons, due to stigma and fear of harassment, results in limited information”.


The Government, with limited information, can make categorical decisions—but of course, they will be made on a political basis. So perhaps any amendment we move to make this objective is futile, because it is not going to change the fundamental position: that Ministers have politically decided that Rwanda is safe and will always be so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly on that point to support the noble Baroness. We have heard in previous groups the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, who is not in his place, and other noble Lords, that the debates which we are having in this House are being keenly viewed outside this House and very keenly in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

It is a depressing fact today that the top news story on the UN global news website is commentary on this Bill going through this Parliament. The UN Human Rights Council, which will be gathering next week, will be discussing the atrocities in Sudan and the Israel-Gaza conflict. It is a time of great turmoil and danger for many people, but the fact that the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, today in the preparatory meetings of the council singled out the United Kingdom and the safety of Rwanda Bill as an illustration of the undermining of basic principles of the rule of law and of the risk of delivering a serious blow to human rights is deeply troubling.

The statement referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which was made today, said:

“Settling questions of disputed fact—questions with enormous human rights consequences—is what the courts do, and which the UK courts have a proven track record of doing thoroughly and comprehensively. It should be for the courts to decide whether the measures taken by the Government since the Supreme Court’s ruling on risks in Rwanda are enough”.


The statement continued:

“You cannot legislate facts out of existence”.


I appeal to Ministers considering this Bill. Many in the world are watching us. We have led in these areas. We should be leading the discussions in the Human Rights Council about global abuses of the rule of law and human rights. We should not be being singled out for abusing them ourselves.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these amendments for a very fundamental reason. The separation of powers is crucial for the freedom of all our people and I find it very distressing that the Government have not understood how deeply offensive this element of these proposals is.

It is deeply offensive simply because it purports to say that something is true which is not true. It suggests that the sovereignty of Parliament extends to the decision on whether something is or is not. That is a decision which has always been the purview of the courts, simply because the courts have a structure that enables them to listen to the evidence on all sides and make a decision at the end.

I fear that the Government have presented this because it is inconvenient that the courts should take a part in it. The price of liberty is inconvenience. You cannot be a free nation unless you accept that there are processes that are embarrassing to Governments, to Oppositions, to people of standing, to people who have got other views. You have to accept that it is the price we pay. This Government are suggesting that, because they have got to get something through before the end of the year because they said they would, they can claim that inconvenience is something they will not accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to an interesting debate on this important point.

Clause 4 provides that a Home Office decision-maker, or a court or tribunal, can consider a claim that Rwanda is unsafe only

“based on compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s individual circumstances”.

Subsection (2) prevents a decision-maker or the courts considering any claim where it relates to whether Rwanda

“will or may remove or send the person in question to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations”.

Where the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act does not apply, subsections (3) and (4) prevent the courts granting interim relief unless that person can show that they would face

“a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm”

if they were removed to Rwanda. This is the same threshold that can give rise to a suspensive claim based on serious and irreversible harm under the Illegal Migration Act. Subsection (5) provides that the consideration of “serious and irreversible harm” will be in line with the definition set out in the Illegal Migration Act, with any necessary modifications. Any allegation relating to onward removal from Rwanda is not an example of something capable of constituting serious and irreversible harm, as the treaty ensures that asylum seekers relocated to Rwanda under the partnership are not at risk of being returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.

Regarding the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, spoke to in opening, I remind noble Lords that the evidence pack published alongside the Bill details the evidence the United Kingdom Government have used to assess the safety of Rwanda. It concludes that, alongside the treaty, Rwanda is safe for the purposes of asylum processing, and the policy statement outlines the key findings. As experts on the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Rwanda and its development over the past 30 years, FCDO officials based in the relevant geographic and thematic departments, working closely with colleagues in the British high commission in Kigali, have liaised with the Home Office throughout the production of the policy statement.

As my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I set out in earlier debates, the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Rwanda have agreed and begun to implement assurances and commitments to strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system. These assurances and commitments provide clear evidence of the Government of Rwanda’s ability to fulfil their obligations generally and specifically to ensure that relocated individuals face no risk of refoulement. In answer to the points raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, which were adopted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, and by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from the Opposition Front Bench, among others, the position is that a person cannot argue this fundamentally academic point over a long period of time, occupying court resources. It is a point rendered academic because of the provision of the treaty governing the Bill.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for stating clearly that the Government of Rwanda have begun putting the safeguards in place. That is consistent with what he said earlier in Committee—that the Government of Rwanda are moving towards putting safeguards in place—but he accepted that Rwanda will be a safe country only when those are place, which may be after Royal Assent. Will an applicant be able to argue, even after Royal Assent, that Rwanda is not safe until the measures that are being moved towards are put in place?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, on the passing of the Bill, the Act will decree that Rwanda is safe. Just because work is being done to render a place safer it does not make it unsafe.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Minister just said that Rwanda is becoming safer, but in his earlier comments he said that it has begun to put measures in place, and he has previously confirmed to me that until they are in place, it cannot be determined that Rwanda is safe. The Bill will decree that it is safe before the measures are in place so that it is safe. Surely someone would be able to argue in a court that it is not safe until those measures are in place. That is what the Minister just said.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, what I said was that on the passing of the Bill, Rwanda is safe. What I say is that it is—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

You said that the safeguards had to be in place.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I did not. I said that just because safeguards have not yet been fully put in place, it does not mean, as a result, that Rwanda cannot be deemed safe.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I reiterate my previous answer: the fact that further work is being done does not mean that the safety or otherwise of a place is conditional on the completion of that further work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, cited the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, concerning a journalist. She is quite correct: I did not address that specifically when I spoke earlier. The question was not pressed on me subsequently, but given that the noble Baroness has returned to it, I will look into the matter with officials and correspond.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I have one final point for the Minister. If this legislation decrees on Royal Assent that Rwanda is a safe country, what is the point of having the safeguards he has mentioned?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, any work being done to improve a place is desirable of itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The point I am making is that I have been told the body is up and running. That does not touch on the matter of the recruitment of a support team, which is the basis of the noble and learned Lord’s supplementary question.

From the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, touched on advice said to have been given by the former Solicitor-General and by the Attorney-General. I think he is aware—I have touched on it from the Dispatch Box at earlier stages—of the existence of the law officers’ convention. I will return to it again in a later group, but the essence of that convention is not only that the content of advice given is confidential but also that it is confidential that advice has even been sought. The reason for that, accepted by Governments of every stripe over the years, is to assist with the passage of decision-making and the consideration of legal matters that touch on legislation to be passed. As I said, if I may, I will revert to that in consideration of a later amendment.

The assurances and commitments that the Government have received, together with the treaty and conclusions from the FCDO experts reflected throughout the policy statement, allow his Majesty’s Government to state with confidence that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been addressed and that Rwanda is safe. As the point has been taken in this debate, albeit in passing, I stress once again that this is a matter not of overturning the findings of the United Kingdom Supreme Court but rather of acting on them.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Minister is being generous in giving way, but what he just said contradicts what he said previously in Committee. At col. 70 of 12 February’s Official Report, I asked about the mechanisms for safeguards. It had been the Government’s position—until today, it seems—that the requirements of the Supreme Court would be met by the implementation of the treaty, which includes the safeguards within it. These include the appeals mechanism and the training and capacity-building. They have to be in place. If they are not in place, the treaty is not operative. Progress is being made towards them, as the Minister said, but he has just said that the Government’s view is that the requirements of the Supreme Court have been met. These comments are contradictory. This is important because, when I asked,

“can the Minister at the Dispatch Box reconfirm that position: that no individual will be relocated before the safeguards—including the appeals mechanism, the training and the capacity-building—are in place?”,

the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, responded:

“I can answer the first part of the noble Lord’s question in the affirmative”.—[Official Report, 12/2/24; col. 70.]


Is that still the case, or did he mislead the House?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The point I was making was in answer to the point raised earlier in the debate by noble Lords, who were characterising the Government’s actions as going back on, or overturning, the Supreme Court’s decision. As I said, the point is that the terms of the Bill and the treaty are a response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

If the noble Lord were to be threatened with refoulement, it could only happen to him once the Bill and the treaty were in place. A person could not be relocated to Rwanda until the Bill and the treaty are in place, and once the Bill and treaty are in place, there is no risk of refoulement.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am very concerned with what the Minister has literally just told us. The Minister has just said that, once this Bill has passed, there is no risk of refoulement. Article 10 of the treaty says:

“The Parties shall cooperate to agree an effective system for ensuring that removal contrary to this obligation does not occur”.


Those are not consistent. The effective system has to be in place, because that is what the treaty says; the effective system is not the passage of this Bill. So can the Minister now correct the record?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are working with the Government of Rwanda to implement new protections to the Rwandan asylum system, including the introduction of new legislation. I am reverting to a point that was taken earlier, but I give the same answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Protections offered by the treaty will prevent refoulement from Rwanda to elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I will expand on the matter in the correspondence to which I referred the noble Lord.

I will go into more detail about the work that has been and is being conducted between Rwandan and British officials. Officials from the UK and Rwanda have worked closely together to strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system. We have already developed and commenced operational training for Rwandan asylum decision-makers and strengthened procedural oversight of the MEDP and asylum processes.

In November 2023, technical experts from the Home Office, working with the Institute of Legal Practice and Development, delivered a training course aimed at asylum decision-makers in Rwanda. It focused on applying refugee law in asylum interviews and decision-making, and on best practice in assessing credibility and utilising country-of-origin information.

Furthermore, as set out in paragraph 14.1.15 of the published country information note on Rwanda’s asylum system, once the treaty is ratified there are provisions for Rwanda to move to a case-worker model when deciding asylum claims. Under that model, for the first six months Rwanda’s decision-making body will consider advice from a seconded independent expert prior to making any decision in relation to a claim.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Under CRaG, the scrutiny period for the treaty has now been concluded, so, for clarification, when will the UK ratify the treaty?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

That is a decision not for me to take. It will be taken by the Government collectively. I am not in a position to give a date to the noble Lord, if he was asking me to give one. In the circumstances, I cannot supply him with any further information.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[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 Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

It might just be helpful if the noble Lord would apologise to my noble friend, to say that he was not in the Chamber at the commencement of this group.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, as a signatory to the stand-part proposition in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I will confine my remarks to the question of whether it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and thus to international law, for a contracting state to disregard interim measures issued by the European court under Rule 39. Spoiler alert: it is, and the question is not so difficult as some noble Lords have suggested.

I declare an interest as a member of the Bar who has appeared for 30 years or so in that Strasbourg court, both for applicants and for states, and who has therefore been on the wrong end of some Rule 39 measures, including at least one which the court had to be persuaded to reverse. So I welcome the steps that the European Court of Human Rights is taking, partly at the instigation of this country’s Government, to improve its procedures and make them more transparent, including, as the court itself announced on 23 November last year, the attribution of interim measures to the judges who made them.

We have heard a lot about the Policy Exchange paper of last May. The arguments have been very well summarised in other speeches, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who has spoken to them a couple of times. Happily, I do not need to take your Lordships through those arguments or, indeed, the detailed rebuttals of them, which will be found in the Bingham Centre report of July of last year. Both reports are footnoted in the Constitution Committee report, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has referred. The reason that I do not need to do that is that the position was made completely clear in law by the European court, in a judgment that has been referred to: the 2005 judgment of the Grand Chamber in Mamatkulov v Turkey.

It has been mentioned, but I will say a little more about it. Of the 17 judges who ruled on this issue in the Grand Chamber, a clear majority of 14 held that Article 34 of the convention, which guarantees the effective exercise of the right of application to the Strasbourg court, is violated when a state fails to comply with interim measures. For 13 of those 14, violation follows automatically from a failure to comply. The 14th thought that there was a violation if, as in Mamatkulov itself, applicants are as a matter of fact prevented from effectively exercising their right of application,

Three judges dissented: those appointed by Turkey, Russia and Liechtenstein. Their dissent is long and tightly argued. Policy Exchange would have been proud to publish it. Its authors looked at the text, the preparatory materials, state practice, the analogy with the International Court of Justice and the relevant rules of international law—all ground covered subsequently by Professor Ekins and tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. They accused the court, just as Professor Ekins did, of exercising a legislative rather than an interpretative function.

Court cases, unlike academic debates, produce clear winners and losers. The result of Mamatkulov, since followed in other judgments, is quite simply conclusive of the matter. The arguments advanced by the dissenting judges, and later by Professor Ekins, were decisively rejected. Why does this matter? Again, noble Lords have had reference to it: the reason it matters is Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides two things of importance. First,

“the jurisdiction of the court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation of the convention”.

Secondly, as my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton said:

“In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide”.


That is really it. The European Court interpreted Article 34 in Mamatkulov as requiring compliance with interim measures issued by the court because, as the court put it in its judgement at paragraph 135, interim measures

“play a vital role in avoiding irreversible situations that would prevent the Court from properly examining the application and when appropriate securing to the applicant the practical and effective benefit of the Convention rights asserted”.

That ruling is binding, as the United Kingdom agreed it would be when we signed and ratified the convention, including Article 32. Perhaps we should not be very surprised that a treaty means what the court constituted to interpret it says that it means. Even the dissenting judges did not suggest otherwise. They did not like the majority judgment, but neither did they describe it, in a word recently used by Professor Ekins, as “lawless”. They accepted it.

State practice since the Mamatkulov decision is supportive of it. The Committee of Ministers, of all the Council of Europe states, resolved in 2010 that

“the Court’s case law has clearly established that Article 34 of the Convention entails an obligation for States Parties to comply with an indication of interim measures made under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court”.

The requirement on states parties to comply with interim measures was reiterated in the Izmir Declaration of 2011 on the Brussels Declaration of 2015, to which of course the United Kingdom was a party. It was endorsed in very clear terms by the French Conseil d’Etat as recently as 7 December last year, when that senior court required a person deported to Uzbekistan in breach of interim measures to be repatriated at the state’s expense.

In a recent email to noble Lords, Policy Exchange described its own 2023 paper as “authoritative”. I am afraid that whoever wrote that was high on their own supply. It is supported neither by the court whose job it is to provide authoritative interpretations of the convention nor by state practice, nor even, subject to anything the Minister may say, and I will be listening carefully, by our own Government. That at any rate is what I take from the last paragraph of the ECHR memorandum on the Bill.

To throw this established position into doubt might once have been merely eccentric; in current conditions, it is positively dangerous. As recently as 2005 there was a culture of compliance. The Strasbourg court could say, in Mamatkulov, paragraph 105:

“Cases of States failing to comply with indicated measures remain very rare”.


However, the “good chaps” theory no longer prevails in the Council of Europe. Russia challenged the jurisdiction of the court in 2021 when it required Alexei Navalny to be immediately released from prison due to the risk to his life and health—interim measures strongly supported by our Government—while Poland challenged it last year when its previous Government refused to comply with interim measures relating to the politicisation of its judiciary.

Supranational courts do not have bailiffs to enforce their decisions. The fabric of international law—that “gentle civiliser of nations”, as it was once described—is easily torn but not so easily repaired. It can be torn by acts such as that which is proposed to us—acts that enable or facilitate actions in breach of international law.

Clause 5 is peculiar, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, have both said. If Rwanda is as safe, as the Government invite us to declare, Clause 5 is unnecessary. If it is not safe, Clause 5 will compound the injustice of Clause 4. Either way, Clause 5 extends the damage already done by Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act because it severs the link, praised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, between non-compliance and procedural reform. If we accept this clause, we will not only be authorising Ministers to contravene this country’s obligations; we will be handing an excuse to illiberal Governments across the continent to do the same, and worse. We should be ashamed to do so.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to refer to any of the legal aspects of the amendment; there has already been enough of that in the excellent contributions from noble and learned Lords. I just want to address the point about why the United Kingdom should feel that we are particularly vulnerable to this court.

There has been reference to other countries that have had interim measures granted against them. It is of course the case that the interim measures relating to the Rwanda MEDP have a high profile. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seems to continue to be uncertain as to why the interim measures were given. I think he knows that, on the day that the court issued the interim measures, it also issued the statement of the decision when it notified the UK Government of the interim measures. These are public documents and they are online.

The interim measure relating to the case of NSK was put in place on the grounds that that the individual should not be removed to Rwanda until the ongoing domestic judicial review process was concluded. That is the reason the court gave for that case. I am not a lawyer and I know the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is, but it sounds reasonable to me that while a domestic—

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Just one moment—I will say what is reasonable and the noble Lord can say it is not. I think that, if there is an ongoing domestic judicial review process but the Government decide to deport that individual before it has concluded, there are reasonable grounds there. I will happily give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

With respect, a statement of conclusion does not give any of the reasons for coming to that conclusion.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

It gave the decision that the ongoing domestic judicial review process should be concluded.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Of course it is right that NSK’s application for an interim injunction was heard by the High Court—by the lead judge of the Administrative Court—and the interim relief application was refused. That was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which agreed with the single judge that there should be no interim relief. Application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed. It was only the European court that decided to grant the interim relief. It appears that our own domestic courts at all levels and at great levels of distinction were satisfied with the Government’s statement that they would return NSK to the UK in the event that his judicial review challenge succeeded. Why does the noble Lord say it is right for the European court to form a view by way of press release when our own courts, in detailed judgments, had considered all the arguments and decided the other way?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord. I said that the court issued a press release; I did not say it made a judgment by press release. I think that is taking it a little too far.

The noble Lord states that the domestic judicial processes had been concluded, but the court said that they had not. All I am relaying to the Committee is the decision that was made. In my view it is reasonable, but I am not a lawyer, as the two noble Lords are. That was the reason the court made the decision, and the Government accepted it.

The point I wanted to make is that there were five other cases that day, which are not referred to as frequently. The requests for two interim measures were granted in order for the court to consider the cases in greater detail. That is correct, yes? Two were refused, which has not been mentioned so far, and one was withdrawn because the Home Office had changed policy in the meantime. Looking at the consideration of cases on that day, I do not think you would come to a conclusion—with three accepted, two refused and one withdrawn—that there was some deliberate blocking of the measure.

That prompted me to ask what the record of the UK has been on interim measures over the last years. There have been 178 applications overall, with most of them withdrawn, since 2021. We have fared fairly well against Germany with a total consideration of 264. That compares with 478 cases for France. We are doing quite well as far as cases against the UK go. If this is judicial blocking, and therefore the motives are to empower the courts to stop what the Government want to do, we need to look at the record of the decisions.

In 2021 five interim measures were granted against the UK and nine were refused. In 2022, five were granted against the UK and 12 were refused. In 2023—the most recent data—one interim measure was granted against the UK and 13 were refused. Far from this being judicial blocking—these cases are all to do with expulsions and relocations; this is not just in general terms—the UK’s system has worked really rather well, especially when compared with those of Germany and France. I would have thought that this is something that the Government would want to protect.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the ancient court known as the Sanhedrin, at its full complement, sat with 71 judges and had a rule that the most junior judge would give judgment first. I understand the reason was that, if the senior judges had spoken and the junior judge disagreed, that would be arrogant; if they agreed, it would be impudent. I find myself speaking after the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Etherton, who disagreed. Therefore, whichever side of this argument I take, it seems I am going to be guilty of both. I ask forgiveness from each of them.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I will spoil any questions as to which way I will go by saying that I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and the reasons he gave for supporting Professor Ekins’ paper. It was interesting that, in opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said that for about 20 years the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has been clear. That is true, but it begs the question: since the European Court of Human Rights has been there for rather longer than 20 years, why did the noble Lord limit his position to 20 years? The answer is that if he had said “for 23 years” the jurisprudence would have said something completely different.

What is remarkable in this area is that this is not a new question. As I said at Second Reading, the question whether the European Court of Human Rights should have the jurisdiction—and this is a question of jurisdiction—to issue interim injunctions or interim measures was specifically debated by the contracting parties back in 1949, and it was deliberately not put into the text in 1950. It was a deliberate omission, not an oversight. The states considered whether the court should have the power and, no doubt for reasons similar to that set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, decided that it should not. That caused no problem at all.

Year after year, the court operated perfectly well without this power. It ruled, in terms, that it did not have this power in 1991 and, a decade later, in 2001, it upheld that ruling. As I said at Second Reading, you then have a judicial volte face in 2005, and the judgment from which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, quoted. It is an open question, and it is interesting to consider why there was this volte-face by the European Court of Human Rights. I suggested that it might have been “jurisprudential envy”, because the International Court of Justice held that it had the power to issue interim injunctions. But, of course, that is different, because the statute of the ICJ, particularly the French version, provides a basis in the foundational document of that court for it to have that jurisdictional power.

With respect, question of whether the court has a power to issue these interim measures rests on very slender foundations. How is it now said that the court has the power, and we are bound by it? The primary argument put this evening has been based on Article 32, which provides that the court has jurisdiction to decide on the operation of the convention. What is interesting about that argument is that it is not used by the court itself, which, so far as I am aware, has not based its jurisprudence on the fact that Article 32 gives it the right to say, “This is what our jurisdiction is, and this is what we are doing”. It is outside commentators who have tried to find a proper basis—because Article 34, which the court does rely on, is not one—for the court’s jurisdiction. It is rather like the archer who scores a bull’s-eye not by firing the arrow at the target, but by firing it and then drawing the target around it.

One comes to the conclusion that people would like the court to have the jurisdiction and then say, “Ah, well, there must be a basis for it—what about Article 32?” But it is not an argument that the court itself uses, and it is also a false argument. Article 32 is about disputes about the convention and its operation; they are to be resolved by the court. It is not a grant of unlimited jurisdiction to the court to defy the express terms of the convention, including Article 46.1, which says that states are bound only by final judgments and therefore, by implication, nothing else—and by the history of the convention, which, as I have set out, is contrary to the court having these powers.

Article 32 is not the “get out of jail” card. This is not a new point. A similar point came before the Supreme Court in the case of Pham in 2015—what would happen if the European Court of Justice exceeded its jurisdictional powers? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, dealt with that issue in paragraph 90. I do not need to go through the answer, but it certainly was not, “Well, the European Court of Justice has a power to interpret the treaties, and if it says it has the power to do this, that or the other, necessarily it does”, which would be the analogue to the Article 32 argument.

With the greatest of respect, Article 32 simply will not do as a basis on which to found the jurisprudence of the court. Of course, there are other points to be made as to the process of the court, and those have already been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. For those reasons, the point underlying many of the amendments in this group—that the court has jurisdiction to issue these interim measures and they are binding in international law—is wrong. Therefore, these amendments ought to be resisted.

--- Later in debate ---

We have had great legal arguments—very, very important legal arguments—but I want to get down to the nitty gritty here. Why are the Government bothering? How many asylum seekers are there who should be being deported under the Illegal Migration Act? How many do they expect to send to Rwanda? What is the timeline for it? All of us want to understand what is going on. That simply goes to the heart of it. We need some numbers from the Government and some explanation of what is actually going on. That is the purpose of my Amendments 66 and 67. I beg to move Amendment 66.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 76A, in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. This is a probing amendment to allow the Minister to expand on some of his helpful comments in an earlier group with regard to how the monitoring committee and the joint committee will operate.

When we started the Bill and I first read the treaty, I was not at that stage quite appreciative of how significant the monitoring committee and the joint committee would be when it comes to making decisions about the preparedness of when Rwanda would be a safe country. I was not aware at that stage, when I read the treaty, because at that stage, I was not aware that I was a decision-maker as to whether or not Rwanda would be safe. According to the Advocate-General, however, I am a decision-maker because I am a Member of Parliament and it is now a decision of the court of Parliament: this creature that has now come up from the grave to sit in judgment of a third country’s record on safety.

It is also relevant because the monitoring committee and the joint committee will be the supervising bodies, to some extent, with regard to the overall operation of the start to the end of the relocation processes. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is absolutely right: we do need more information about it, because we are gradually learning about what some of the estimates may be for the numbers to be relocated.

The Hope hostel in Kigali can accommodate 200 people, with an average processing time of a fortnight. On the previous day of Committee, we did the maths, as the Americans say. Well, we can do some more maths now, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has helped us. If we believe the Daily Telegraph, which occasionally is a reliable journal of Conservative thinking in this country, if there are 30,000 people, on the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Murray’s, impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act, which, of course, we will take as read, that is £5.6 billion plus the £400 million down payment, so a neat £6 billion.

The Minister, in an earlier group, outlined the very high cost of accommodating existing asylum seekers in hotel accommodation. We know, through the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, that the Home Office decided on the most expensive and least efficient means by which to accommodate asylum seekers. Nevertheless, that is £2.9 billion a year—so, on any reckoning, the number of those who will be relocated to Rwanda will take at least a decade at a cost of at least £6 billion. There is no means by which the Government can have a more effective way for the British taxpayer than efficient accommodation and processing here in this country. There is no way the Government can square any of it to make the Rwanda scheme cheaper for the British taxpayer.

Ultimately, we are looking not just for value for money but for whether we can make the decision that Rwanda is safe and the mechanisms are in place.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Before the noble Lord moves on to the other bits, can he give us some estimate of how much it will cost the British taxpayer if he and his friends succeed in perforating this Bill like a sieve so that it has no deterrent effect and we have an ever-growing number of people coming here having to be put up in hotels at immense cost to the UK?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has been here during the various days in Committee. He will have heard last Wednesday what the Government’s own estimate is regarding the deterrent effect of the Illegal Migration Act. That ranges towards the top element of deterrence of 50%. That is not ours or the Opposition’s but the Government’s estimate of the likely impact of the Illegal Migration Act, and that is the mechanism by which this is brought about. A 50% deterrence would be roughly 16,000 people.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

If it does not rise.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Well, that is the deterrent effect. Assuming that of those who are coming, 50% on a regular basis are deterred, then over the long term there would still be 50% coming by boats. That is not my estimate, it is the Government’s estimate.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Before I give way, presumably what the noble Lord wants to get to is a deterrent effect of 100%, so that the boats are stopped, which is what we all want. But so far I have not found anything in any government documentation of policy that says that anything they are going to do will bring about 100% deterrence. Has the noble Lord found it?

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I asked the noble Lord for his estimate of what will happen if we have no deterrent effect and there is an ever-growing number of people crossing the channel. Is it possible even to reach a figure? It must be enormous.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Permanent Secretary at the Home Office was unable to do so. That is why he sought ministerial direction. Home Office civil servants sought ministerial direction because the Permanent Secretary said that the Government’s policy was not proven value for money.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I will address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and then happily give way to the noble Lord.

The valid question is, “If this Bill will not work, what would work?” We know that this Bill will not work, so the better deterrent effects are those policies such as relocation and resettlement agreements, which comply with international law and have policing mechanisms attached to them. That is called the Albania deal. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that this has been a success.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

A deterrent effect of 90%.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

From a sedentary position. I agree with the noble Lord. I think Hansard picked it up: a successful 90% deterrent. The noble Lord heard me at Second Reading saying that we welcomed the Albania deal. An internationally legal, efficient, effective resettlement and relocation agreement is what works. This is not any of those. I happily give way to the noble Lord, Lord Murray.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is very interesting that the noble Lord should refer to the effectiveness of the Albania arrangement. The document that the noble Lord likes to refer to in relation to the ministerial direction on deterrence came before the Albania deal, the 90% drop and the tangible evidence that deterrence works that we saw as a result of the Albania deal. We can extrapolate from the experience of the Albania deal to say that deterrence will work more generally if we can be sure that a significant proportion of those crossing the channel in small boats are sent to Rwanda for third-country processing.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Even for the noble Lord, it is a bit of a leap to say that a negotiated relocation agreement with Albania has been a deterrent because they may have thought we were going to send them to Rwanda. Even factually, I am afraid that he was incorrect. The noble Lord knows that the ministerial direction sought on the migration and economic development agreement with Rwanda was specifically for this Rwanda agreement. He also knows that when the Permanent Secretary was giving evidence in December, after the Albania agreement was agreed, he said that no circumstances had changed with regard to his view for value for money for this agreement. The Permanent Secretary still believes that the Rwanda agreement will not propose to be value for money. I agree with the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office.

The monitoring committee will have eight members, as the Minister said, and its terms of reference are online. The Minister said earlier that it would be independent of government, and that is true to an extent—if you think that four members being appointed by one party and four by another constitutes independence, because when it is being established, each party will appoint them. The key thing from our point of view is the ability of the monitoring committee to, as the Minister wrote in a letter to me,

“ensure all obligations under the treaty are adhered to”.

It will not, because it cannot—the monitoring committee has no powers of enforcement. It will be able to refer aspects it considers important to the joint committee, but it is under no duty to publish any of those recommendations or any of its findings, which can be significant. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, said, the safeguards that must be in place as far the Government are concerned will be considered to be in place only if the monitoring committee has said that they are in place. We in Parliament will not know; but we are supposedly the decision-makers when it comes to whether Rwanda will be safe.

The joint committee, under Article 16, can make only non-binding recommendations to the parties. So, there is a monitoring committee that does not have a duty to publish its findings and cannot ensure adherence to the treaty. It can make only recommendations to a joint committee, which can make only non-binding recommendations, and which itself is not duty bound to report to the body that is apparently to be making the decisions: Parliament.

I asked how we would then change this if the circumstances changed. Even if we in Parliament found that out from a monitoring committee and joint committee that do not report to us, how would we change it? The noble and learned Lord rightly said that no Parliament can bind its successors. That seemed to imply that a future Parliament could change this arrangement. Well, it cannot, because, of course, no Parliament can bind its successors, but no Parliament can bind a Government on making or ending treaties—that is a prerogative function. How can we in Parliament change the treaty if we decide that Rwanda is no longer a safe country? I hope the Minister can explain that to me when he winds up.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak in support of Amendment 67, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I have listened to the last hour or two—I have lost count of how many hours of debate there have been—and have restrained myself, perhaps uncharacteristically, from intervening. There were contributions from, for example, my noble friend Lord Anderson, who has great experience, having appeared in courts in which I have not; from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who has been a very senior Minister; and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, who has given judgment in some of the relevant cases. I thought I would leave it to them to deal with the legal aspects.

I come to this as a lawyer who has spent 38 of the last 40 years as a Member of one or other House of this Parliament. I am concerned about the balance between the legal position created by a piece of draft legislation and the role that we legitimately have in these Houses, particularly in the other place, which is more democratically accountable than we are, although we are reluctant to deny at least some level of democratic accountability.

I do not understand this concept of deterrence. There are two views on deterrence, and they are simply stated: either you believe that the provisions are deterrents, or you believe they are not. You can actually make pretty respectable arguments both ways. It seems to me that the deterrent that would stop people coming in small boats is to deal with the cases efficiently, which has not been done at least until very recently—in other words, to ensure that those who make what might well in the vast majority of cases be unjustifiable and inadmissible requests to be allowed to remain in this country, leave this country, after due process, as quickly as possible—and to ensure that Parliament retains some oversight so that it can see that the new law is being dealt with in a way of which we are not ashamed and that accords with British legal standards. Amendment 67, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will allow me to say is modest, would at least allow Parliament to have that oversight of public spending and the way a new and unusual law operates to ensure it is fair and that there is value for money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I do not believe I have, my Lords. What I am trying to say here is that the joint committee has to make reports to Parliament in order for Parliament to keep it under review. That is what is under discussion at the meeting this week. So it does answer the question—perhaps not in the way that the noble and learned Lord would like, for which, obviously, I apologise.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for that comment. Just for the record, it is 11.13 pm on the last day of Committee, and it might be that the Government are thinking about something that we have been talking about. I thank the Minister for that. We will have an update with regard to how the joint committee operates. However, in order for Parliament to make its judgment, it must have access to independent information. The joint committee is the two Governments, so it does not really meet the criteria of Parliament making a judgment on the basis of Rwanda being safe, if the only information that we can use to make that judgment is that of the Government of Rwanda.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we have gone into the operation of the joint committee and various other bodies in considerable detail today, so I am not going to rehash those now. I am sure we can refer back to the record.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about the timetable. Obviously, I would say this, but the treaties need to be ratified and laws need to be passed, so I am afraid I cannot give a timetable at the moment.

With regard to numbers, as we have discussed many times before, the scheme is uncapped so I cannot provide a commentary on the possible likely numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about Albania. There is no question between us about Albania. Of course, it acted as a deterrent, because it was a situation in which Albanians leaving Albania to come to this country knew that they were going to be sent back there. We got an agreement between the UK Government and Albania. It was a proper returns agreement that people knew was happening, so it had the deterrent effect the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is hoping for.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is fully aware that the people he is referring to are economic migrants who have no right to be here. Therefore, a proper returns and resettlement agreement is completely legitimate. They are not asylum seekers.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

With respect to the answer the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, gave us and the amendment I was speaking to, this Chamber deserves more numbers from the Government. We need to understand what the Government are doing. The whole government policy on small boats is built on deportations. If you ask the majority of people in the country, they would expect that the Government are going to deport thousands upon thousands to Rwanda. The reality is that there will be a few hundred at best. What sort of policy is that to deal with the scale of the problem the Government face? We deserve better than that. I will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will briefly comment on the relationship between Rwanda and the United Kingdom contained in the treaty. A lot has been said about the treaty being inadequate and how it depends on what happens in future. The noble and learned Lord took a certain amount of flak during earlier debates in Committee when he was asked what the treaty is doing if Rwanda is safe. He suggested that it might make it safer. The rather scornful response to this observation was somewhat unfair. The treaty contains a number of obligations and is entirely typical of treaties in that respect. These obligations use the word “shall” and are directed to future activity.

The general principle of international law is that a treaty is binding on the parties and must be performed in good faith. That principle is embodied in the maxim “pacta sunt servanda”. We take that very seriously. If a party breaks the terms of a treaty, provided there has been a fundamental change of circumstances, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes clear, the treaty in effect comes to an end. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, spoke of the possibility of a coup and seemed to suggest, as the proposer of this amendment did, that because Parliament had determined that Rwanda was safe, we would be stuck with that determination.

I respectfully disagree. The treaty bears close reading. I will not refer to it at this stage of proceedings, but Clause 8(1) makes its nature clear, Articles 14, 15 and 16 concern the arrangements for monitoring and Article 22 provides a dispute mechanism. Further, the treaty will end on 13 April 2027 in any event. These seem to me to be sufficient safeguards built into the treaty, but if there is a coup or a fundamental change of circumstances, or any Government think that Rwanda is unsafe, the treaty can be brought to an end, at least until a subsequent agreement has been reached. To suggest that Parliament must somehow not be satisfied that there are obligations in international law seems to me unreal.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I respect the noble Lord and am listening carefully to what he is saying, and as always, he makes well-considered arguments. I have a genuine question. I agree with everything he said, but only the Executive, under the prerogative power, would be able to make the judgment to end that treaty. Parliament cannot do it. Is that correct?

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord is entirely correct about the prerogative, but Parliament, perhaps unusually, in considering this Bill has the opportunity to see the treaty and the obligations contained within it. Parliament should look at those obligations and see whether it is satisfied with the terms of the treaty and whether it provides sufficient safeguards. These are relevant factors for Parliament to consider but, ultimately, I accept that the noble Lord is right—it is for the Executive to decide.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. In essence, that was my argument in the previous group when it came to the necessity for us to have the information for the monitoring committee and the joint committee, given the circumstances, to allow us to form that view. Ultimately, we do not have the power to bring the treaty to an end or amend it because it is a prerogative power. We are, therefore, very limited as to what we are able to do if there are changes of circumstances in Rwanda that our Government and their Government do not then wish to change within the treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I understand it, yes.

Rwanda has a strong history of providing protection to those who need it, and it currently hosts more than 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers who have found safety and sanctuary there. The terms of the treaty we have negotiated with Rwanda address the findings of the UK domestic courts and make specific provision for the treatment of relocated individuals, guaranteeing their safety and protection. I invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Before the Minister concludes, I would be grateful if he could say what the mechanism will be for ending this legislation, if the treaty is not extended. Could he also answer my noble friend’s question on amendments to the treaty? It is long-standing practice that amendments to a treaty must come before Parliament through the CRaG process. Can he confirm that that would be the case?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am not expert on treaty law but, as far as I understand it, that is the case. I am afraid that I do not know the process behind the noble Lord’s question; I will have to find out.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord German, could not move the amendment in his name. I can tell that House that he is a marvellous chairman of the Parliament Choir and has an unrivalled ability to speak the poetry of Dylan Thomas with all the Welsh fervour that it demands.

I understand the good intentions of those who are putting forward the amendments in this group, but I fear they suffer from a real difficulty. In particular, in Amendment 23 the new subsection (1A)(c) would exempt a person who is

“a victim of human trafficking”.

The problem with that is that it drives a coach and horses through the Government’s intentions, which are, of course, to draw the category for exceptions extremely narrowly, so that most people do go to Rwanda, and therefore it is a definite deterrent to people leaving France and trying to get to this country as illegal immigrants. That is the whole point of the legislation, and it needs that sharpness and narrowness of exclusivity to achieve that aim. I fear that, in the hands of any sensible immigration lawyer, simply saying that the person might be a victim of human trafficking opens the whole thing to abuse.

I make that point because I have just been reading in the newspaper this morning that the Home Office is about to buy, or has bought, 16,000 homes in this country to house those illegal asylum seekers who are at the moment in hotels. It wishes to transfer those people, because of the public cost, to residential houses or flats, and that is what it is proposing to do. This housing they are taking is social housing and private rental housing, particularly in areas such as Bradford, Hull and Teesside, which are low-rent areas and obviously comparatively deprived areas. I think this shows the domestic consequences of allowing in the present number of illegal migrants and why the Government have to bear those in mind as well as our undoubted sympathy for those who may be suffering from human trafficking, slavery and so forth. These factors clearly have to be balanced; the domestic responsibilities of the Government with the concern for illegal immigration of this kind. I hope the House will bear that in mind when it considers these amendments.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer a question? Under Home Office figures, 78% of those people who have been referred to the national referral mechanism for being trafficked or in modern slavery have been successful and, by definition, a woman who is trafficked here—not smuggled but trafficked—will be unaware of the final destination. It will be against her will. How will she be deterred by this Bill?

[Lord Horam (Con)]

She will be deterred because the Bill is designed to send people to Rwanda, with a very narrow area of exemptions for those who cannot be sent to Rwanda. That is the way it will operate. Obviously, it will need to be spelled out, and the Government will have to put behind it all the explanations they can through modern social media et cetera to get across the message to the people who are at present in France that there is a real possibility that they will end up not in the UK but in Rwanda. That is how it works. That is how it is supposed to work, and I submit that widening it to all these other possibilities will detract from that deterrent element and therefore destroy the purpose of the Bill, with the domestic consequences that we can see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, the power of this debate has been absolutely extraordinary. I think the House very much admires the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom—the Minister—who looks to me like a man alone today. I very much hope that he will be able to produce something.

I support all the amendments. Listening to the debate, I was struck by one exchange which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, started and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, followed up. I have wondered why the Government had drafted the Bill in the way that they have. By that, I have in mind its extraordinary beginning, which says:

“The purpose of this Act is to … deter unlawful migration”.


The next subsection begins “To advance that purpose—”, and then the Bill sets out the fact that this agreement has been entered into. This is obviously not there for political reasons only. It must be there to send a message to the courts that have to construe it. I am assuming—I very much hope that the Minister will confirm this—that it is in there not for political but for legal purposes. It is to send the message to the courts as to what the purpose and framework of the Bill is.

If that is right, I assume that what the courts are supposed to do is to construe this very unusual Bill in the context of its purpose. The courts are being asked, very unusually, to exclude the courts from determining whether Rwanda is a safe country. They are being asked to do that to deter illegal immigration. The exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Deben, underlined completely that there are certain categories of people where deterrence never comes into it—for example, the person who is being trafficked or the modern slave.

Presumably, having put all this material into the Bill, the Government intend that the courts should construe it in accordance with its purpose, giving an appropriately targeted meaning to these exclusions of court intervention. If it is absolutely apparent for an individual that deterrence could not possibly be given effect to by the Bill or its terms, obviously its unusual terms do not apply. Can the Minister confirm that the purpose of all these strange provisions—I have in mind Clause 1—is so that the courts have a very clear steer as to what the purpose is, and that they will construe the Bill in accordance with that purpose?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, Mary is 19; she is in Gezira, in Sudan, just by the Ethiopian border. She has been offered employment as domestic staff in Dubai and her passport is taken away for the journey. The employment agency that recruited her from the refugee camp—because she is displaced, like many hundreds of thousands in Gezira—have also taken a record of her family and where they are from, including her grandparents, who are in Darfur. En route to Dubai, she is told that she will no longer work in domestic staff with a named family; she is now going to be in hospitality, and she is quite excited about this. However, on the way, she is rerouted to Europe because her agency said that the hospitality company and the family are no longer able to accommodate her, so she has an alternative job. She will now be going to Birmingham in the UK. This is an extremely long journey for her; she has no choice, of course, because she does not have any papers or a passport. Now that she is in a situation where she is really concerned about how she is getting to Birmingham and for her own safety, she is reminded that those who arranged the travel—originally to Dubai, remember—know where her family are. When she arrives, it is not hospitality in Birmingham—it is prostitution.

This Bill, and the Illegal Migration Act, will mean that she is detained in the UK, not referred to any support, and will be sent to a different country. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, thinks that the Bill will deter her from believing the company who recruited her to Dubai, and she will be deterred from coming to Birmingham. The nonsensity of it is quite hard to credit. We have the national referral mechanism for a purpose, which is to ensure that Mary does not become a double victim, but that is no longer an option for Mary. She is just an example, but it is not a theoretical one, and if noble Lords do not believe me, they should believe the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the excellent work he does, and I hope the Minister was listening careful to his contribution.

According to the latest Home Office data on the arrival on small boats, between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2023 some 9% were in this category; that is 7,923 people who were referred to the NRM. They are not all Marys; there are many other circumstances, but they follow a very similar trajectory of being lied to, trafficked and blackmailed. The Illegal Migration Act adds an extra sinister element to this blackmail, because Mary would be able to stay in the UK only if she is actively part of the prosecution of the gang in Gezira on the Ethiopian border, which is an impossibility.

The legislation put forward by the Government in the Illegal Migration Act will also no longer be able to be open to Mary. I asked the Minister at Second Reading how the Illegal Migration Act will continue to protect the victims of trafficking—an assertion he made—and he said he would write to me; I have not yet received that letter, so I hope he will be very clear today as to how these people will be protected. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in his powerful contribution, according to Home Office information,

“the majority (78%) of reasonable grounds decisions for small boat arrivals since 2018 have been positive. Of the 780 conclusive grounds decisions issued, 78% were positive”.

These are not people who are gaming a system or, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam said, illegal asylum seekers: they are victims of a heinous crime, many of whom had no idea they would end up as part of a prostitution racket in England.

On Monday, I pressed the Advocate-General on the Government’s official position on whether Rwanda currently has the safeguards in place for those who would be relocated. I remind the Committee that I asked:

“If the Rwandan Government are ‘working towards’ putting safeguards in place, that means they are not currently in place. Is that correct?”


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, replied, “It must do”. So the Government have said that Rwanda is not safe yet and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, that this is not us saying that Rwanda is not safe yet—the Minister said that it is

“working towards having the safeguards in place”.—[Official Report, 12/2/24; cols. 64-65.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Regarding the applications to the ARAP scheme, clearly, I am not qualified to comment on individual circumstances as described by the noble Lord. I am afraid I do not know the precise details of who is qualified to apply under the ARAP scheme, so I will find that out and come back to the noble Baroness in due course. I cannot give any further comment at this point.

I have heard what has been said, and I will now turn to Amendments 70, 73 and 85, proposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and Amendments 18, 23, and 47, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German. The UK has a proactive duty to identify victims of modern slavery, and we remain committed to ensuring that where indicators that someone is a victim of modern slavery are identified by first responders, they continue to be referred into the national referral mechanism for consideration by the competent authorities. Steps will be taken in all cases to identify whether a person may be a victim of modern slavery, and if a person is referred into the national referral mechanism, a reasonable grounds decision will be made.

Amendment 70 would act to impede the provisions already passed in the Nationality and Borders Act and the Illegal Migration Act that introduced the means to disqualify certain individuals from the national referral mechanism on grounds of public order before a conclusive grounds decision is considered. The amendment is also unnecessary—it is important to be clear on this point—as the Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence.

Regarding victims of modern slavery, Article 5(2)(d) of the treaty obliges the UK to provide Rwanda with

“the outcome of any decision in the United Kingdom as to whether the Relocated Individual is a victim of trafficking”,

and this includes positive reasonable grounds decisions, as well as positive conclusive grounds decisions. Article 13 of the treaty makes specific provision that Rwanda will have regard to information provided by the UK

“about a Relocated Individual relating to any special needs that may arise as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that these needs are accommodated”.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

This is the point I made at Second Reading. Section 22 of the Illegal Migration Act disapplies all of what the Minister just said when someone arrives by an irregular route. It disapplies the process of someone claiming that they are a victim of trafficking; it disapplies their ability to be referred to the NRM; and it disapplies the Home Office or the receiving officer taking this information. How are they interacting?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will repeat the point: the first responders will be expected to refer individuals into the NRM where there are indicators of modern slavery. One of those indicators is whether they claim to be victims of modern slavery.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am still waiting on the letter. Section 22 of the Illegal Migration Act, on modern slavery, disapplies that. It is not possible for that to happen under the Illegal Migration Act.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I repeat the points that I have made. I will write the letter to the noble Lord. I have the information, but it is incredibly lengthy and I do not want to repeat it all now. I will make sure it is put down in a letter to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that and will of course make sure that he is copied in to the letter. I heard very clearly what he said, and I speak on behalf of my noble and learned friend. Clearly, we would not wish to argue for a lack of morality in the safeguards that we are putting in place for vulnerable people.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I have a specific question to ask. I do not doubt the Minister’s motives or morality; I think that doing this is just wrong. On 12 July—I checked the record—the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, told the House when we were voting on the trafficking amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill that only British nationals could be referred to the NRM. The Minister needs to be very clear in confirming that any national who arrives on a small boat can now be referred to the NRM. That is the clarification that I am seeking from the Minister; it is a very simple question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hoffmann (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clarke asked whether there was any precedent for the kind of legislation we are considering, in which some question of fact is declared to be the case to the exclusion of any contrary decision by a court. There are such precedents, but you have to go a long way back in our history to find them.

In 1531, there was an unfortunate incident at a dinner party given by the Bishop of Rochester. All the people who ate their dinner became sick, and one of them died. This was not, at the time, put down to the inadequacy of the health and safety laws in the 16th century, but suspicion fell upon the cook. The King had a horror of poisoning. He was more or less a contemporary of Lucrezia Borgia and recognised that it was being used as a political weapon all over the country. He came down to Parliament, to your Lordships’ House, and promoted a Bill that became an Act. It declared, first, that poisoning was a form of treason; secondly, that the penalty for it was to be boiled alive; and, thirdly—this is the point—that the cook had been guilty of this crime and no trial was to take place. They were probably concerned that some lefty lawyers might get the cook off if it went to trial. The result was that the cook was duly boiled alive before an appreciative audience at Smithfield. That is the sort of precedent which one has to look at in order to justify what is being done now.

Since then, for centuries, we have had the development of the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers—principles which English constitutional lawyers have written about with pride and foreign lawyers have written about with admiration. I suggest to your Lordships that that is where we ought to stay.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps it is only the House of Lords that when asked to find a precedent can refer back to 1531. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, that I was aware of that issue, because I have seen the Act. It was on display in the National Archives in its exhibition on treason last year. I think the Minister has also seen it. It was also noted that it was repealed quite shortly afterwards.

[Lord Hoffmann (CB)]

Once the cook was dead.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Government are asking us to be the perpetual judge of the legislation and actions of another country. That puts the legislature in an unusual position. In fact, it puts it into a unique position, specifically for this country. I am not a judge on Rwandan legislation, policy or actions. I have been to Rwanda; I respect it greatly and I thoroughly enjoyed my visit. I have been massively impressed with the development of Rwanda that is in their hands.

The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, referred to the eloquent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lords, Lord McDonald and Lord Cashman, with regard to torture. She told us that if we wanted to be a judge, we should speak to Victoire Ingabire, an opposition leader who is currently under house arrest. I have. I have been in her house, and I have asked her that question. Subsequent to my meeting the opposition member, officials of the Rwanda Government asked the hotel that I was staying at to inform on me. I am not a judge as to whether that means that Rwanda is a safe country. That is one example—I think, a bad example. It is probably an illustrative example. However, I am not a judge on that—our courts are. That is why we have them here.

We are asked not just to pass a “Rwanda is safe” Bill but to pass—

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I want to add to his experience that, the minute I had visited Victoire Ingabire, my phone was nicked.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Minister might see two examples and ask when it becomes a pattern. Again, I am not a judge for it. As I was saying, we are not just asked to judge that Rwanda is a safe country under this legislation but we are asked to agree to legislation that states that Rwanda will never be unsafe. How on earth can we possibly do that?

On Monday, the Minister found it incredibly difficult to determine that Rwanda is currently safe. I remind the Committee of his response—because it is worth reminding the Committee, if not him. My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked whether there would be safeguards in place to make Rwanda safe. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, said:

“My Lords, it is a matter of working towards having the safeguards in place”.


I then asked:

“If the Rwandan Government are ‘working towards’ putting safeguards in place, that means they are not currently in place. Is that correct?”


The noble and learned Lord said:

“It must do”.


That is the Government saying that it is not currently safe. Why is that important for this group of amendments? It is important because I later asked the Minister to confirm that

“no relocation would take place until those safeguards would be in place”.

The noble and learned Lord replied:

“I can answer the first part of the noble Lord’s question in the affirmative”.—[Official Report, 12/2/24; cols. 64-70.]


We know that there will be no relocation until safeguards are in place that Rwanda will be a safe country. The Minister was unable to confirm when that would be the case. However, the Bill is asking us not only to jump ahead of that but to deny courts from ever considering whether Rwanda could be unsafe. It is still quite hard to work out the rationality of where we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a brief postscript to the very powerful interventions that have been made by many other Members, including and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I point to some practical aspects. The fact of the matter is that the asylum system is in chaos. The number of cases that are waiting to be assessed would fill Wembley Stadium. This Government are in real difficulty and the next Government, whoever they are, will be in equal difficulty if we do not find a way forward. I accept all the legal difficulties that have been raised very effectively, but let us also keep in mind the practical aspects, and that if this is allowed to continue there will be a very unfortunate effect on relations between communities in our country.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Lord is an expert in these areas. If the Bill goes through, what is his estimate of how many people will be relocated from the backlog that he has referred to, and over how many years? I think it could take up to 20 years. How will that deplete Wembley Stadium?

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I do not think that anybody has any idea of the answer to that. That is one of the difficulties. I am pointing to the social difficulties that will also follow. Therefore, we must give the Government some space in order to make an impression on the future inflow of cases to this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the point of the principle of the Bill is to remove the matter from the consideration of the civil courts and to place it before the court of Parliament; to take the matter from the civil courts and place it in the international and diplomatic sphere.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

What are the mechanisms —since, as my noble friend Lord Scriven said, the courts are no longer able to look at this—by which we can judge whether Rwanda will adhere to its treaty obligations? The Minister said that this is now going to be a duty of the court of Parliament: what is our mechanism in Parliament for doing that?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

First, I remind the noble Lord of some of the constitutional truths that were adverted to in the debate on Monday. No Parliament can bind its successor. Parliament can always come back and revisit matters in future. On the specific point of how Parliament will come to learn of any matters that are of concern, I will refer to this in greater detail in the course of my submission, but I can refer the noble Lord to the independent monitoring committee which the treaty and the Bill establish, and to the work that that will do, feeding back to the joint committee of the two Governments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

First, as the noble and learned Lord is perfectly well aware, the Bill blocks the possibility of refoulement and of return to any country other than the United Kingdom. In relation to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that Parliament is a court is a familiar and well-known concept; it is a name by which Parliament is well known.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Not on the theory point but on the practical point of what the Bill states, can the Minister just expand a bit more? He said that there will be a monitoring committee that will report to the joint committee of the Governments. How will they report to Parliament if we are to make a judgment, subsequently, that we wish to repeal this?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

As I said to the noble Lord when first responding to him, I will address those matters in more detail in the course of my submission.

Clause 2 creates a conclusive presumption that Rwanda is generally safe and will not send someone to another country in breach of the refugee convention. I respectfully disagree with my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and others that this amounts to an abuse, far less to a constitutional innovation. In relation to a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, made on the matter of how the courts might respond, the noble and learned Lord put it to the Committee that there would be one case that would decide. I congratulate him on his optimism, but he must surely recognise—reflecting on the practice of immigration across the decades—that what happens is that, where a position is advanced and set forth before the court, it will remain open subsequently for people to argue that there has been a change in fact or a change in circumstances. Therefore, the proposal that the noble and learned Lord advances to the Committee that there would simply be one case that would determine all things is, I regret, a proposition to which I cannot accede.

The conclusive presumption as to the safety of Rwanda enables Parliament to confirm that Rwanda is safe for the purposes of the Migration and Economic Development Partnership. It reflects the strength of commitment from the Government of Rwanda on the safety and support that they will provide to individuals relocated there. Clause 2(2) notes that a decision-maker means the Secretary of State, immigration officers and the courts, including tribunals, when considering a decision relating to the relocation of an individual to Rwanda under provision of the Immigration Act. Clause 2 also excludes several general grounds of challenge and, as set out in subsection (3), prohibits generalised appeals or reviews.

As I have said already, the Government have signed an internationally legally binding treaty responding to the Supreme Court’s conclusions, in particular on the issue of refoulement. We have been clear that Rwanda will not remove any individual relocated there to another country, except to the United Kingdom in very limited circumstances. The implementation of these provisions in practice will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee, whose role is enhanced by the treaty, and which will ensure compliance with the obligations. Therefore, as set out in subsection (4), there is no reason for a court or tribunal to consider any claim that Rwanda may remove a person to another state, that an individual may not receive fair and proper consideration of an immigration claim in Rwanda or that Rwanda will not abide by the treaty terms. Finally, subsection (5) is a “notwithstanding” provision, requiring courts to honour—I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I am so sorry, I thought the noble Lord was poised to intervene.

Finally, subsection (5) is a “notwithstanding” provision, requiring courts to honour the previous clauses, notwithstanding all relevant domestic law, the Human Rights Act 1998 to the extent that it is disapplied by this Bill, and any alternative interpretation of international law reached by the court or tribunal.

The effect of Amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, would be to remove the requirement for decision-makers and courts or tribunals to treat conclusively Rwanda as a safe country. That is similar to the terms of Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German. These amendments would allow individuals to present evidence to challenge removal decisions on the grounds that Rwanda is not generally a safe country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

There is no obligation on the monitoring committee to publish its report, so how will we know what they are?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, this matter is to be dealt with in further groupings. In the interests of saving the Committee’s time, I will revert to consideration of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.

The treaty which the United Kingdom has agreed with Rwanda makes express provision for the treatment of relocated individuals, demonstrating the commitment of both parties to upholding fundamental human rights and freedoms without discrimination and in line with both our domestic and international obligations. Rwanda’s obligations under these international agreements are embedded too in its domestic legal provisions.

The High Court found that it was generally safe for individuals relocated under the MEDP to be in Rwanda. In view of its finding on the issue of refoulement, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to decide the question of whether individuals were generally at risk of ill treatment in Rwanda. The Court of Appeal likewise did not reach a conclusion on this point. This means that the ruling of the High Court on the point of general safety remains undisturbed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, just to be clear, I will be very “Committeeish” about this group of amendments. In the light of that, I will just ask a couple of questions relating to my Amendments 69 and 87, which deal with the value for money and cost of the Bill.

I refer to the point that I made earlier, that the Committee needs no reminding that the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office required a ministerial direction because he repeated his earlier advice to the Public Accounts Committee on 11 December that the Home Office had no evidence that the Bill provided value for money. Therefore, can the Minister start with respect to my Amendments 69 and 87, which call for an ongoing assessment of the costs, as well as an economic impact assessment? Will he share with us a little more detail about the conclusions that Ministers have come to about value for money as opposed to what the Permanent Secretary said? No doubt, the Minister will say that it will act as a deterrent and therefore that is the value for money, but of course that is exactly the point that the Permanent Secretary was also making, that there is no evidence that it will act as a deterrent either. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s assertion and the evidence for it other than just the belief that this will act as a deterrent.

Perhaps the Minister will update us on how much has been spent so far. My calculation got to nearly £400 million. What is the budget, is that the amount that has already been spent, and what is the projected spend over the next period, should the Government get their way with the Bill?

Amendment 86 refers specifically to the establishment of the monitoring committee. I remind the Committee that much of our discussion has been about the Bill asserting that Rwanda is safe and all of us saying that the Government are making an assertion about the factual situation now, whereas the treaty talks about how Rwanda may or will become safe should certain things happen. I have tabled Amendment 86, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, simply to get some more information about the monitoring committee referred to in Article 15 of the treaty. The particular word in my Amendment 86 to which I refer the Committee is “fully”, rather than a part being established here and another part there.

The Government have made all sorts of points about the monitoring committee. Given that it is supposed to oversee the operation of the treaty and the improvements that are supposed to happen in Rwanda to satisfy us that it is a safe country, could the Minister tell us where we are on the monitoring committee? I apologise if other noble Lords are up to date on this, but perhaps he could tell me how many members of the committee have been appointed, how many are expected to be appointed, where they come from, whether the committee has yet agreed the terms of reference that it is supposed to agree and whether they have been published. I have not seen them; I do not know whether anybody else has, but have they been published yet? If not, when will they be published?

There should be an enhanced initial monitoring period; how is that going? Has it started? It says it will be for a minimum of three months; presumably that does not start until the treaty is enacted or has it started already? When does it start? We need to know when that initial period of three months ends. Can it be extended to become six months, if deemed necessary? The treaty tells us that the monitoring committee needs to engage a support team. What or who is the support team? Has it been engaged and who is funding it?

Article 15(9) says:

“The Monitoring Committee shall develop a system and process to enable Relocated Individuals and legal representatives to lodge confidential complaints direct to the Monitoring Committee of alleged failures to comply with the obligations in this Agreement (including as to the treatment of a Relocated Individual), or any element of the processing of their asylum claim in accordance with this Agreement”.


How is that going and where are we with that?

Obviously, this is Committee, which is the time to ask some of these detailed questions. The wonderful philosophical discussions and debates that we have had are very important to this Bill, but there are some details in there that are fundamental for the Committee and this Chamber to understand, given the importance of the monitoring committee to the Bill. We need to understand how that is going as we continue to consider what amendments may be brought forward on Report— for us to consider further and maybe even vote on—on how the monitoring is going, how the Government expect it to happen and what decisions we may or may not come to on commencement.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 74 in my name in this group and associate myself with all the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked. I will also, with this amendment, seek to follow the money.

We heard in the previous group but one what I thought was an interesting exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Green, and the Minister with regard to the concern about the social fabric and social contract of our nation when it comes to the high level of migration. It is the case that, over the past five years, the number of those seeking asylum in the UK has gone up from 35,000 to 75,000—that is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is completely right on his numbers; migration is about 10 times, sometimes more, the inflow of asylum seekers. But the issue that concerns public opinion—maybe because it is always on television or because it is the only thing that the Government are talking about—is indeed asylum. None the less, the real problem, as the noble Lord implied, is the scale of immigration, and we should be under no illusions about what that means for our future.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and, to some extent, I agree with him. If we have a legal migration system that has been a catastrophic failure, and the Government then seem to wish to scapegoat those fleeing conflict or danger to claim asylum here, I am not surprised that this dominates the debate. But the Government should not look at us when it comes to that situation.

I found it interesting that, when I asked the noble Lord, Lord Green, who supports this Bill, what impact it would have on that point with regards to the backlog—the Wembley Stadium—he gave me an honest answer and said that he did not know. I think he said that the Government do not know; I think he said no one knows. Yet we have paid nearly £400 million not to know. It is the most expensive question never to be answered in the history of the Treasury.

It will get worse, and Amendment 74 therefore tries to get a bit more detail about this. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is absolutely right. The Permanent Secretary did not seek ministerial direction simply, as the Minister alluded to before, because there was maybe a question around this, because it is novel. The Permanent Secretary is the accounting officer; it is his duty to say whether a policy would be value for money for the British taxpayer. He was unable to do that, so he asked to be overruled by the Minister. What was quite extraordinary was that, as we now know from his submission in December, part of the ministerial direction was not to tell Parliament of an extra £100 million that was given as a second tranche under this scheme—another large swathe of funding.

We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, during the passage of what became the Illegal Migration Act, that the costs of the scheme were dependent on a per-person basis. That was correct, but we now know that it was not the full answer. Part of the scheme will be on a per-person basis, but the £100 million was a credit line to the Government of Rwanda. So I would like the Minister, when he responds to this debate, to be quite clear and to tell us what that credit line is being used for. We do not know and, if the court of Parliament is to make a judgment, we need a bit more evidence.

The Hope hostel, which is the receiving centre for the people who are due to be relocated, is a private business. It is operated on a private sector contract and the Government say that they will not release information about what we are paying for because it is a Rwandan private sector contract. The Minister said to me in his letter that the Home Office cannot divulge information about the contracts that other countries have made—but we have paid for it. Not only have we paid for it, we will be paying for it. So I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us if there will be another tranche of funding for the Hope hostel in the next financial year, because it is on an annual rolling contract.

This issue also comes down to the fact that that centre can accommodate 200 people, with a typical processing time of a fortnight, I was told. So that will be a maximum of about 5,000 people a year, unless there are Hope hostels 2, 3 and 4 that we will be paying for. We do not know yet. If that is the case and we look at the Wembley Stadium backlog of at least 90,000 people, at 5,000 people a year it is going to take nearly 20 years to clear it.

So far, it has cost just shy of £400 million. What if it is on a per-person basis? That is where the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was absolutely right because, after we pleaded for the impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Bill, he gave that to us and we were duly grateful. It shows that per-person relocation will cost £169,000, on Home Office estimates. I remind the Committee that that is £63,000 more than processing someone and them staying here in the UK. It is 60 grand per person more expensive to the British taxpayer to relocate them in a scheme that is going to take 20 years and has already cost us nearly half a billion pounds.

If it will be 5,000 people a year, what are we looking at if we times that by £169,000? In one year, that will be just shy of £1 billion for two flights. That is fine if this is about the headlines and the Prime Minister saying, “I’ve got the planes taking off”. It is not fine for the British taxpayer. It is equally not fine if the whole purpose of this was to be a deterrent, because the noble Lord, Lord Green, is correct in one respect: if you are clearing the backlog, you want fewer people to come in the first place. That would require a deterrent rate of 100%. The Government’s best estimate, on a medium-term basis, is that there will likely be a break-even point with a deterrent effect of 50%. That is in the impact assessment. So the Home Office itself is estimating that this whole deterrence scheme is just going to halve the number of boats.

We already know that that does not matter, of course, because the Prime Minister announced in the new year that the deterrent effect was working. But we know that it is not, so I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what has been spent within MEDP—the migration and economic development partnership—in a scheme-by-scheme, line-by-line and project-by-project statement. If the scheme came under official development assistance, it would have to be put down under the DevTracker. But it is not under the DevTracker system of transparency at the FCO: it is from the Home Office, so I would like to see the equivalent of that published and the Minister to state whether the rolling contract is to be paid for another year, going forward. I would be very grateful if the Minister could say, at the end of year 1 of this scheme being in operation—just year 1, I am not going to be too ambitious—what the deterrent effect, the total cost and the per-person cost will be. Ultimately, if we are talking about a Budget coming up, surely we should be straight with the British taxpayer.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will introduce my Amendments 81 and 82 in this group, which I have the privilege of sharing with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I remind the Committee that the Government concede that this policy is novel and might even concede that it is controversial. There are grave concerns about whether Rwanda is currently safe and further concerns, raised eloquently earlier today, that even if it becomes safe at some point—for example, as a result of the successful implementation of the treaty—it may not be safe for ever.

Throughout these debates, the Government have relied heavily on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty—not executive sovereignty. That is why Amendment 81, which I share with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, makes commencement a matter for the Secretary of State but to be approved by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and both Houses of Parliament by way of resolution. It is hence not executive fiat. Currently, Clause 9(1) says:

“This Act comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force”.


Treaty ratification is for the most part a matter for the Executive, but if we are to be the high court of Parliament and oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of the land, parliamentary sovereignty at the very least requires parliamentary commencement. I leave to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, Amendment 82 on his system of rolling sunsets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

A very good touchstone of when lawyers realise that—if I may respectfully say—the argument does not quite work is when they start referring to spirits of things. With great respect, that is not a vested right. If you have a right to asylum, you have a right to asylum. Under this Bill, you also have a right to asylum. What this changes is where you have the right to asylum.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The person who would have a right to asylum in the UK under this Bill would no longer have the right to asylum in the UK. It is completely different. They may have a right to asylum in Rwanda, but that is not the right that they had when they were here which is going to be taken away from them.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord explain why if I come here and am entitled to asylum that is not a right?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The right is to make a claim for asylum. That is the vested right absolutely. The right is the right to asylum.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

In the UK.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

It does not work if the noble Lord shouts at me when he is sitting down. I am happy to give way. I hear what he says—that it is the right to asylum in the UK, and I am respectfully suggesting that is not the case under the law. The hour is late, and we will no doubt come back to this.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise with some hesitancy, in the middle of a rather technical debate, but I would like to make a couple of points on this group. The Committee has already heard from my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb who, in her inimitable way, made it very clear that the Green Party remains utterly opposed to the entire Bill and greatly regrets that we gave it a Second Reading—but we are where we are.

From listening to the debate on the first group, a word that came up again and again, which might be surprising to people listening from outside the Committee, was “silly”. Of course, what we are talking about is deadly serious, but the definitions of “silly” are interesting, if you look them up. One is “showing a lack of common sense or judgment”. Common sense and judgment are two things that this group of amendments seeks to introduce to the Bill, so I commend the noble Lord, Lord German, for introducing it so clearly and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for his excellent assistance in presenting the argument.

It is a statement of the obvious that Parliament, and certainly your Lordships’ House after our vote on the Rwanda treaty, does not believe that what the Bill states is common sense. It is not based on the evidence and has been disproved. More than that, these amendments are making a person, the Secretary of State, responsible for making a judgment. If we are to have the rule of law, a person has to be identified and held responsible for making that judgment. We are introducing a sense of responsibility and evidence here, which would at least be a step forward.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord German. It has been a short debate, in comparison to that on the first group, presumably because some have now given their Second Reading speeches on this Bill and that is sufficient for them. We will just have to go through the grind. It has, nevertheless, been an interesting debate.

I will pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. Of course, members of the Supreme Court are not here to answer questions, but I understand that they considered whether the Divisional Court was correct in deciding whether Ministers had followed an incorrect process, under law. The Supreme Court’s view was that the question to answer was whether issues of fact on refoulement, which was the origin of the appeal, were to be determined. That is why the Supreme Court made the decision that it did, and that is the relevant part of judicial review. I do not think that the relevant part of judicial review for the Bill is the Supreme Court’s judgment, but that judicial reviews of the process that decision-makers had followed in deciding to relocate anybody to Rwanda can no longer be carried out. That will now be prohibited which, if I may say so, is a major constitutional step, which the Bingham Centre and many others have warned against. I suspect we will hear that in other groups of amendments and, for me, that is the important part of judicial review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I know I am going slightly outside the ordering of clauses, but Amendments 81 and 82 to Clause 9 address the very difficulty that the noble Lord has identified. Circumstances can, and almost certainly will, change. We need to put rolling sunsets in place so that the Bill is never in force for more than, let us say, two years, and that each time it is extended there is a proper assessment of the safety of Rwanda, its compliance with treaties and, incidentally, whether the policy itself is succeeding.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I listened carefully to what he said, including at Second Reading, and when he comes to make the case I will also listen carefully for that. If he will forgive me for saying so, we will be into the categories of plan C, D, E and F to try to make the Bill a bit better. I refer to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on the first group. These are all silk purse amendments, are they not? We are desperately trying to make something better that, in our hearts, we know cannot be better. We are trying to just take the rough edges off it slightly.

Our approach in this group is to revert the Bill to long-standing common practice for asylum laws that Ministers on those Benches have regularly said is the proper procedure, because it includes executive decision-making, parliamentary approval and then judicial review. That is what we are saying should be the case, because that is what, for years, Ministers have said is the case. We are seeking to restore that. Amendment 84 requires Ministers to report on these areas.

I wrote to the Foreign Secretary in December asking a whole series of questions regarding the treaty. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, gave me the courtesy of a substantive reply, and I am grateful for it. I asked specifically about when some of the mechanisms of the treaty would be in operation—for example, on the capacity for decision-making processes in Rwanda, for us to determine whether it would have the capacity and therefore be able to be safe. The noble Lord replied: “Some of the newer mechanisms will be finalised before operationalisation”. I want to know when. The Government are clearly working on it. They must have a working assumption of when they will be in place—so tell us. If the Government are saying that we are the determining body, tell us when those procedures will be in place. They cannot have it both ways and say that we are the determining body but they have the information—that does not cut it any more. If we are the determining body, we must have the information.

This is why I asked about when the judges will be in place. Under the treaty, judges who are not Rwandan nationals will have to be trained on Rwandan law, not UK law. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, who is not in his place, was completely wrong in the debate on the first group about this being similar to the Australian processes. The people who will be relocated will be processed under Rwandan law, not British law, so the judges will have to be trained on it. I asked when that will be complete, because we are obviously not going to relocate an individual where there will be a panel of judges to process them who are not sufficiently trained in Rwandan law. I am sure everybody will agree with that.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, replied: “The proper procedures, facilities and support for relocated individuals, with regard to the judges’ training, will be in place before they are relocated to Rwanda”. The Prime Minister, who bet Piers Morgan that the flights will leave, obviously knows when the judges will be trained—so what is the working assumption of when they will be trained?

I am desperately trying not to make this a silk purse exercise. We are fully in an Alice in Wonderland situation here. In the debate on the earlier group, the Minister said that because things have changed, we should now look at the new country note. The new country policy and information note version 2—and version 2.1 in January, which he was referring to—supersedes the summer 2022 country note. The Minister is saying that the old note should not be taken into consideration because there is a new note—and, if we want to refer to the UNHCR’s up-to-date position we should, as we heard him say, look at annexe 2 of that report. Not only have I read the country policy notes front to end, I also clicked on the annexe 2 links—anybody can do it now on their smartphone. A box comes up with a note that the publication was withdrawn on 11 December 2023. The publication the Minister referred to, which was withdrawn, was from May 2022, which the Supreme Court used as its evidence for the UNHCR.

If we are to be the decision-making body, how on earth are we going to be making decisions when the Government do not tell us even the basic information of when they—not us—think Rwanda will be a safe country?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, there is a suite of amendments in this group that, in many ways, cover the same ground as the first group. It is clear from this short debate, as well as the first, that this debate—approaching the Bill by ensuring that the terms of the treaty are being properly adhered to; essentially, we are debating the mechanism for how best to do this—will dominate the whole Committee stage. I hope colleagues can work together to return the best possible solution on this issue.

In the same way that the Opposition do not wish to delay the Bill’s passage, we do not want to create barriers for the scheme to start. Our focus should be on how we monitor and judge the safety of Rwanda, who monitors it, and what should happen if Rwanda is judged not to be a safe country for those being removed to it.

The noble Lord, Lord German, introducing Amendments 4 and 17, said there should no commencement of the Act until Rwanda is deemed a safe country. A number of noble Lords spoke at length on proposed new subsection (1A)(c) in Amendment 84, which are the 10 issues raised by the committee of this House about how that might be achieved. The noble Lord looked at how that might be done, how many of those elements are in place, which are operational and—perhaps more fundamentally—whether Rwanda has the practical ability to fulfil the undertakings in a more long-term way. That is really the point that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made in his brief contribution to this group.

My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer speculated that the Secretary of State could, after making a decision, be open to judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that the Supreme Court did not use the principles of judicial review when it made its decision, but decided the case on first principles. Both my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord are well above my grade in legal matters, but it seems to me that this is another example of possible compromise as we move forward—as there were possible areas of compromise discussed in the debate on the first group.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, gave his customarily extremely articulate speech on the various provisions in proposed new subsection (1A)(c) in Amendment 84. He spoke of making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and went through various ways in which that might be achieved—although he made his reluctance to do so very clear. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke about his Amendments 81 and 82, on the rolling sunsets, as he described them, which we will get to on a subsequent group.

So, really, this whole group is trying to make sure that the Government are properly held to account. As I said in my introduction, our focus will be on how to monitor and judge the safety of Rwanda, who monitors it, and what Parliament’s role is in that, rather than putting up a barrier against the Bill itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister. That is the closest we have got to an answer: “working towards”. Can we pursue that a wee bit more? If the Rwandan Government are “working towards” putting safeguards in place, that means they are not currently in place. Is that correct?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

It must do.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Just before the noble Lord sits down—

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Just before the noble Lord stands up or resumes his position, I have specific information on the point he raised earlier on information available electronically. I am told that the page on the GOV.UK site to which he was referring was in fact withdrawn on 11 September 2023 and has been superseded by one dated 11 January 2024.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful. I clicked on it half an hour ago. Maybe they can do some clicking in the Box, because the information the Minister has just provided is false. He needs to correct the record, but he can do it in writing to me if he so wishes.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I think a discussion on this point would be taking up too much of the Committee’s time.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

As the Minister confirmed to me, by definition, the safeguards that would make Rwanda safe are not in place, because the Rwandan Government are “working towards” having them in place. Why then are we asked to determine that Rwanda is currently safe when the Minister has said it is not?

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, might I add to that question? Is the noble and learned Lord the Minister not embarrassed by the word “is” in the clause, which I will address in the next group? It is the language of that particular provision that causes embarrassment to the Government. They really need to face up to the significance of using the word “is”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

For the Minister to be persuasive in response to that question, he would not have said that they are working towards putting safeguards in place—safeguards which have to be in place, in respect of the point about refoulement made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. The Minister said that they were working towards putting safeguards in place. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said no relocation would take place before these safeguards were in place. So can the Minister at the Dispatch Box reconfirm that position: that no individual will be relocated before the safeguards—including the appeals mechanism, the training and the capacity-building—are in place? And when will the date be for when relocations of individuals can happen? I ask because we will be informed in Parliament that all of those safeguards are in place; not that they will be in place or are being worked towards, but that they are in place.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I can answer the first part of the noble Lord’s question in the affirmative. On the second part, I cannot give a date.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

I have some sympathy for the spirit, if not the letter, of this amendment. Of course, returns agreements have an important role to play, but legislating in this way will not help progress negotiations with other countries—quite the opposite. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to withdraw his amendment. If he is minded to test the opinion of the House, I would urge noble Lords to reject the amendment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Perhaps I might ask the Minister for clarification. He referred to the 16 agreements, and he knows I asked him specifically for the list of those 16 countries, because the House of Lords Library could not find them for me. The Minister obviously did not think it necessary to write to me between Committee and Report, so can he list those 16 countries now?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Lord will recall, during our exchange I made clear that not all of those 16 agreements are in the public domain, so I am not going to provide him with the list he seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

This series of important amendments is to make sure that the countries to which migrants are sent will be genuinely safe for the people sent there.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 20 and 24 to 28 in my name.

It is notable that, despite Government Ministers on the Front Bench trying to promote this Bill in such vehement terms, for the votes in this Chamber the Conservatives cannot get more than 50% of their Members to support the Government’s position. That speaks volumes.

Amendment 20 seeks to restore the fundamental principle that, if people are to be deemed admissible to be removed to a safe country, it should be on the basis of the individual circumstances of their case and after a review of the circumstances that they will face. The Government are turning this on its head, which is simply wrong. We heard earlier about the due process of law. Amendment 20 seeks to restore what the Government seek to remove—the due process of law.

Amendments 24 to 28 follow from the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on those countries in the schedule that are not party to the refugee convention—India, Kosovo, Mauritius, Mongolia and South Korea. We do not know, and the Minister will not tell us, whether we have a return and resettlement agreement with any of those countries because, as he told me earlier, these are secret agreements. What kind of arrangements do a Government enter into with another Government that would be secret? The only thing I can think is that the other Government have asked us to keep it secret, for reasons that the Minister will not divulge. But he is asking us to legislate and determine that they are safe countries.

There is an inconsistency with the Government’s position on Section 80B of the 2002 Act, which was amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, over the definition of a “safe third state”. As amended, the 2002 Act is clear about what it is: a safe third state is to be judged with regard to what is relevant to the individual person. Section 80B(4) defines a safe third state, and Section 80B(4)(b) states that one of the characteristics of a safe state is that the person will not be sent to another state—refoulement. There is nothing in this Bill that will give protection to that individual.

In that same section, the refugee convention is specifically mentioned, both in subsection (4)(b)(i) and (4)(c), with regard to a criterion of safety for an individual. I regret very much that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, is not in his place. We had a constitutional law lecture at the start of Report on the duality of the system, and if I understood correctly, we should not impose requirements on Executives with regard to international conventions. The law—and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was Justice Minister at the time of the 2022 Bill being taken through Parliament—states categorically that this is a requirement we have put in statute: other Executives have to be a member of the refugee convention or we will not send people to them. What kind of double standard is it that it is fine for us to insist on receiving countries adhering to the convention, but it would be fundamentally wrong for us to adhere to that same convention? This is a double standard we absolutely should not support.

I have leave from my colleagues to say that we on these Benches will strongly support Amendment 37 if the opinion of the House is tested. These aspects are fundamental to the Bill; they are about principle, but also practicalities and our standing in the world. Process of law is very important and we should protect it, and that is why these amendments should be supported.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I too strongly support Amendment 37 and will vote for it if the opinion of the House is tested. I would also like to support the remarks of my noble and learned friend Baroness Butler-Sloss, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in moving those earlier amendments, particularly as they relate to safe countries.

My Amendment 21 would insert into Clause 5 the following:

“No person may be removed to a country listed in Schedule 1 if doing so would put that person at risk due to their protected characteristics as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010”.


I raised this issue in Committee and I made a long speech, but I will not detain the House for long this evening. I especially cited the example of Nigeria and I do so again this evening, not least because I heard this morning of the case of Usman Buda, a Muslim, who was murdered in Sokoto state in north-west Nigeria in the last few days, because it was alleged—I repeat: alleged—that he had blasphemed. It is just over a year since the lynching of Deborah Emmanuel, a Christian, at Shehu Shagari College of Education, again following an unsubstantiated accusation of blasphemy. Nigeria is one of the 71 countries that criminalises blasphemy. It is worth remembering that this year is the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 of which insists that everyone has the right to believe, not to believe or to change their belief. That is why my amendment seeks to protect people who will be in danger if they are sent back to places like Nigeria because of their belief, non-belief or their desire to change belief.

When the Minister replies, will he say also how the Bill is compatible with Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010? Especially in light of what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said a moment ago about amendments affecting people because of their orientation, it is clearly in breach of that and of Article 18, for reasons of faith. That is enough on that subject for now. It is an issue we can return to later in our proceedings, when we come to not just safe countries but how we deal with people with these protected characteristics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I hope to be able to provide that reassurance. Again, with reference to the important point that the noble Lord takes up, which is fully appreciated by the Government Front Bench, I will refer to that in the course of my submission to your Lordships.

I repeat: if it was considered that there were exceptional circumstances, a person would not be removed to his home country. Coming as quickly as I may to the point just raised in an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, the country to which they return would be a country considered to be a safe one. A person would not be removed to their home country but at the same time would not be removed to a country where they would be exposed to the same level of risk as they would by dint of their sexual orientation.

If we were to seek to remove a third country’s national to any of the countries listed under Schedule 1 and that country were prepared to admit them, those persons would have the opportunity to make a serious harm suspensive claim. Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of such a suspensive claim. Such an individual would not be removed to that country if their claim was accepted by the Home Office or upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal. So I submit respectfully to the House that the Bill already provides for individual assessments—the very individuality for which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, called in his powerful submission on these important matters. The Bill already provides for that degree of consideration of individual facts and circumstances for which the noble Lord, among others, has called. As such, I consider that Amendment 20, advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is unnecessary.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Minister might be able to help me. Where does the Bill outline the process for that individual review of the individual circumstances?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, in the making of the serious harm suspensive claim, those individual circumstances would be outlined.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the claim can be made only after the notice is provided, but the Minister just told us that there would be an individual process before the notice was provided. Is that correct?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I did. The point I am making is that the serious harm suspensive claim in connection with Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of such a suspensive claim. Hence there is consideration of individual facts and circumstances.

On Amendments 19, 21, 24 to 28 and 37, I make an observation, namely that much in Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 draws on existing immigration law dating back some 20 years. To that extent, the provisions contained therein are not new; they provide necessary clarity as to the country to which a person may be removed.

As regards the consideration of the status of countries as places to which persons can be removed safely and which are on the safe list, that list has been added to over the years. It is instructive that some of the countries added to the safe list in terms of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 were added during the period when the party opposite was in power: in 2003 Albania and Brazil; in 2005 India, Ghana for men and Nigeria for men; in 2007 Gambia for men, Kenya for men, Malawi for men, Mali for men, Mauritius, Montenegro and Sierra Leone for men—I merely exemplify. I reiterate that these are not novel provisions. They provide the necessary clarity as to the country to which a person may be removed.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, raised a matter concerning the nature of the—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I suspect that nothing I could say from the Dispatch Box will alter the fixed purpose of the noble and learned Lord in any event, but I do repeat my undertaking to write to him on the topic.

I was about to address the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, in relation to secret agreements. The Government must retain, I submit, the ultimate discretion over the amount and detail of any information shared with Parliament, but the Government remain committed to principles of transparency and positive engagement. This is considered on a case-by-case basis, finding a balance proportionate to the level of public interest.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

If that is the case, by definition, these agreements will not be treaties, and these agreements will not have gone through the CRaG process, and therefore they will not be binding.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat the point. The Government retain discretion to enter into agreements and discretion in relation to the level of detail to be shared.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

In setting the benchmark for countries that are safe for persons to be sent to, the Government are looking at it from the point of view of the objectives of the Bill. We are not looking at it from the point of view of British citizens travelling abroad.

The Bill already includes adequate safeguards to protect those in fear of persecution based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or other protected characteristics, or those who are fearful of onward refoulement. I say again that these amendments are unnecessary, and therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to withdraw Amendment 19. Although we will not be voting tonight, for reasons explained, I urge the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Can the Minister give clarification on the point I raised that he has not replied to—the interaction not with Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which will be amended by this Bill, but with the definitions of a safe third state under Section 80B of that Act? How will they interact? The asylum claims by persons with a connection to a safe state has the definition, as I referred to, of a safe third state under the 2002 Act. That is not being amended by this Bill. The definition of a safe third state in the 2002 Act, which will still be on the statute book, unamended by this Bill, states that the safety is defined if they will receive protection in accordance with the refugee convention. How will they interact? We have the 2002 Act still on the statute book, where a state that is not a signatory to the refugee convention is defined as a non-safe state, but, as the Minister has told us, under this Bill the same is not being applied.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, as I stated at the outset, the position is that the provisions for the ability of people to bring applications for serious harm suspensive claims allow for scrutiny of the safety of any location to which a person would be sent.

I was on the point of saying that, although we will not be voting this evening, I none the less urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and other noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it may assist the House to know that we from these Benches can confirm our support for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the amendment we have just heard.

If we are to scrutinise legislation properly in this House—which is our constitutional duty—there is also a duty on us to highlight areas where we are prevented from doing so because the Government have not presented sufficient information. There is clear precedent for this. We did so on the Professional Qualifications Bill, when the mood of the House was reflected to the Minister in very clear terms that accompanying information was devoid of sufficient information and that we would not progress discussion of it unless further information was provided. To his credit, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, provided that. We stated in clear terms when the Government presented more than 350 government amendments to the Subsidy Control Bill shortly after they introduced it that they needed to bring further information. To his credit, the noble Lord, Lord True—now the Leader of the House—indicated that the Government would change their position and allow for more debate.

The Government have not sufficiently responded to the desires expressed both at Second Reading and by the committees of this House for further information. They have not responded properly to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, which was excoriating in its condemnation of the use of regulation-making powers. As we have heard, the Government have failed to bring forward an impact assessment to show their own estimate of what impact policy options taken to present the Bill will have. The House will recall that I quoted from the original impact assessment of the protocol legislation, so it is fair to ask for the successor legislation, which will have equally profound implications, also to have impact assessment information. The Bill itself is extremely controversial, and it will have an impact on the business community, society, trade and the wider economy. Therefore, an impact assessment is vital.

This is not just a debating point. The Cabinet Office in its 2022 Guide to Making Legislation is very clear on what the requirements are on departments when they bring forward legislation. Section 13, on impact assessments, says:

“The Government has international obligations in free trade agreements to conduct impact assessments on regulation that has an impact on trade.”


Clearly, this Bill has such an impact. It goes on:

“A development, options or consultation stage impact assessment must be submitted alongside any bids for legislation, and a final proposal stage impact assessment must accompany requests for collective agreement to the policy in a Bill.”


The guide says clearly:

“The final impact assessment must be made available alongside bills published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny or introduced to Parliament.”


When the Advocate-General for Scotland replied to me at Second Reading, he said that the Bill did not have an impact assessment but that

“full details of the new regime will be set out in regulations”. —[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 767.]

That is just not good enough. We need to scrutinise these now.

On delegated powers, I remind the House that the Constitution Committee report concluded in paragraph 29:

“In examining clause 9, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded: ‘[l]egislation has preceded policy development rather than vice versa’. We agree and recommend that clause 9 be removed from the Bill.”


We will discuss this later, but the essential point is that legislation should follow policy development, not vice versa. The Advocate-General said in response to the Second Reading debate:

“Since the Bill was introduced, we have consulted extensively with businesses and other key shareholders on the underlying details of the regime … There have been over 100 bespoke sessions with over 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; cols. 767-8.]


But on what? We do not have proposals in front of us. The Government’s own code of conduct for consultations states that they should be based on public questions. I have not seen a consultation document. I have not been able to find any draft regulations on which the Government have consulted. I have not been able to see any details of how the new regime might operate in practice, and we have not been presented with an assessment of what the responses are in order to shape views of costs. There is no footnote to the Cabinet Office document from this year that says, “None of this applies when a Minister so decides for political purposes”.

The Minister seemed confident that draft regulations will solve the problem, although he and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, did not spell out in detail what they will be; we will hear that later in Committee. I remind the House that we have been furnished with draft orders before, when we asserted our desire to receive them. However, at Second Reading, the Advocate-General contradicted himself. In defence of the Government’s legal position, he said that

“the peril that has emerged was not inherent in the protocol’s provision”,

but, later, he said that

“the problem lies in the protocol and not in its application”.—[Official Report, 11/10/22; cols. 764-68.]

I suspect that a witness contradicting himself in court might have been pounced on by a certain advocate, but we in this House need to see the draft regulations if they are the fix for the root causes, as the Minister said.

Finally, we need formal reporting. We need detail on where the negotiations stand and what the current areas of consideration are. In Committee in the Commons, the then Paymaster-General said:

“I am not sure how much more could be done in terms of negotiation … Good faith negotiations to resolve the issues with the protocol have already been exhausted.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; cols. 383-84.]


I think the whole House was encouraged by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, at the start of Second Reading, when he said that the talks have resumed and are of a positive nature. However, we need full updates with technical papers so that we can properly scrutinise this legislation and so carry out our constitutional duty.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for being unable to speak at Second Reading. I put my name down but realised that I could not be present at the end of the debate. If noble Lords will accept my apology, I assure them that I will not now make a Second Reading speech; I will simply summarise what I believe to be the case: that, as proposed legislation, this is a lamentable Bill.

If we want a careful, detailed analysis of the issues in and chronology of this case—I recommend that we do, if I may say so—the report from the House’s Library is absolutely magnificent. I personally thank those who prepared it; I recommend it to your Lordships. Everybody wants to have a say, so I am not going to add to the long list of things that are required, but can I suggest three more?

First, the Constitution Committee has just reported. The power of its report is not merely in that it repeats the concerns expressed by the delegated legislation committee on the Henry VIII aspects of the Bill; it directly addresses the Government’s contention that there is no problem with the lawfulness of the Bill. The Government have so far treated the report from the delegated legislation committee with scant respect. We have not had an answer to it. We should not proceed with this Bill until such time as there is an answer to the delegated legislation committee’s report and to the Constitution Committee’s report. These are our committees. They are cross-party, and the reports speak for the committees as a whole.

My second concern is that there is litigation afoot. A judicial review of the protocol has been taken and is due to be heard in the Supreme Court on 30 November. My question is this: has any attempt been made to expedite the hearings so that they can come on more quickly and we can have the Supreme Court’s answers to the issues raised instead of saying, “Well, we’re going to have to wait for that decision so we must act quickly because we’re having to wait too long”?

Thirdly, a number of infringement processes have been taken against us by the EU. It would helpful if we could see our responses to those. We need to know where we stand in the formal proceedings taken by the EU that we are in contravention of our treaty obligations. They are not a matter of privacy. I understand that negotiations must be conducted privately and there is confidentiality attached to them, but surely not for our Government’s response to the EU’s requests for infringement processes to be looked at.

In the end, I am very glad that this issue will not be taken to a Division today. That is sensible, particularly because all sides of the House need to understand what the problems are with the Bill and why it is, in the word which I used at the time of Second Reading, which I did not take part in, a lamentable Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bew (CB)]

The noble Lord has a point—but not as deep a point as he might imagine, because the Government have been consistent in saying that the primacy of the Good Friday agreement is the core of their position, in both the House of Commons and in this House. There are other details; there is phrasing. For example, as is well known, I am not as convinced of the need for language in this Bill about the Act of Union. I understand why it is there, but I am not convinced that it is relevant. There are other aspects that we will discuss, in the normal way, on amendments. There is detail that will come up later tonight, and there are things that need to be said, in the normal way. But this is not a normal discussion—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord; he knows that I like and respect him. I am trying to follow the rationale of his argument with regards to us legislating here. Earlier, he made the case—he stressed it repeatedly—that the only purpose of the Bill as he can see it is for the DUP to return to the Northern Ireland Assembly. As far as legislators are concerned, does that mean that the DUP also has a veto on any regulations that come as a result of this Bill?

[Lord Bew (CB)]

We are in political negotiations. Here is our problem; I have already explained it. When I tried to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I said, “Just believe the British Government when they say that the Good Friday agreement is the dominant thing”. We can see now what has happened here. You only have to read the Dublin newspapers, to be frank, to realise what has had happened.

We cannot undo a negotiation that we lost. It is not the officials’ fault; the Prime Minister had lost an election and was desperate to get in and to make any kind of progress to justify her existence. You cannot undo this; I am not suggesting that it is possible. You lose, you lose—end of story, at one level. However, at another level, what it means is that the EU is committed to the Good Friday agreement, and it does not understand what it is committed to. You only have to read Michel Barnier’s memoirs to see that he has no idea about the importance of the east-west dimension and that his description of the north-south dimension is literally fantasy, which has been derisorily commented on in all sections of the Irish media.

We are bound into this agreement, but we cannot be bound into a fantasy. We have to unhook. We must have a good-faith negotiation in which we have to acknowledge the things that have gone wrong on our side and the EU has to acknowledge that the version of the Good Friday agreement it thought it had is not the real agreement. There is a strand three, for example, which talks about the importance of the east-west arrangements and so on. You can see how the original misunderstanding runs through all the texts and leads to the difficulties we are now in. To go back again to why I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, we do not need to ask the EU to change its mandate. We need to ask it to understand its mandate. Its mandate is the agreement. It does not take long to read it, by the way. There is a strand three about the importance of east-west relations, although you would not know it from Michel Barnier’s memoirs. You would not know it, and you would not really know what the north-south relationship is either. So, that is one reason why this negotiation has some potential, because both sides have to come to terms with their errors in the past.

I conclude with one thing, because I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and what he said about Baroness Blood—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. However, we also have to remember what other former distinguished Labour Secretaries of State said in acknowledging this difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—who was deeply involved in saving this process—said last week that he accepts that the Good Friday agreement and the protocol do not sit easy together; the tension is there. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, talked about this in this Chamber as long ago as 6 December 2018. Distinguished Labour Secretaries of State know that there is a problem. The existence of the problem was not really acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, earlier this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

It is disappointing that we find ourselves where we do today. There is not a need for this. Surely agreement is possible. I do not really know why Ministers are here doing this, when they should be in Northern Ireland or Brussels, talking to our EU partners and finding a resolution. Surely, this Bill or no, the only solution that will stick and last will be a negotiated one. We all know that, so I do not understand why there is not the grip, focus, determination, political leadership, buy-in and presence in the negotiations that is surely needed to reach a solution. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 2 and 6 in my name and support those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. As we start our customary, more-detailed consideration of legislation in Committee, I reflect on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who thought that we were preventing proper detailed scrutiny in a bullying way. However, I cannot see her in her place. Maybe she popped out. I look forward to her return to take part in the detailed consideration of the Bill.

I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I have considerable doubts about whether we will be able to legislate an agreement with the European Union. Fundamentally, we are tasked with an almost impossible job. I therefore agree that her amendment is a kind of security for this legislation: it does its best in making the Bill consistent with customary international law. We will also debate this on the next two groups. If we are to see a political agreement, what is the best way of legislating to allow that to be in place? I believe profoundly that this is not the way that it should be done. Nevertheless, if it is done this way, there should be some form of security area.

I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we should not pass legislation which is a clear breach of international law, as the Constitution Committee reported. Concern about government probity was highlighted earlier: if we have an amendment that relies on the Government themselves to exercise discretion on the exercise of powers, I have my doubts whether they would bring forward a clear view on that discretion. For example, under Amendment 70, the position of the former Paymaster-General in Committee in the Commons would have been that the condition would have been satisfied because talks had been exhausted. However, we now know that they have not been. That is not as a result of the Bill. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is right. However, I suspect that if the talks were exhausted in July when we had the Bill in Committee in the Commons, and are not while we have it in Committee in the Lords, it is about the political basis. I am therefore not sure that the security arrangements would effectively be watertight.

My amendments, supported by my noble friend Lady Ludford, are straightforward. They are also part of a form of security that should be updated now, then continuously on the basis of these talks. As I mentioned earlier, the Commons was told in Committee that they had been exhausted, but new life has now been breathed into them. The Government said previously that this was owing to EU intransigence. Now Minister Steve Baker tells readers of the Times at the weekend that the Government say that talks are progressing because he stretched out a hand of reconciliation. Setting aside the contradiction, the reality is that we should be provided with more information, from now on and going forward, on the level and content of these talks.

For example, the EU proposals in October 2021 themselves said that there should be changes to the structure of ongoing talks and of the relationship between the EU and the people and institutions of Northern Ireland. However, I have not seen the Government’s response—the alternative presented by them in those talks. That would inform not only the mood of this House but our ability to pass legislation that gives regulation-making powers over the structure of that. I know what the EU has proposed; I do not know what our Government have proposed. If we are to consider, believe and call out EU intransigence, that case is harder when we know what the EU has put on the table but do not know what the UK has. How on earth can we come to the conclusion that it is being intransigent in these talks when we in this Chamber are effectively blind?

Now I think I understand, fundamentally, the dilemma of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. He argued for Brexit, the majority of the people in Northern Ireland voted against it. He argued against the protocol, but the majority of the UK and the Conservatives inflicted that on him. This is a difficult dilemma, but ultimately it will mean that Northern Ireland, one part of the UK, will remain in an economic area of another entity, the EU single market. The only sustainable way that that can ever be for the benefit of the people of all parts of the UK is with agreement with that other entity. You cannot unilaterally legislate to enforce on another entity when you have already accepted that we are part of that entity. It is just an impossibility, so there has to be agreement, and in order for us to do our job in this House we have to know what the UK is putting forward in those talks. I should not imagine that our amendments will present the Committee with much difficulty.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for their probing amendments. I agree with them and believe that there is a mandatory obligation on the Government to provide us with details on the negotiations and to ensure that the regulations are published—many noble Lords across this Committee agree with that—so that we know what is actually going on.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that it would be much better if Ministers were investing their time in negotiations with a large degree of rigour with the European Union to produce the desired outcome in respect of the protocol with mitigations. That would achieve everybody’s objectives, including addressing the democratic deficit and the needs of those in the haulage industry and others so that there is no diminution in the good work that has already been achieved and so that better things can be obtained in terms of what we can gain by access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market, because our economy is much better when we have dual access.

In relation to dual regulatory zones, there is certain merit in them but there is also difficulty associated with them. That difficulty has already been highlighted by the dairy industry in Northern Ireland which, by and large, is all-Ireland in nature because the greater proportion of processing capacity lies in the Republic of Ireland. I think that point was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, at Second Reading. There are problems in relation to DAERA certificates and who grants them. I notice a quizzical look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, but I say again that Ministers should be involved directly in the negotiations. Those negotiations should take on renewed vigour. We should see the regulations and should have reports on those negotiations on a regular basis by way of parliamentary Statements to both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will go straight to the amendments. Amendments 1 and 70 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, would make the commencement of regulations under this Bill dependent on the Government confirming that they have been unable to reach a negotiated settlement with the EU and are of the opinion that all legal routes have been exhausted. I will repeat what I have said a number of times: our preference remains to resolve the issues around the protocol through talks. As I have already indicated, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and Vice-President Šefčovič have already spoken a number of times to reiterate their shared commitment to finding solutions to this issue. Consequently, as I have also said already, the Government are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems. The Government will update Parliament on the talks with the EU at the appropriate time.

My noble friend referred to possible briefings. I cannot make the detailed commitment that my noble friend is seeking, but I will certainly reflect on his suggestion. I have just spoken to my noble friend Lord Caine about whether we could provide, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, suggested, an outline at times; I certainly respect your Lordships’ insights on this. I will take that back and reflect on the proposals that have been put by my noble friend. As I said in concluding the earlier debate, to the Front Benches in particular, I assure noble Lords that I will seek to continue to update noble Lords on progress. I know that I speak with a similar commitment to that of my noble friend Lord Caine in dealing with Northern Ireland on this issue as well.

However, it is the Government’s view that we need to progress this Bill now to fix the practical problems that have been highlighted. Under these amendments, the UK would not be able to implement the solutions to the issues of the protocol while discussions with the EU were ongoing. This would mean that the EU could, for example, seek to introduce discussions indefinitely, under the knowledge that this Government would have to admit that negotiations had not reached a successful conclusion.

I am sure noble Lords would agree that we should not present ourselves with a choice between continuing negotiations indefinitely and no unilateral solutions for Northern Ireland. The Government—although I know that other noble Lords have different perspectives —have given their position as to why we feel it is necessary at this time to pursue and continue with the progress of this Bill.

We also believe that these amendments would require the Government to confirm that they have exhausted all legal routes under the withdrawal agreement before they could bring substantive provisions of the Bill into force. The Government have been clear that the Bill is justified, in our view, under international law. That is without prejudice to our position on other mechanisms available—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Could the Minister clarify the sequencing of talks with the EU, Article 16 and the regulations under this Bill? Is it still the Government’s position that, before the regulations under this Bill, or Act, are brought forward, Article 16 would be triggered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says; of course, he is a real veteran of diplomacy. When I refer to technical talks, of course, officials take forward some elements of the nature and detail of the discussions or negotiations—I have said it now—which are taking place between ourselves and the European Union. I totally agree with him that words matter. That is why I keep emphasising the importance of the tone of the engagement. Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill is here in your Lordships’ House, we continue to engage and have those constructive exchanges, within the parties, with businesses and other partners, but also, importantly, with the European Union itself.

As I said in my earlier comments, we will explore practically how we can best respond to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s suggestion; I know him well. Of course, noble Lords will also appreciate—many in your Lordships’ House have been involved in negotiations —that we cannot provide a running commentary on every element. There was an Order Paper produced in June of this year, which set out the issues and what we believed some of the solutions to be. That was documented, outlining some of the key points and priorities for His Majesty’s Government. I give way.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful. I read that paper, but that was prior to Michael Ellis, the Paymaster-General, when the Bill left the House of Commons, telling the Commons that talks had been exhausted and this Bill was therefore necessary. Now we are told that talks have not been exhausted. The EU has not changed its mandate, so what have the Government put on the table that is different from what it was in July?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, in any negotiation, parties will consider their position as discussions continue. What I have sought to do is provide an update to your Lordships’ House of the current position. I think the current trajectory of the talks, discussions and engagement is positive. As I have already highlighted, I will certainly seek—under the conditions of the discussions, with the sensitivities of many of these negotiations—to update your Lordships’ House accordingly.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right. The point of contention for us in any discussion has remained the ability to amend the protocol itself; that remains a key point. In all of these areas, as the discussions earlier have indicated, there are ways and means through. Of course, people will state their negotiating positions at the start and there are discussions to be had. What is clear to us is that the reason for the Bill, as well as for the good faith in which we continue to negotiate, is to find the desired outcome, which works for all communities in Northern Ireland and, importantly, addresses specifically some of the issues—including the east-west issue, which has been talked about quite extensively during Second Reading and in other debates.

I now turn to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. The Bill is designed to bring swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. These solutions are underpinned by the designation of elements of the protocol as excluded provision. This is a domestic legal action to reflect the operation on the international plane of the UK’s assertion of the application of the doctrine of necessity, which was referred to earlier in relation to relevant parts of the protocol. Put simply, it is by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law that the Bill is able to introduce, with necessary clarity and certainty for users, the changes to the law that are needed in Northern Ireland.

These amendments, through the conditions they impose, would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol and, therefore, undermine the entire operation of the Bill. The first condition, in particular, that provision is excluded only if the EU and the UK agree to that, is, frankly, unworkable. While we are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems, it is surely quite evident that, if the EU were currently amenable to the full provisions of the Bill, we would already have agreed them; of course, that is not the position.

The second condition—that provision is excluded only if necessary as part of an Article 16 safeguard—also fails to meet the needs of the situation. Article 16 has inherent limitations in its scope. While the Government reserve their position in relation to Article 16—again, a point raised earlier in the debate—there would be a different action on the international plane to the operation of the doctrine of necessity. In sum, these amendments would in our view undermine the co-operation in the Bill, preventing it from delivering the solutions desired in Northern Ireland, which it is intended to provide.

On Amendments 3 and 67, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

These have not yet been moved.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My apologies; I have covered Amendments 2 and 43, which are the ones in this group. Without repeating myself, the notion of a regular report to Parliament on negotiations would in our view not be appropriate. It has been the position that the Northern Ireland protocol and negotiations regarding it are, like any other treaty, a matter for the Government operating under the foreign affairs prerogative.

In addition, as I have already said, it would not be conducive to a successful outcome in negotiations to provide a running commentary, nor, ultimately, do I believe the House would expect that. However, as I have said, where I can, I will look to update your Lordships’ House accordingly and we will update Parliament on the status of negotiations at the appropriate times. Also, the usual mechanisms for the House to scrutinise our activity will remain open to all noble Lords. I therefore hope that, at this juncture, with the responses that I have given, the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I would like first to take up my noble friend Lord Pannick’s point about the Government being responsible for this situation. I will give a simple example of why that is not an easy quick-fire point. Looking at the joint report of 2017, it is, as Michel Barnier insists, an international document where both sides signed up. I understand in this House the great sanctity of international documents; I have heard that a number of times today. Having said that— and I respect it—our Government signal in that document that they are determined to maintain the east-west relationship as described in strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement.

We have signalled that there is a problem, which is now at the heart of the matter. It is not that we are suddenly saying late in the day, “Oh my gosh, we never thought of strand 3”; it is in that document. The EU was perfectly aware when it signed the document that the UK was going to take the view that the east-west strand 3 relationship is very important and should be maintained in its current and best form.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Would the noble Lord give way on that point? I am just wishing to test that a little further with the sequencing. If he is correct about the agreement made in 2017, he also has to appreciate that it was the Government in 2019 who said that the protocol they negotiated satisfied that 2017 agreement. Therefore, they got parliamentary approval to ratify that. It became a treaty obligation which is now under question. If his argument is correct, then the sequence flows that the Government knowingly said in 2019 that the protocol satisfies that 2017 agreement.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

Both the EU and the UK Government said at a number of points—three at least—that this agreement is designed to protect the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. Bluntly, it has not done that. We talk about legal opinion and what the Government’s argument has been. The former Lord Chancellor, in the Commons debate on this, made exactly that point. I read the protocol agreement and what did I see? There is a reference to the Good Friday agreement and the protection of it in all its dimensions. That is not actually happening. Both sides signed up in good faith hoping that was what would happen.

Both sides signed up to the protocol, which says that the UK single market should be protected in its integrity. It might be reasonably expected for that to happen. Do noble Lords think that the current provisions for checks are protecting the UK single market in all its integrity? The idea that we both signed up for stuff is very simple. I could go on forever about how “We both signed up for stuff.” To be absolutely honest, neither side fully understood what it was doing.

In particular, the negotiating history of this is clear. The EU did not understand the Good Friday agreement. Michel Barnier’s memoir is perfectly clear. We cannot make pigs fly. Michel Barnier’s memoir is based on a view of the agreement and the undertakings in it which is based on pigs flying. We cannot do it with the best will in the world and for all our enthusiasm to be loyal to something we signed up for. We cannot make pigs fly. His version of what he was protecting is not what it is—not by a long way. The reason for this is our negotiating defeat in 2017 and Mrs May, having effectively lost an election, desperately getting into talks. We cannot undo that; I am not saying we can. In history, we signed up for stuff and we are trying to find a compromise, but we cannot make pigs fly. We cannot make nonsense be operative. It does not matter how morally committed we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I entirely understand the noble Lord’s political grievance, but the fact is that Article 16 is part of the protocol and the political grievance cannot itself provide the basis for necessity in international law. This group of amendments is seeking to understand what the legal advice of the Government is.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I always find it very interesting to follow the noble Lord. As I said before, I have been trying to understand his dilemma. For all the accusations against these Benches, suggesting that we may have been party to shifting goalposts to the Government is a stretch too far in any sport, whether it is rugby or football. We have been fairly consistent with our warnings, and I refer the noble Lord to Hansard when we debated the protocol and I raised these issues in 2019. We knew there were going to be the difficulties, because what the noble Lord wanted, we knew the Government were not going to satisfy. We have had three years of government gymnastics—I am mixing my sporting metaphors all over the place—trying to present a political argument which we knew was fundamentally flawed.

The only way that this will be sustainably resolved, if one part of the UK, Northern Ireland, is to remain part of the single market, is for there to be agreement. Unilateral actions against treaty obligations is not a sustainable solution to any of these problems. I understand when the noble Lord talks about a lack of trust. It is a stretch for him to make an impassioned contribution such as that and then say, “But I am going to argue passionately in favour of a Bill that gives unprecedented Henry VIII powers” to the exact same people he has said he had lost entire trust in.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Do not worry, I will not be arguing that passionately for any Bill that could end up being withdrawn. We have been down this road before. All I say is that I support measures that, in my view, help to deal with the protocol issues that we have. I accept what the noble Lord is saying in terms of the LibDem position, although Layla Moran pointed out last year that triggering Article 16 would be a terrible thing and tragic, and all the rest of it, so it is not exactly totally consistent on the Article 16 point.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there is a difference between recognising that there are mechanisms that could be put in place as safeguarding and rebalancing measures, and unilateral actions that seek to go beyond what Article 16 would be for the protocol. That is the entire point.

In supporting my noble friend’s Amendments 3 and 67, I understand that the Government will have prepared—the Advocate-General will correct me if I am wrong—a legal issues memorandum, a LIM, before the Bill was approved. That goes to the Attorney-General and to the Advocate-General for Scotland, and they will have approved this legal issues memorandum which, I understand, would have had to consider the very questions that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated with regard to the options open to the Government to meet their policy ambitions. That would have included the protocol element of Article 16, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, indicated. In many respects, and I cover many trade debates in this House, Article 16 elements are fairly typical WTO mechanisms of safeguarding and rebalancing. The legal issues memorandum will have had to consider these options. So, at the very least, the Advocate-General can confirm to the Committee that there was a legal issues memorandum, and it did consider all these options.

The next question, therefore, is precisely where the legal argument on necessity originated. Did it originate from the FCDO? I understand that the memorandum goes to the FCDO also, for the treaties department. I am sure the Advocate-General will say that he cannot disclose this information for us, but on an issue of this importance, where did the argument for legal necessity originate? Was it his department? Was it the Office of the Advocate-General for Scotland? He is in his place precisely because his predecessor resigned, saying that his position was undermined in his endeavour to find, to quote from his letter, “a respectable argument” for breaches of international law in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, notoriously, that it was a “specific and limited” breach, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, struggled hard to find a respectable argument to present for it, and because the Secretary of State was honest, the noble and learned Lord resigned. I note that the Constitution Committee report said, as has been referred to before:

“In this case, reliance on the doctrine of necessity is not a ‘respectable’ legal argument.”


I think we will touch on it when we discuss whether Clause 123 stands part, so it will be very interesting to hear what the Advocate-General says in winding on this group in order to inform some of our discussions on the next group.

I have sympathy with what has been referred to by others and I have an inkling as to what the Advocate-General may have in the folder in front of him. He may say, “It’s a long-standing convention, for very good reason, that legal advice is not published in full”, and he is no doubt prepared to say it, but why my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem is correct is that we are now in a realm of significance, given the scale of what the breach of international law would be.

I will refer to it in the next group, but my noble friend provided an amuse-bouche of the case of Hungary and Slovakia, to which the Advocate-General had referred. I also read that judgment in full. It may help the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to know what the ICJ has found repeatedly. Let me quote from its judgment in one of the cases that the Advocate-General cited.

“According to the Commission”—


that is the International Law Commission—

“the state of necessity can only be invoked under certain strictly defined conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied;”—

this is the point I want to stress—

“and the State concerned is not the sole judge of whether those conditions have been met.”

So even if he is right, one state party cannot determine solely, and the ICJ has found that repeatedly.

Even if the Advocate-General for Scotland says that it is a long-standing convention and cites examples of where legal advice was not furnished—he may overlook some examples of where it has been, of course, but that is a separate issue—the area that I want to ask about concerns what the former Advocate-General for Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General, Sir Geoffrey Cox, said in Committee in the Commons.

“There is plenty of precedent for the Attorney General coming to the House—I should know, I did it—to answer questions about the international law compatibility of a measure in this House. Indeed, it goes way back, I think, to either the Wilson Government or the Heath Government … I invite the Minister … to invite the Attorney General to come and answer those questions, because, in my judgment, it is an obligation to the House. The Attorney General has a residual duty to advise the House on matters such as this.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; col. 400.]


Will the Advocate-General state why this has not happened? Will he provide the equivalent to this House in a Statement? We are asking the same as has been asked in the past of Attorneys-General.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Not any more.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I hear he has changed. The former Paymaster-General, who is now the former Attorney-General, was citing the former Attorney-General Suella Braverman, who is now the Home Secretary—even I am struggling to keep up with what is going on. Nevertheless, the principle is clear that, if the then Attorney-General was happy to provide advice to the Times in her abortive leadership campaign, we humbly seek that Parliament be equally enlightened with an update on exactly what the Government’s position is.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Perhaps I might provide a lifeline to the Advocate-General for Scotland, because I am a Scotsman too and I hate to see him being so tortured. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked to see the legal advice. I am sure, as he was sure, that in reply the Minister will remind us of the convention. The noble Lord’s alternative option was that the Minister should tell us now what he was unable to tell us, as it was an inappropriate time, at Second Reading.

I have a third option. I was struck that nowhere in the Minister’s quite long speech at Second Reading did he ever fall into the trap of making the applicability of the doctrine of necessity his view. It was never him explaining that he believed the doctrine of necessity applied. It seems to me that the concerns of the House might be satisfied by a memorandum. A memorandum was produced in June and July, which was a singularly unsatisfactory document in my view. It looks even less good now, having been subjected to critique at Second Reading and by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell, Lord Purvis and Lord Pannick, tonight. However, there could be a second edition setting out the Government’s response to the arguments that have been advanced, including by the Constitution Committee. So I suggest that a third option that would satisfy me and might satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would be for the Minister to undertake tonight to produce for us a revised edition of the pre-summer memorandum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention, and I hope I will be able to, if not clear it up directly, refer the noble Baroness to the statements in the Order Paper. Perhaps I may say, in relation to the amendments with which we are currently engaged in relation to publication of the Government’s legal advice, that it may well be—and I think I made the same observation to my noble friend Lady Altmann—that these points might be dealt with better in relation to later groups which will address the question of the protocol and the amendments which the Government propose. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble and learned Lord has just told the Committee that the problem is with the implementation of the protocol. In his Second Reading winding speech he said that

“the problem lies in the protocol and not in its application.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 768.]

So, which is it?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the problems with which we are grappling lie in the implementation of the protocol: I think the protocol has given a basis upon which these implementations may be made.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Is this the noble and learned Lord correcting the record now from his Second Reading speech? I am quoting directly from Hansard that

“the problem lies in the protocol and not in its application.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 768.]

But he is telling the Committee today that it is in its application.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The noble Lord promised at the very outset of Committee, when he opened the earlier debate, that this inconsistency would be pounced upon, and he has returned to the point. My answer to him is that the implementation has given rise to the difficulties we now face, and that the protocol has permitted that implementation to take place.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the diversion of trade and the effects upon the confidence of the unionist community in their membership of the United Kingdom have given rise to the difficulties we now face.

As I was saying before dealing with that spate of interruptions from noble Lords, it has become apparent that one of the communities—I remind your Lordships of the importance of the concept of consent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—has recognised that the CJEU is a part of the problem, as unionist parties have cited the CJEU as a key driver of a major democratic deficit. The Bill therefore seeks to ensure that Great Britain and Northern Ireland courts will have the final say over the laws that affect their citizens. It will permit a referral mechanism to the Court of Justice of the European Union, recognising legitimate EU interests and supporting north-south trade. We consider this to be a reasonable step which places the matter in line with normal dispute resolution provisions in international treaties.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

On that point, would the Minister be able to cite any other agreement the UK has signed where the dispute resolution mechanism affords the UK the ability to bring forward unilateral legislative solutions which are contrary to the agreement we had signed? What other examples can he cite?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, that question brings me on to dealing with the terms of the argument in relation to Article 16, about which we have had some submissions from the noble Lord himself, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Triggering Article 16 would not solve the problems of the protocol. It would only treat some of the symptoms, without fixing the root causes of those problems. It has inherent limitations in terms of its scope. Such safeguard measures might address trade frictions but not the broader identified impacts of the protocol such as I have been founding upon. The legislation that the Government propose provides the comprehensive and durable solution required and certainty for businesses and the people of Northern Ireland.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, as your Lordships have heard from my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, this is not identified as an inconsistency by our counterparties in relation to this matter.

The Government’s legal position is that our legislation is necessary and justified, and we make that assertion without prejudice to our position in relation to Article 16—again, as your Lordships heard from my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon earlier. Article 16 is expressly limited. It is the Government’s view that it would not solve all the societal and political issues identified, including those identified today in some of your Lordships’ contributions to the earlier debate, whereas the Bill provides a comprehensive solution to those problems.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—who in another context is my learned friend—referred me to the examples I cited when winding up at Second Reading of cases which set out the doctrine of necessity. The Canadian fisheries case concerned the Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, which was a treaty. The Hungary-Slovakia case to which I also referred was a dispute about an agreement between the two parties for navigation of a river and the construction of infrastructure. In any event, I think the answer to his point is that the concept of necessity and its application in these circumstances is admitted within the articles of state responsibility.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I will refer to this in the next group, but the Minister might want to add a little extra with regards to the case he cited: the International Court of Justice threw out the Hungarian case on invocation of necessity. It said that

“Hungary would not have been permitted to rely upon that state of necessity in order to justify its failure to comply with its treaty obligations, as it had helped, by act or omission to bring it about.”

I think there are some similarities in what we are hearing now, but could the Minister confirm that the ICJ did not accept Hungary’s case?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, in any case, there will be parties that are disappointed to a greater extent than others. The point is that one party proposes. That party does not determine the question; the determination of that question falls to someone else.

In relation to the point made by my noble friend Lady Altmann, our preference for negotiation clearly remains. As the Committee has heard, that negotiation is not interrupted or affected by the Bill moving through your Lordships’ House.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I did listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said and I want to read Hansard tomorrow to get better into my head exactly what he was saying, but I was struck by some of the things he said. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I voted against the protocol, as did every unionist in Northern Ireland—so it has no support among one section of the community.

We have long moved away from majoritism. As a matter of fact, I do not remember majoritism in Northern Ireland. That age has long gone and we were told that it would never return. Politics in Northern Ireland would be by consensus; that is what we were told. We were not only told it—they put it down in law. But I have yet to hear from many who berate this Bill that they are concerned about how the Belfast agreement has been kicked right, left and centre. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to suppose for a second that this border was where it should be and not in the Irish Sea. Does anybody—but anybody—feel for a moment that that would not have caused the complete collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly?

We have not collapsed the Northern Ireland Assembly as such. The Ministers are still in place, doing their tasks and getting on with it, because we did it in such a way. When Sinn Féin did it, they wrapped everything up. I have never heard one Member from either the Lib Dems or Labour—which surprises me—say that Sinn Féin has done wrong here. I did not hear it. Maybe it was said when I was not here, but I have never heard that said. I find that there is pick and choose. If unionists do something, they are a nasty lot, they are nasty people, but with Sinn Féin it is, “Oh no, they have a reason; they have a cause.” Well, we have a cause and we want to defend that cause.

In 1960 the UN went further and passed its decolonisation declaration, basically shifting its position to one of actively encouraging imperial powers to decolonise. Today, the UN still has a committee dedicated to the decolonisation of the small remaining colonies. If you examine its work, the UN is very clear that an NSGT is not a jurisdiction that is governed entirely by another country. Most NSGTs are largely self-governing. They remain classified as NSGTs because they are not entirely self-governing. Now, of course, I recognise that, in order to be formally classified as an NSGT by the UN, you not only have to meet the definition of an NSGT; you also have to persuade the Assembly to vote an agreement that a jurisdiction should be so defined.

I am not about to start a campaign for the UN to vote to classify Northern Ireland as an EU NSGT. However, it is clear, on the basis of the UN definition of an NSGT and the level of self-government enjoyed by existing NSGTs, that Northern Ireland not only meets the UN definition of an NSGT, but one in relation to which the colonial power—in our case the EU—controls more of the governance of Northern Ireland than do many officially recognised colonial powers in relation to their NSGTs.

The story of colonisation since 1960 has been the story of decolonisation. The actions of the EU arguably amount to the first example of new colonisation, as opposed to annexation by military force, since 1960. I find it quite extraordinary that the EU should have even dreamt of seeking this agreement. It does not reflect well on the EU at all that it should have requested this, and the fact that the UK Government had to fight it for even the most ridiculous four years, after the fact, is quite extraordinary. Of course, its justification was allegedly defending the Good Friday agreement—or Belfast agreement, whichever you choose—but this is utterly absurd.

The citizens of Northern Ireland deserve the full rigour of protection under international law in respect of their democratic right to political participation as our counterparts have in each of the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom or indeed any other country. However, that protection has been patently undermined by the protocol.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am concerned about his argument when it comes to the position of the new—again—Home Secretary. She said in July:

“The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill needs to be changed so that it actually solves the problem. … The bill’s ‘dual regulatory regime’ lets EU law flow into Northern Ireland in perpetuity … I’ve been fighting for while in government. Without them, the bill treats people living in Northern Ireland as second-class citizens.”


Does the noble Lord agree with Suella Braverman? If he does, will he be bringing an amendment to Bill to make sure it does not have a dual regulatory regime that allows EU law to flow into Northern Ireland?

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

If the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is asking me if I agree that Northern Ireland citizens are now treated as second-class citizens, yes, I do. Some people in Northern Ireland seem to be content to be treated as second-class citizens, because, like the noble Lord, they want to pull this Bill apart and the protocol to remain. I hear, in the debate today, some noble Lords saying that there are problems with the protocol, but in time that will be sorted out. Where will our economy and industry be? My noble friend Lord Browne will be making some reference to that a little later.

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among other provisions, states:

“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. … Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.”


This has plainly been violated by the protocol, which has partly removed our right to take part in the Government of our country as it relates to 300 areas of law, both in terms of engaging in public service as a candidate and in terms of voting.

Of greatest importance, however, is that the plundering of aspects of our right to vote violates the Good Friday agreement. I hear many champions in this House of the Belfast agreement, and I have to admit that I would not be the best advocate of the Belfast agreement, and I am prepared to say that. But let those who are stand up, and then they will run into problems with their debate and where they are going. Specifically, the Good Friday agreement affords the people of Northern Ireland the right

“to pursue democratically national and political aspirations.”

Moreover, in the case of the Good Friday agreement, there is the additional international constraint arising from a foundational provision of the protocol, in Article 2, which specifically obliges the UK Government to ensure that there is no diminishment of any of the Good Friday agreement rights following Brexit. Article 2(1) states:

“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.


So now we confront the central absurdity: the EU pretended that an obligation that did not exist in the protocol existed, and that an obligation in the protocol that did exist in fact did not. There is nothing anywhere in the text of the Good Friday agreement saying that there cannot be a customs border, and there is something that plainly states you cannot erode the political democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland, which was the plain consequence of placing a border down the Irish Sea.

Of course, I am not saying for a minute that the UK and the Republic of Ireland could not agree to avoid a hard land border, only that it is not required in the Good Friday agreement. In a context, however, where the Good Friday agreement prohibits—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB)]

In that case, how do we know for a fact that Article 16 will torpedo them?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, if the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is so powerful, why has he failed to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who started his remarks by saying that he has no faith in any of these talks resulting in any agreement for two or three years at least? If the noble Lord, Lord Bew, cannot even persuade the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, he may struggle to persuade others who may be a bit more sympathetic to his arguments.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, knows that I like and respect him, but let me scotch this point about Article 16. The Government insisted that they were working in the joint committee when others on the Conservative Benches were saying they should dump that work and trigger Article 16. We on these Benches said, “Let the joint committee process do its work, because that is what the Government negotiated in the agreement.” Now we have heard in Committee in the Commons that talks have been exhausted—no more on the joint committee; instead, we are bringing unilateral legislation. So the noble Lord will forgive me for being a bit cynical about the Government’s position. On the one hand, they are saying that they are using the joint committee and therefore will not trigger Article 16, and on the other that they are no longer in the joint committee and need unilateral legislation. I am afraid it does not match. That is perhaps at the heart of why there is still uncertainty over the Government’s proposals.

At the outset, I say that I am a borderer and live in Scotland—I was going to say that therefore I sympathise, but that sounds deeply patronising. I understand many of the arguments, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, because I raised them in the debates. We opposed the Government because we could see the situation was not only going to be detrimental but would effectively remove rights. But that is not something that our Benches or this Bill can resolve.

I respect both noble Lords who spoke with passion about this, but I put it to them that they and Suella Braverman cannot both be right. The new Home Secretary is on the record saying that this Bill will make citizens in Northern Ireland “second-class citizens” —this Bill, not the protocol. She is arguing for this Bill to be amended. She said in her article in the Times that she had argued that while in government. She is now back in government, so I do not know what will happen with the Government’s position in this Bill on a dual regulatory system, but maybe the noble Lords can inform me later on.

If the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is arguing so strongly that this Bill will not have Northern Ireland operating under two systems, it is incumbent on him to bring amendments to it to remove the dual regulatory system and Clause 11 when we get to it. I look forward to debating those amendments, because he surely cannot support measures in this Bill which would allow Ministers to enforce EU rules on traders within Northern Ireland.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. All I wanted to say is that I am encouraged that I can get his support if we do that. Is that what he is saying?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I will match his “Get rid of Clause 11” with “Get rid of them all”, because that is our position.

The Advocate-General said at Second Reading:

“the peril … was not inherent in the protocol’s provision.” —[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 764.]

But he then said today that the “problem lies in the protocol”, which the Government themselves negotiated. So, we are back to the situation regarding the Government’s proposals, and it seems that the Government are going to rest on an assertion of necessity, with an assumption that it is not going to be tested. It surely is not welcome for us, in passing legislation, that the Government are effectively asking people to challenge it in the international courts—I can only imagine that it would be the ICJ.

The ICJ has stated in clear terms that invoking necessity on wrongfulness and not adhering to a treaty commitment cannot be a permanent solution. So I ask the Advocate-General, if he responds to any of the points that I am going to make, whether the Government agree with that. The ICJ has stated on a number of occasions that, even if invoking necessity was upheld, it is only temporary in order to remove the grave and imminent peril; it is not permanent, because it still means that that party is in breach of the treaty.

So if long-term, permanent changes are required to be made, that will require protocol changes and treaty changes, and the Government have not said that. They cannot invoke necessity if they believe that this is a permanent solution. The reason why I say that with confidence is—the Advocate-General, in schooling the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and me as non-lawyers, said we were “less wrong” on this—that, customarily in international law, we have to look at the record of the ICJ. I asked the Library of the House to provide me with information on when the ICJ has upheld parties who have invoked necessity. It has never been upheld, for the very good reason that it has to be limited, and “grave and immanent peril” on a cumulative basis is considered an exceptionally high bar. The Advocate-General must know that.

Of the two cases that the Advocate-General cited, the one involving Hungary and Slovakia—which was referred to by my noble friend—I found fascinating, as I mentioned before, when I read the judgment. The Advocate-General said that necessity

“was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 765]

As I referred to before, the Government seem to be relying on one case regarding communist Hungary in 1989 which the ICJ threw out.

The second case mentioned, involving Canada and fisheries, could refer to two cases. In one, the ICJ was asked by Spain to adjudicate because Canada had seized a vessel, invoking necessity, but the ICJ said that it could not look into it because Canada had passed legislation at that time to have a reservation from the ICJ, so the case could not even be heard. The other case relating to the Grand Banks should worry the Minister, as it was about imposing licence fees. Canada invoked necessity; the US responded saying that it would pay the fees of the fishermen and then claim reimbursement from Canada; then Canada amended its laws, which brought in all other aspects, and it was resolved by Canada removing the licence fees. Now, if that is a precedent, it is a worrying one, because I can see that there will be consequences with the EU as a result of this legislation. There will be reciprocal action and the UK will pay for it.

So can the Minister confirm what the Library told me, that there has never been a successful invocation of necessity? Can he tell me if there has ever been a case where any party has invoked necessity for framework legislation? I could not find it, so presumably the Minister will be able to help me.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly; I do not see any point in repeating what other people have said. I added my name to the attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to remove these clauses, and it has been observed by some that this is a wrecking move. I guess it is, in a way, if you do not agree with a Bill and feel unable to amend it in a way that would make it satisfactory, you attempt to remove clauses which then unravel it. We are not happy with this piece of legislation and we are seeking ways—some of them creative, others more blunt, as this one is—because we think the Government are taking the wrong approach.

The points about necessity have been made at length. I think the Minister needs to be as thorough as he can—although perhaps not as lengthy as he can, just very clear. I think we want clarity about exactly where the Government think they are on this. My suspicion is that the Government are backfilling their answers as they go along and that they did not really think about this, because this piece of legislation was not really thought about. Introducing it in the first place was a political act to give the impression that the Government were playing hardball in negotiations. It has kind of served its purpose, as some people have explained, over the months. Ministers are now having to justify where they have got themselves, and we are all intrigued about where it is going to go next.

I do not know how the Minister is going to respond to the concerns raised by the DUP, which are incredibly serious and ought to be considered with the utmost thoughtfulness. Especially in the absence of any draft regulations, I do not know how those concerns are going to be dealt with. It is all very unclear. This is not the way we should proceed with any issues, and especially not when it comes to Northern Ireland.

We have been around the houses on the issue of Article 16 rather a lot. It is just ridiculous to claim that Article 16 lacks the flexibility to be able to deal with the concerns that have been raised—obviously it does. The Minister’s explanation for why that is no longer the Government’s preferred route does not really add up. Again, I think that in their desire to have some legislation, they are having to make up reasons going backwards, and that is why they are now coming unstuck on the Floor of the House.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and her concerns about the haulage industry. It is absolutely right that those concerns should be raised. I would be very happy to go to Ballymena and to meet Mr Jackson to listen to what he has to say, because I am sure that what he said in his letter to us is true. Of course we ought to be looking at ways to make sure that those issues are fixed, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. This is not about the EU always being right; I think the EU was wrong to link these issues with Horizon. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. We should have made progress on both issues, but separately. So, we do not always take the EU’s side. That is just not true.

The principal concern we have is that unless we get at the very least the things we have asked for in our earlier amendments—specifically these draft regulations; that is really important—we are going to be looking at ways to make sure that the Bill does not proceed as smoothly as the Minister would like. This is not a tweaking issue; we just do not think the Government are going about this in the right way.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, as we approach what I think will be the final series of amendments for discussion tonight, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and entirely well-intentioned contributions to this important debate.

Clause 1 summarises the effect of the Bill and gives vital clarity on how it will function. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was critical of its drafting—indeed, of its presence in the Bill itself. He may be right to be critical but there have been, and will always be, changes in the manner in which legislation is drafted; there certainly have been over the past few years. In a matter of this sort, it is perhaps important as a matter of perception, given the history to which some contributors among your Lordships have referred, that the Bill carries assurances in Clause 1.

The clause sets out that the Bill makes domestic provision in connection with the disapplication of specific areas of the Northern Ireland protocol that are causing problems. It also sets out that the Bill provides Ministers with powers in connection with the further disapplication of additional areas of the Northern Ireland protocol according to specific purposes, as well as powers to make new domestic arrangements. The clause also clarifies how other legislation, such as the important Acts of Union, is affected by the Bill. I recommend that the clause stands part of the Bill.

Clause 2 will underpin the essential functioning of the Bill by confirming that any part of the protocol or withdrawal agreement that has been excluded by the Bill’s provisions has no effect in domestic law. I think it is recognised around the Committee that, at this point, we are coming away from the preamble of Clause 1, as we might call it, into the heart of the Bill and what it intends to accomplish. I certainly took the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Browne of Belmont, to understand that fully when they talked about ripping the heart out of this Bill through these proposed amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, referred to the difficulties. I think that, wherever it stands on this Bill, the Committee is united on the fact that there are grave difficulties in Northern Ireland. I had the honour of briefly meeting the commercial director of McCulla Ireland on a visit to your Lordships’ House; I listened with great interest and concern to the matters raised by him.

The vital approach of these clauses is to amend the relevant provisions of the EU withdrawal Act that currently give domestic effect to the protocol and withdrawal agreement. This technical provision is, as noble Lords have recognised, vital for the Bill to function as, without it, there may be a lack of clarity as to which of the existing protocol and EU law regime, on the one hand, and the revised operation of the protocol, on the other, has effect. Where this Bill or its powers do not exclude a provision in the protocol or withdrawal agreement, that provision will continue to have effect via the EU withdrawal Act, as now. In answer to a point made in a debate on an earlier group, I emphasise that what the Government are proposing is not the ripping up of the protocol but directed action to those parts of the protocol that are not working. The Bill seeks to leave untouched the remainder of the protocol’s passages that are providing benefit, as was always intended to be the case. I therefore recommend that this clause stands part of the Bill.

Clause 3 supplements Clause 2 and will remove the requirement for courts to interpret relevant domestic law in line with the withdrawal agreement in so far as that would lead to an interpretation of domestic law that is incompatible with the Bill and any regulations made under it. This is done by the amendment of the relevant provision of the EU withdrawal Act, which currently requires courts to interpret relevant separation agreement law and domestic law consistently with the withdrawal agreement. Instead, it is made clear that no such interpretation should be made if this would be incompatible with provisions of the Bill or any regulations made under it. It is vital to provide certainty as to how the regime should operate, so I recommend that this clause stands part of the Bill.

We have had, I submit, a lengthy and important debate during this stage of the Bill. I seek noble Lords’ forbearance—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am coming to the noble Lord’s point. I am not proposing to wind up immediately. I acknowledge the importance of the debate we have heard. I pray for noble Lords’ forbearance if I do not respond to every point that has been canvassed specifically in relation to the doctrine of necessity, which we had a debate about in relation to the earlier group.

I anticipate what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is about to say. He put certain points to me in relation to the information that he had from the Library of your Lordships’ House. He cites the occasions on which the doctrine of necessity has been founded and outlines significant aspects of those cases to your Lordships’ House, but every legal case will stand on its own merits, and comparison of individual facts and circumstances does little to advance the argument as to the role of necessity in the unique circumstances with which your Lordships’ House is faced. Therefore, with the utmost respect to the noble Lord, the point he makes is of no value.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for the answer. I respectfully believe that my point had value, because if the Government are using precedent and customary law, it is relevant to highlight that it has never been successfully invoked, and it has never been even attempted to be invoked in the way that this Government are doing. Since we are approaching customary international law, it is worth having that on the record.

My specific question was whether the Government’s interpretation of invoking necessity can be permanent, or whether the Advocate-General believes that I am correct with the ICJ stating in clear terms on many occasions that invoking necessity can only be a temporary response of wrongfulness, for grave and imminent individual aspects, but the breach is still there. Or do the Government believe that using necessity can be permanent?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for canvassing that. Again, I accept that it is an important point, as are all those that have been made around your Lordships’ House today.

Not all principles of international law are tested before a court, and acceptance by the international community of a particular practice, or codification by relevant institutions, as in the articles on state responsibility, can provide very significant precedent. Necessity provides a justification for non-performance with specific terms of the protocol, for as long as the circumstances justifying necessity persist. That relates to the temporal point which the noble Lord makes. The relevant circumstances could last for a significant length of time, so it is not necessarily a short-term justification.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, over the Recess, the Minister and I both travelled to regions of the world where peace building continues to need to be nurtured and where trust is a vital commodity. The offensive nature of this Bill is that in just one measure it breaches international law, undermines our reliability for other international trade agreements, divides communities rather than brings them together and abuses proper parliamentary legislative processes to an egregious degree. The fact that it is a Foreign Office Bill—a department which is meant to promote the currency of the British word in an unreliable world—is doing immeasurable damage. I believe that the House knows it and that the Minister, who is very highly respected here, must know it too. My colleagues will expand on these areas in their contributions.

When the Government presented their protocol, they did so with somewhat of a Janus face. “Best of both worlds” and “oven-ready deal” was how it was how it was spun, but the unspun accompanying impact assessment was clear that it was neither, and far more complex.

Chapter 6 of the impact assessment at the time, on risks, states in paragraph 295:

“An increase in uncertainty associated with the UK’s regulatory or customs position with the EU could affect the business environment and consumer confidence. The costs of new checks and administration associated with the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol may affect the profitability of businesses trading to and from NI … given uncertainty around price changes, or the UK’s and NI’s relationship with the EU, consumers may decide to delay spending, reducing consumer demand for goods and services”.


Paragraph 302 states:

“The proposals will have an effect on all UK businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, irrespective of the business’s size … a ‘one size fits all’ approach for business trade requirements is likely to have a disproportionate effect on SMBs in particular”.


Paragraph 319 states:

“This could result in higher prices for Northern Ireland consumers purchasing goods which reached Northern Ireland from both Great Britain and Ireland.”


Remember, this is what the Government said would happen if it was working—not if it was not working, which is what the Minister seems to be suggesting today. Perhaps the Government thought that we would not read the impact assessment at the time, let alone remember it. Boris Johnson said that there would be no problems. Liz Truss said that the problems were “unintended”. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, said that they were someone else’s fault. Speak no evil, hear no evil, but see evil.

When Liz Truss said in the spring that there were “unintended consequences”, the poor officials who outlined the intended consequences must have rolled their eyes. However, with the joint monitoring and systems that the Minister has outlined today, they were the very ones that were rejected by the Government at the time of the protocol. I am therefore not surprised that some want the protocol ended.

Instead, the Government say that they want to mend it, not end it. So if they mend, not end, what will be left of it? Northern Ireland will still have to operate under a foreign power’s laws and have no say over them. It will still collect its taxes, still operate under its state aid rules and still have to comply with the hundreds of regulations listed in the annexe to the Brexit agreement that I spoke of in 2019.

On countless occasions, the Liberal Democrats, along with our Alliance partners in Northern Ireland, warned constructively but repeatedly that the Government knew they were in breach of the previous commitment that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave to this House in January 2019 when he said:

“We will give an unequivocal commitment that that there will be no divergence in rules between … Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 9/1/19; col. 2222.]


We were ridiculed and condemned, especially in the House of Commons by people such as Steve Baker MP. However, today, on behalf of my colleagues, I accept Steve Baker’s apology. By the way, some might be tempted to suggest that it is the fact that we have this Bill that forced Brussels’ hand to return to talks; it is perhaps the welcome hand of apology from a Northern Ireland Minister.

The Minister’s justification for the Bill today seems to be based on the coming to pass of the very impacts that the Government themselves said were going to happen, but that case for the Government is disingenuous as the Bill does not even address all the areas in the Government’s previous Command Paper. There, they listed what they said were the problems with the protocol —not least that it would be an ongoing “democratic deficit”, which, I remind the House, was a fully intended consequence. So the Government cannot say that this is the solution when it omits whole swathes of areas that they previously said were the problem.

At this point, it is worth saying that the impact of the protocol has been mixed, with some benefits for people in Northern Ireland, which has benefited from the single market. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Northern Ireland Economy Ministry under a DUP Minister. I will quote from Invest NI:

“This dual market access position means that Northern Ireland can become a gateway for the sale of goods to two of the world’s largest markets … This is a unique proposition for manufacturers based in Northern Ireland as well as those seeking a pivotal location from which to service GB and EU markets … These additional benefits further enhance Northern Ireland’s already strong proposition as a prime location to establish, or grow, a business”.


I think the whole House wishes the Northern Ireland economy well and wishes growth for it, but the Government’s legal position is that all of what the DUP Minister’s department is saying is a grave and imminent peril to this country. Both cannot be right.

Describing “grave and imminent peril” is in the Government’s legal position: it seems to be their case. They cite the UN International Law Commission’s Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts from 2001. However, Article 25 of that states:

“Necessity may not be invoked by a State … unless the act … is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.


It goes on to say that

“necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if … the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.”

The Government state that the UK has not contributed to this situation of necessity relied upon. But, of course, that is almost a risible explanation, given that the Minister at the time, in 2019, signed an impact assessment saying that they were party to it. Given that the UK has made policy decisions separate from the agreement that would have had a material impact on UK trade with Northern Ireland, such as on labelling requirements, the Government cannot credibly argue the UK has been a wholly unwitting and absent bystander to this process.

I agree with the Law Society of Scotland, which said that the Bill goes beyond what is necessary to resolve any trade problems and instead seeks to rewrite provisions in the withdrawal agreement and the NI protocol, such as those in Clauses 13, 14 and 20. When the Advocate-General winds up this debate, I would be grateful if he could clarify the Minister’s assertion, in response to the intervention, that Article 16 would bring about the cessation of the whole of the protocol, rather than be a mechanism that could resolve certain elements of it. I have to say that the contradiction in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, over these two days arguing in the Supreme Court that the Scottish Government are seeking to act unlawfully but this evening defending the Government for breaking international law is jarring.

Why should this deplorable misuse of “necessity” and redefining “grave and imminent peril” worry us so much? Since I have been speaking on trade from these Benches, I am now on my seventh Trade Minister in the Lords. Every one has said “Our word is our bond” in implementing agreements. For all the trade agreements we have signed, the other side will know that they can be changed unilaterally. How can we be trusted if we choose not to use the dispute mechanisms written into trade agreements but just bring forward domestic legislation to disapply treaty obligations? Pacta sunt servanda.

The Bill presents no baseline information on disruption, subsequent to the original impact assessment. It presents no objective assessment of overall net impact on the economy of Northern Ireland and no regulatory impact assessment contrary. This is all contrary to clear Cabinet Office guidance on legislation.

Finally, of course, the Bill reflects the Government’s view of Parliament. The Law Society of Scotland has said that

“it is inappropriate to implement international agreements by regulation. That approach departs from the precedents set by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the EU (Future Relationship) Act 2020.”

I would add that it is contrary to every commitment for every trade agreement since Brexit.

I conclude by quoting these remarks:

“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations … the legislative mechanism by which the Government propose to give to effect to the Bill’s purpose is wholly contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy (namely, parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and the accountability of the Executive to Parliament)”.


That was all from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House.

On the basis of the breach of international law, the damage to our standing and word around the world, the adding to divisions—rather than healing them—and the abuse of Parliament, the Government should think again. At the very least, we should reflect very carefully on the necessity of proceeding, given ongoing talks that we on these Benches wish well and which need to continue and conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, no one had proposed anything like the Northern Ireland protocol until the second half of 2017. It is worth recalling the genesis. I was a Member of the European Parliament at the time and following the negotiations. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, no one in Brussels proposed that Northern Ireland should remain under EU jurisdiction for regulatory purposes. They understood that sovereign countries are not in the business of ceding part of their territory to foreign control. They understood that sovereign countries do not usually allow internal borders. All of the talk then was about finding technical solutions: Enda Kenny’s Government in Dublin negotiating in good faith with British authorities to try to find ways to keep the border open, on the basis that the UK and EU had pretty similar regulatory norms and could trust each other’s standards.

What changed? It was a very sudden moment, around October 2017. I remember Guy Verhofstadt coming to the Constitutional Affairs Committee with his customary self-satisfied grin, saying, “We have now made it part of our negotiating mandate that there must not be any change in the EU side of the single market regulations as pertaining to Northern Ireland.” What had changed? We all know the answer: what had changed was that, on 8 June 2017, there was a general election that altered the balance in the other place.

From then, it became clear that a majority of people in both Chambers here were not prepared to leave the European Union except on terms that Brussels liked. That was not the phrase they used; the phrase was that they would not “permit a no-deal Brexit”. But let us think about it for five seconds: that is exactly the same, is it not? So, of course, the European Union—not unreasonably; I do not blame them—started putting on the table all sorts of outlandish demands that, up until then, it had not occurred to them to make.

Plenty of people have said, “Parliament ought to assert itself in this situation.” That is fine, but it strikes me as a little inconsistent for noble Lords who were strongly in favour of this no-deal Brexit stance, who then, if you like, ensured that this treaty was signed under duress, now to turn around and say, “You told us it was a great treaty. How come you have changed your mind after three years?” It was signed in a moment of EU overreach and it was bound to be corrected when the majority in another place changed. I am bound to add that there is something slightly odd about saying, after three years of negotiations, “Shouldn’t we have a little bit more time to talk?” What do noble Lords think we have been doing for the last three years?

I would like to put a question. I am one of the last speakers; some 54 noble Lords have spoken and, as far as I can tell, no one has taken issue with the contents as set out by my noble friend the Minister. Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong. The aims of the Bill are that companies in Northern Ireland that do not export should be free to follow either UK or EU regulation; that there should be a green channel so that goods not intended for onward export are not subject to additional checks or tests; that Northern Ireland should be part of the general principle of “no taxation without representation”; and that the treaty should be arbitrated in the same way as all other international accords. Are those unreasonable demands? I see a couple of Lib Dem Peers theatrically pulling Paxmanesque leers of incredulity. I shall, of course, give way.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way since he was obviously referring to me. I am wondering about the noble Lord’s assertion—a serious one: that Parliament was misled by the Prime Minister of the day; that the deal that they presented to Parliament was made under duress. We were not informed about that being the case, but that is the case that he is making. Is that correct?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

There is absolutely no question that the Northern Ireland protocol would not have been agreed had there not been an anti-Brexit majority in another House that was saying in terms, and had taken the legislative agenda and legislated to say, that they would not permit Brexit to happen except on terms that Brussels liked.

I finish by saying that if there is a conflict between respecting the basis of the Good Friday agreement—which rests on the idea of devolution and power sharing—and an overseas treaty obligation, I hope that any British Government would pursue the former objective. That should go almost without saying. If we were not in this situation where a large chunk of the country will automatically want to side with the EU, whatever its position is, that would be an almost banal statement. If there is a conflict between the protocol and our obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that any British Government would honour their obligation to the people of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my appreciation for the very large number of thoughtful and informed contributions we have heard during this debate. It has been an honour to have heard it and now to become a part of it. It has grappled with not only the grave political and constitutional matters before us but has cited the Marquess of Salisbury, by my noble friend Lady Nicholson, Montesquieu and The Spirit of the Laws by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” by my noble friend Lord Moylan and that peerless advocate and exemplary parliamentarian Sir Edward Carson by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The debate also heard the expression “Piss off” used by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, which I had perhaps not anticipated hearing in a debate in your Lordships’ House.

On behalf of the whole House, I am sure, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others on the loss to our counsels constituted by the death of Lord Trimble. I also echo his comments on the loss to Lord Trimble’s community, the whole of Northern Ireland and his family.

Before I turn to the points raised by various noble Lords, I will briefly restate the reasons for introducing the Bill. The Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, to ensure that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was protected in all its dimensions as the United Kingdom left the European Union. The departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, put it so trenchantly, a UK matter. It is not to be balkanised in terms of how it played out in London, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. It is a United Kingdom matter.

But in its practical operation, the protocol is causing practical problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, including disruption and diversion to east-west trade. That disruption is present in the rest of the United Kingdom and it is causing significant costs and bureaucracy for businesses and traders.

Moreover, political life in Northern Ireland is, as your Lordships have heard on numerous occasions, built on compromise and power sharing across communities. However, as noble Lords have also heard, the protocol does not have the support of all communities in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, was but the first to explore this point. As a result, we are seeing political and social stress in Northern Ireland, including the non-functioning of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. It is clear that the protocol is putting strain on the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

It remains the Government’s preference to reach a negotiated agreement on the protocol. I could not associate myself more with the comments from all sides of your Lordships’ House—the noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Lord Bach, on the Benches opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat—on the importance of negotiation and the hopes the Government have that it will ultimately bear fruit. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has reiterated this. He and Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič have agreed that officials should meet to discuss technical solutions. The Bill contains provisions to implement any future negotiated agreement with the European Union. I can give an assurance at this stage to my noble friend Lord Frost that we are clear that negotiations must be able to address the full range of serious issues caused by the protocol. The Bill is set up to enable us to do precisely that.

In answer to a point raised quite early in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, our EU partners and friends are aware of this Bill. They are aware that negotiations continue and recognise that there are problems to resolve.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean spoke early in the debate about the manner in which the protocol has been operated. I will revert to that point when I discuss, at a level I think appropriate to Second Reading, the implications of the Government’s stance for international law. However, I must stress to your Lordships’ House that the problems created by the protocol are urgent and require swift action. The Taoiseach, the Irish Premier, said publicly last week that the protocol as it was originally designed was a little too strict. These problems are of long standing and we now seek to address them. But while we engage in dialogue with the European Union, we must also ensure that we have covered all bases and that the United Kingdom Government have the ability to implement durable solutions in any scenario.

I now propose to turn to some of the specific themes and questions raised in this evening’s debate. I do that against the undertaking that if I should fail to refer specifically to the contributions of any of your Lordships or fail to give consideration to any of your Lordships’ arguments proper to this stage of Second Reading, I am happy to engage with your Lordships in writing or in person in the corridors of this place, or for that matter, elsewhere.

The matter that featured most strongly in your Lordships’ deliberations today arose out of the matter of international law and the argument from necessity. The Government have already published a statement of their legal position on the Bill and their position is that it is lawful and necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, from the Cross Benches and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate seemed to suggest to your Lordships that the voice of the legal profession was as one in saying that this was not the case. That is not so. The Government have a worked-out position in international law and there is no reason why we should not take it forward.

The United Kingdom exercised its sovereign choice to leave the European Union single market and customs union. I discern that that course was not universally approved by your Lordships’ House. But the peril that has emerged was not inherent in the protocol’s provision. As to the universal opposition, which some of the contributors to this debate seemed to throw up, it is in the nature of law that it is often adversarial. It is in the nature of law that parties will have different approaches, just as it is in the nature of sincere friendship that sincere friends will often disagree, even on the most fundamental matters.

The strain that the arrangements under the protocol are placing on political institutions in Northern Ireland, and more generally on socio-political conditions, will leave the Government with no option but to take action if they cannot reach a negotiated solution with the European Union.

I listened with great interest to the comments as to law made not only by the many distinguished lawyers on the Benches of this place but from lay people concerned about the implications of the step that the Government were proposing to take. Opening for the Opposition from the Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, began more correctly—or less wrongly—by saying that it was “likely” that this would amount to a breach of international law. Then she recovered the party line and said that it did breach international law. The curiosity was that I think that the lay people contributing to this debate about international law were, in fact, nearer to the truth than distinguished commentators such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, because the fact of the matter is that it is not possible—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I do not want that honour.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I hear the noble Lord and will revert to him in due course. It is not possible to equiparate international law with domestic law. There is simply not enough of it and it is too dependent on facts and circumstances which will not apply from case to case to come up with a precedent which would allow noble Lords who have spoken in these terms to speak with such certainty.

Should I address the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, at this stage? At an early stage in these proceedings, he spoke about the nature of the plea to necessity. I say again that it is very different from the interpretation of a domestic statute. Of course in international law there are similarities with domestic legislation, and of course in international law, often being a matter of paction, there are similarities with the law of contract. But it cannot be equiparated with, to use a metaphor that emerged from the Cross Benches, a contract for the sale of sausages. It is too complex and too fact-specific. That point was continued by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Altmann and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier—I am sure that I have missed others out; as I said, my undertaking is to engage with your Lordships to assist them in moving this forward—and, I decipher from my scrawl, the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, speaking from the Cross Benches. The assertion that the Government’s position breaches international law is too bold and lacking in nuance. I submit that we are entitled to proceed on the basis that we anticipate that the protocol will be operated in a manner that reflects the unique and serious circumstances against which it was drawn up.

The doctrine of necessity was approached by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick in particular, who equiparated—if I misattribute this to my noble friend, I apologise to him and will happily correct it—invocation of the doctrine of necessity with the law of President Putin. Far from it: there is authority for the existence of a defence of necessity dating back at least to the early 19th century. It was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube. It formed part of the International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility, drawn up in 2001, as the Government’s statement on their legal position notes. In 1995, the Government of Canada justified steps taken to protect the Grand Banks fisheries on the basis that it was necessary to do so. If fisheries in the Atlantic are important, how much more so is the extension of democratic rights across the whole of this United Kingdom?

Invoking the doctrine of necessity does not repudiate international law or the international rules-based order. It is part of the international rules-based order. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat stated that the Government were undermining the rule of law and that this constituted a flagrant breach of the rule of law. Again, by invoking the doctrine of necessity, we operate within the framework of international law and—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, again, with the utmost respect, I decline to give way to the noble Baroness. She has my assurance that I will engage with her.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The point is to answer noble Lords.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I hear the noble Lord; I will not give way.

It remains the Government’s preference to reach a negotiated agreement on the protocol, and further discussions are now under way with our European Union counterparts with the aim of identifying shared solutions. I can give my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering repeated assurance of the importance of negotiation. We will continue to work closely with the European Union on the crisis of Ukraine, as we will with the United States and with all friendly powers and democracies throughout the world. We have always said that we want to fix the problems created by the protocol, in part so that we can focus our full collective energy on global challenges such as these.

The point was taken up at various points during the debate that the Bill threatens Northern Ireland access to Ireland and to the wider European Union single market. I stand before your Lordships in place of my noble friend Lord Caine, who I feel is far better equipped to answer these questions, drawing on his extensive experience of affairs in Northern Ireland. Again, he will undertake to engage with noble Lords on that point. Any perception of risk posed to the EU single market can be managed through market surveillance activities delivered by relevant United Kingdom bodies which will continue to prevent, deter and remove non-compliant and unsafe activity to protect the consumers of both the United Kingdom and EU markets. Market surveillance will follow the risk-based and intelligence-led approach as it does at present. As we have said all long, our preference is for a negotiated solution, and we stand ready to discuss appropriate assurances with the European Union.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, Lady Doocey and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, raised matters specific to agribusiness and dairy farming in particular. Again, I offer the House assurance that negotiations continue.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Frost for his account of the current economic situation and his summary of the historical situation in 2009 which my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere joined with his customary brio and, in the process, released a cat among the Liberal Democrat pigeons. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, whom I took to adopt the historical summary which my noble friend Lord Frost advanced.

I come next to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who again very early in the debate raised the important point of an impact assessment. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Bill does not have an impact assessment. The full details of the new regime will be set out in regulations alongside and under the Bill, including economic impacts where appropriate.

Since the Bill was introduced, we have consulted extensively with businesses and other key shareholders on the underlying details of the regime to ensure that it is as smooth and as operable as possible. The Government are getting on with that task now.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seemed to invoke the concept of historical inevitability in his contribution towards the end of the debate. I am no Marxist but I am by no means clear that his exercise in foresight in relation to society in Northern Ireland will prove to be accurate.

A matter of grave and, if I may say, fully appropriate interest to your Lordships is that of the breadth of the Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, my noble friend Lord Northbrook, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, once again, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in particular, raised these matters, and I apologise to other noble Lords whom I have not mentioned by name.

The Bill provides specific powers to make new law where we are disapplying the EU regime and where such law is appropriate to make the Bill’s regime work. These powers are restricted. They can be used only in connection with certain provisions and subject matter of the protocol, for example changing valued added tax rules in Northern Ireland.

It is important to emphasise that we are engaged in negotiations. We are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, engaging in blackmail; nor are negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, engaged in attempting to bully the European Union; and nor, as my noble friend Lady Altmann suggested, have we by this proposal become an elected dictatorship.

These provisions are necessary. They allow the Government to act as quickly as possible to deliver new policy arrangements, for example to introduce the green and red lane for traders. Since the Bill was introduced in June this year, the Government have consulted extensively. There have been over 100 bespoke sessions with over 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators.

I am being warned once again: noble Lords will doubtless be glad to see the back of me. The steps which we are taking are necessary to reflect the unique and dynamic situation in which the Bill passed in the other place.

In conclusion—

Northern Ireland Protocol: First Treasury Counsel

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for stating at the outset that she is aware of the terms of the convention. We do not discuss legal advice, but we have set out clearly the Government’s view that this would be lawful in international law. To go further I fear would risk trenching upon that convention. In relation to the specific question about the reading room, I shall consult with colleagues to see whether or not that position will be returned to in relation to this Bill.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord had been in the previous debate, he would have heard of the serious concerns about our reputation around the world on this issue. He is also aware that his predecessor, in his letter of resignation, said that he was unable to reconcile his role as a law officer with the Prime Minister’s policy objectives. He said:

“I have endeavoured to identify a respectable argument”


on the basis of international law. We do not want “respectable arguments”; we want our reputation to be held in the world and we want law to be honoured. On the basis of the noble and learned Lord giving factual information about which he can say, have any MPs been given a draft text of the Bill to be consulted on?

[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.

Covid-19: Prisoners

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the Prison Service is not directly facilitating the issues relating to jury trials, but we are taking steps to introduce additional courts so that we can, essentially, restart and develop the criminal justice system.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The last full report of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman suggested that 70% of people who died of self-inflicted means in prison had already been identified as having mental health needs, but that these needs had been flagged to the Prison Service in only half those cases, while 29% of them had not even had a community referral for community mental health services. What is the Government’s target to ensure that 100% of those admitted to prison with mental health needs are flagged up to the Prison Service, and that they are able to continue to receive treatment?