Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly address the point raised by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. The Conservative Party is a great historic party, and there is a lot to be said for drawing on the wisdom of ages. What my noble friend Lord Deben said a few minutes ago about Mrs Thatcher’s attitude, Douglas Hurd’s attitude and so forth is something we ought to consider. They were important figures in our history; they contributed a great deal to the country as well as the party.

If one goes back further, one of the progenitors of the European Convention on Human Rights was of course David Maxwell Fyfe, Lord Kilmuir, one of our Lord Chancellors. He was working under the supervision of Winston Churchill, who regarded the European Convention on Human Rights as a great achievement. Now, my noble friend Lady Lawlor may feel that our present Front Bench understands the world better than Winston Churchill or Mrs Thatcher. Perhaps it does; I am not sure.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

Let me finish. It is also finally worth remembering that the one Conservative Prime Minister since the war who did not have the same respect for the rule of law and international law as the people I have mentioned was Anthony Eden. He does not stand as high in the historic record as Churchill or Thatcher.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

I emphasise the practical point that this clause puts Parliament on a quite unnecessary collision course with the courts, both domestic and international. Amendment 3 would not solve all the Bill’s problems; it would not even stop Clause 1 from being pointless, but it would at least render it harmless and that is why I support it.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I was unable to be present for Second Reading two weeks ago, but I cannot allow the Bill to pass through the House without making my deep concern about it evident in public. I am speaking on this group of amendments because they go to the heart of my concern.

I have been a Member of Parliament for a very long time, on and off, and a member of the Conservative Party for some 66 years, when I counted it up. I find it quite extraordinary that the party of Margaret Thatcher should introduce a Bill of this kind. Like some other noble Lords, I have a clear memory of the great battle that Margaret Thatcher fought with the European Union—the European Community in those days—over the British budget contribution. From time to time, it was suggested that she should cut the cackle, put the continentals in their place and cut off the British contribution. That would have been very dramatic, and very popular in some circles, but she did not countenance the idea because she believed that it would be contrary to the law. There were those who warned that it might even run into trouble in the British courts. How different that is from this Bill and the way in which we are now asked to behave towards the Supreme Court and the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is no esoteric matter that concerns only the subject under discussion and is of interest only to lawyers. We in this country frequently boast that Britain is such a marvellous place to do business because of our great respect for the rule of law and because the Government, unlike some Governments of the world, can be relied on not to make arbitrary and unreasonable acts. It is very difficult to sustain that argument in the light of the Bill now before us. I do not know whether those who envisage doing business in this country will draw that conclusion or not, but we are going against a fundamental interest, not just on this issue but for our wider reputation.

What we are asked to do represents the sort of behaviour that the world associates with despots and autocracies, not with an established democracy nor with the mother of Parliaments. It is a Bill we should not even be asked to confront, let alone pass.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said, and I strongly agree with it. I will focus on two things in relation to what the Government are asking us to do. Before that, I apologise for not having been here at Second Reading—I, too, was abroad. I declare an interest as a member of the Constitution Committee of this House, which published a report unanimously expressing very considerable concerns about the Bill.

I have two concerns about the Bill. As a nation, we have accepted for the last 70 years that we will not deport asylum seekers to a place where they may face death, torture or inhuman treatment, and that, if asylum seekers feel that that is a risk, they can seek protection from the courts. The courts may well give an applicant short shrift if they do not think there is anything in it, but we have stood by that protection for 70 years and incorporated it into our domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill envisages the possibility—or indeed it being the more-likely-than-not result, according to those who have looked at it independently—that people will be sent to Rwanda, where they will be at substantial risk of being refouled, which means sent back to a place where they could be tortured or killed.

The claim made by the Government is that we have entered into an agreement with Rwanda that says it will not send anybody who comes from here to anywhere except the UK, to which the answer is that given by the international treaties committee: that the reason there was a risk of refoulement was that Rwanda did not even have the most basic system of properly assessing asylum claims. The idea that the Bill envisages—that the moment the new treaty comes into force, it will provide that protection—is absolute nonsense. Everybody appreciates that except, as far as I can see, the right honourable Mr James Cleverly, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. If we look at the conclusions that the Supreme Court introduced, we see that, factually, it is just a non-starter.

The Government say, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will confirm it on their behalf, that they stand by the commitment we have made for the last 70 years that asylum seekers will not be exported to a place where they might be refouled. If that is their true position, how on earth can they allow this? The international treaties committee also said that, quite separately from the fact that we would need to reform completely Rwanda’s asylum system, we would have to enter into a number of other detailed provisions before it could be seen whether the provision in the new agreement prevented refoulement. Those agreements have not yet been entered into with Rwanda, and there is no requirement for them to be so before the Bill becomes law.

My first big objection to the Bill is that it goes against commitments we have made as a nation and stood by for the past 70 years. If we are looking for solutions to the problems of immigration in the world, turning our backs on all the international agreements that we have made seems a very bad start indeed.

My second big objection to the Bill is that it fundamentally crosses over the separation of powers. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, whom I greatly admire—he was a member of our Constitution Committee—said, “Oh, don’t worry. We’re just taking the opinion of the former Lord Chief Justice, who is the dissenting voice in the Court of Appeal”. No, that is not what the Government say they are doing. They are saying, “We’ve taken account of the Supreme Court judgment. We respect that judgment. We’re not going with the former Lord Chief Justice’s judgment; we’re dealing with the points that have been made—and, by the way, dealing with them while not letting anybody question us about that”. That is absolutely not the role of this House or the courts.

What this Bill leads to is Parliament delivering what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, described as silly, but is so much more profound than silly. I quite agree with him that the beginning of the Bill is very silly in the way that it reads—it is a cack-handed attempt to deliver a judgment, like a court would read—but it is not silly; it is dangerous.

Think of three examples. First, Parliament can say, “Even though we see Rwanda refouling people we are sending, and it is sending Afghans, Syrians and Iraqis back to death or torture, we will do nothing”. We will say that that is okay because we made our judgment that it was a safe country.

That is one example. Let us take another. Suppose the Prime Minister has a friend or a crony in the House of Commons who is convicted in a court of corruption of some sort. The Prime Minister then presents a Bill to Parliament, saying, “It is the judgment of Parliament that Snooks MP actually wasn’t able to present this new evidence to the criminal court that convicted him, so it is the judgment of Parliament that Snooks MP is innocent”. That is the route this Bill takes Parliament down.

Take a third example: the Electoral Commission decides that it will not investigate some problem of, say, not complying with expenses and the courts then say, in relation to that decision, “The Electoral Commission was overinfluenced by party-political considerations”—for example, the governing party was very unkeen for there to be a proper investigation of some expenses fraud in an election, and on judicial review the Electoral Commission’s refusal to investigate was set aside on the basis there was no basis not to investigate. Once again, relying on this precedent, the Government of the day, assuming they have a big majority, can produce a Bill that says, “It is the judgment of Parliament that the courts have got that opinion wrong”—as the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, introducing a whole new concept in the law, said is the position.

That is the danger of this Bill. I am not sure that I support all my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti’s solutions—in particular, I am not sure the reference to the United Nations commissioner on refugees is the right source—but, my goodness, if we start letting Parliament make such judgments, we open a door that will be incredibly difficult to close. We in this House surely should not give effect to it.

I have one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, said, “Don’t worry, it’s all Clause 4”. It is not. Clause 4 allows appeals to be made only by people who say something different from “the country is not safe generally”; it is only if there is something specific about them. If, for example, I am a voluble member of the Rwandan opposition and I am then sent to Rwanda, where I may get tortured or killed, then I have a ground, but if I am from Syria or Afghanistan and Rwanda is refouling regularly, I have no basis for appealing.

My first point is that we should stand by our commitments to asylum seekers. My second is: do not listen to this siren song that this is not a fundamental change in our constitution. It is, and it will be the foundation of very bad things to come.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Tugendhat Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Cormack on his amendment and on the way in which he introduced it. Unfortunately, I missed many of the speeches that followed because I was engaged, with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in a committee meeting upstairs, but I was back in time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, express his amazement that a British Government should seek to renege on an important part of the treaty that they had negotiated freely, had brought before Parliament and had supported in Parliament. I agree very much with him on the significance of such an action.

I really do not believe that any Prime Minister before Mr Johnson would have introduced such a Bill. I am certain that one Prime Minister who would never have introduced such a Bill, or contemplated such an action, was Margaret Thatcher. I was a witness to many of her disputes with the European Union and one of the most striking features of her approach to these matters was that she believed in the rule of law and always rejected advice to break the law. Thankfully, we have moved on from Mr Johnson and I congratulate the Truss Administration on embarking on serious talks and negotiations with our friends in Brussels and Dublin. I also wish Ministers well in their efforts to sort out matters in Belfast, where the DUP has made such a strong link between the protocol and participating in the governance of the Province.

The EU itself has made constructive proposals, so the atmosphere is quite different from what it was only a short time ago. It seems to me vital, both to the UK’s national interest and, I would argue, to western cohesion in the face of Putin’s war, that the negotiations to which I have just referred should resolve the outstanding issues relating to the protocol. In the face of the escalating Ukraine war and the economic and energy disruption that it is causing, it would be the height of irresponsibility for the British Government to allow the Northern Ireland protocol to drive a wedge between us and the EU, and between us and our friends in Washington.

In these circumstances, I simply cannot accept the Government’s reasons for rushing ahead with the Bill at the present time. Suggestions that it will somehow encourage the EU to reach agreement—that a sword of Damocles hanging over the EU will bring it to heel—bear no relation to any conceivable reality. Far better would it be to negotiate in earnest, as I believe the Government are seeking to do, and demonstrate their good intentions by putting the Bill on ice in the hope that it will not have to be proceeded with any further once an agreement is reached.

I certainly support my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendments. Should they come to the vote, whenever that should occur, I hope the House will support him too.