Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and William Cash

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hypocrisy goes even further than that: this Government expect Rwanda to uphold all of its agreements and laws internationally and domestically, while specifically setting out to breach their own laws and obligations through this legislation. It is absolutely ludicrous.

Lords amendments 3B and 3C state that Rwanda

“will be a safe country when the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and for so long as they continue to be so.”

That question of how long those arrangements continue to be implemented is just as critical as whether Rwanda implements the measures we have just discussed, because through this legislation, the Government are stating that Rwanda is safe forever—in perpetuity. Nobody can say that of any country in the world at any point, so it is really quite bizarre to legislate specifically that Rwanda, uniquely, is safe forever and ever.

It is quite reasonable of the Lords to say,

“The Rwanda Treaty will cease to be treated as fully implemented if Parliament decides, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.”

There should be a check on that. The Government should not fear that; if they truly and deeply believe that the agreement will be adhered to, there is surely no harm in scrutinising it. The House of Lords International Agreements Committee has said that the treaty is

“unlikely to result in fundamental change in the short term”,

and the UK Supreme Court pointed out in paragraph 87 of its judgment that Rwanda refouled at least six people while the treaty was under negotiation. If that does not raise alarm bells with the Government about Rwanda’s ability to adhere to the treaty, I do not think anything will.

Lords amendment 6B deals with domestic law. It is not about international courts, foreign courts and foreign judges—as if that were a bad thing, and as if we do not send people to sit on those courts ourselves—but the integrity of our own courts and tribunals, of the UK-based judges and decision makers who the Home Office employs to do their job and who this legislation undermines. The amendment says that

“Section 2 does not prevent…the Secretary of State or an immigration officer from deciding…whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which that person belongs”.

That is quite reasonable: we should look at the evidence before coming to decisions. The amendment asks that the courts and tribunals be able to do their job, not to ignore the evidence or, as others have described, to engage in a legal fantasy where they cannot look at the evidence—cannot see it, cannot hear it, and cannot speak out about what they know to be true—because that is quite unreasonable.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that our own domestic judges should not be allowed to make decisions on these issues, I would be very interested to hear his point.

[Sir William Cash]

I was going to point out that section 57 of the Immigration Act 2023, to which the hon. Lady refers, makes the perfectly reasonable point that the courts must take account of the facts. That is the key question, and I did not hear her say that; it is something that is indisputable and, in my opinion, unassailable. If there were a question of fact regarding age or any other matter that falls within the framework of this amendment, the courts should surely be entitled to deal with those facts, but not to deal with the questions to which the hon. Lady has just referred.

[Alison Thewliss]

This legislation inhibits the ability to look at facts, and I think that is quite a dangerous road to go down. I do not think that that is really what the Government ought to be doing in any circumstance. No matter how much they may wish their will upon the courts, they should not be doing this in legislation. It is completely wrong.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and William Cash

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Lady is correct: it is a gimmick. It has no basis in fact and there a lot of doubt about whether it will even work, but it appeals to a certain section that the Government think need to be appealed to. It is not so much a dog whistle as a foghorn, but it is definitely there.

To continue with the point about Afghans, the Migration Observatory at Oxford University has pointed out that more Afghans have come by small boats than in any of the UK’s schemes. In fact, between 1 January and 30 June last year, nine times as many Afghans arrived by small boats as under the routes that the Government specifically set up. The ARAP and ACRS are failing to deal with this issue; they are supposed to be safe and legal routes that prevent and dissuade people from getting in small boats, but they do not work. They take too long, they are inefficient, and they do not provide the security that people require to come here, so people take things into their own hands. Who can blame them in the circumstances?

I have seen far too many cases in my constituency. When Afghanistan fell, we had about 80 people in touch who had relatives in Afghanistan, but I know of only a handful who managed to get their family over here. That is despicable. I worry about those people all the time. I do not know where they are, and I do not know whether even their families know where they are. It is telling that so many people will come by small boats because they cannot rely on UK Government schemes to get them here safely.

The Bill is full of contradictions: it is a deterrent, but Rwanda is also safe; it undermines our own obligations internationally and our domestic courts while telling Rwanda that it must keep to its obligations; it is not tough enough for the far-right of the Tory party but too harsh for the more reasonable wing. It is a circus. It is a deflection from a broken Home Office that cannot even get the basics right—that is beset by delays, under investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office and wasting money hand over fist.

The Rwanda Bill is not Scotland’s values. In Scotland, we see the humanity in people. An alternative is set out clearly in the Scottish Government’s papers on the issue. We cannot trust the failed Westminster parties to dismantle the hostile environment that they created. Scotland must have these powers urgently. We must have independence to play our part in the world.

[Sir William Cash]

I signed the Government’s motion to reject Lords amendment 1 and am happy to support them in it. The fact is that the Lords amendment would add to clause 1(1) the words:

“full compliance with domestic and international law.”

The problem is that that would make the clause one of the most serious and dangerous clauses I have seen in recent statutory history. It would contradict one of the most fundamental principles of our constitutional law.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration said, we have a dualist system—I have referred to it several times in the past—and it is fundamental. That is unlike Germany, as article 26 of its constitution states that international law is the most fundamental part of its constitutional arrangements; articles 65 and 66 of the Dutch constitution contain a similar provision. We have a dualist system, and the sovereignty of our Parliament is imperative. Over many generations—in fact, going back centuries—all the court cases, whether in the House of Lords or in the Supreme Court, make it absolutely clear that where words used in statute are clear and unambiguous, and where Parliament’s explicit intention is clear, parliamentary sovereignty means that the supremacy of Parliament can override international law and should do so. The “should do so” is equally important. Indeed, I would go further and say that in our courts, sovereignty—with those clear and unambiguous words—trumps international law.

As I mentioned in an intervention on the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the House of Lords Constitution Committee, including the likes of the noble Lord Falconer, Lord Robertson and various others, clearly stated in paragraph 58 of its report last year on the rule of law:

“Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can legislate contrary to the UK’s obligations under international law.”

That fundamentally disagrees with what is contained in Lords amendment 1, so what—if I may say—the heck is going on? The Lords had a very important decision to take, and paragraphs 54 to 60 of that report contain the very carefully detailed reasoning that led the Committee to the conclusion I have just read out.

I have mentioned in a previous debate the judgment of Lord Hoffmann in a case called R v. Lyons. I want to quote from it, because he clearly says that international law is trumped by the supremacy of the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament has to be the key determinant. What he says is so important—I would not bother making my point in this way if it were not for this amendment. I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition really intends to achieve the objectives set out in clause 1; it worries me very much indeed if he is complicit in this operation. This was a Labour amendment and had a majority of 102 in the House of Lords, so we are going to have to take it seriously, which means we also have to deal with it seriously.

Lord Hoffmann said,

“English courts will not (unless the statute expressly so provides) be bound to give effect to interpretations of the treaty by an international court, even though the United Kingdom is bound by international law to do so.”

He went on to say,

“The sovereign legislator in the United Kingdom is Parliament. If Parliament has plainly laid down the law, it is the duty of the courts to apply it, whether that would involve the Crown in breach of an international treaty or not.”

Nothing could be more explicit. Nothing could be clearer.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

Debate between Alison Thewliss and William Cash

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps I should send the Minister my copy-and-paste job from earlier and that would help him out.

But this really matters. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talked earlier about people, supermarkets, food arriving and places, and what the impact will be. The Road Haulage Association’s director, Martin Reid, has warned:

“Regardless of whether there is a deal or not, there will still be customs requirements and it’s the customs requirements that will cause the delays. Those delays could run on for at least the first quarter”

of next year. The post-transition situation will be chaotic and that will be devastating for business, particularly the way the Government are going about it. Further to that, speaking to The Press and Journal, Mr Reid said the fact that issues still remain to be resolved is shocking:

“The hauliers’ handbook that they produced contains links that take you nowhere, so we’re nowhere near the level of information that is required basically. For goods moving to Ireland, we are still not 100% sure what it’s going to look like; as for moving through the short straits, we still have a great deal of concern as to the government’s capability either to have the right people in place.”

Nothing the Minister has said this afternoon—or indeed, the scuttling that is going on, on the Government Front Bench just now—gives us any reassurance as to what is going to happen.

Business bodies in Northern Ireland’s legislative committees have expressed concern about potential compliance costs for the future operation of VAT and excise, and nobody knows what it is going to look like. Businesses and farmers in Northern Ireland have been clear that they are not ready for a no-deal scenario. They have said it will place them under unbearable and unnecessary strain. The UK Government are providing no technical detail and very little guidance to those businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out so well earlier on, the IT system to support all of that just is not there. We heard similar evidence to the Treasury Committee. Businesses have begged the UK Government to reach an agreement, but the UK Government have indulged in bad faith negotiating at every turn.

[Sir William Cash]

On the question of bad faith, I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard what I said yesterday, but I will say this: there has never been a more egregious example of bad faith than the manner in which the EU sought to bounce the Government in the middle, and indeed at the end, of the negotiations. It is quite outrageous and in itself warrants the use of article 46, which is there to terminate the agreement if the Government cannot get what they need to preserve our sovereignty.

[Alison Thewliss]

I do not really agree with the point the hon. Gentleman makes. That probably will not surprise him. The difficulty with all of this is that the UK has never really known what it wanted.

[Sir William Cash]

Sovereignty.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman says sovereignty. I am not sure he really understands that either.

The UK Government have not known what they wanted from this situation from the start. I commend the Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches. They have taken this as far as it can go and they have got what they wanted. Perhaps they knew what they wanted, but the Government have not had a clue. That has been clear all the way through and that is part of the reason we are in the difficulties we are in.

The resolutions in front of us do not represent clever negotiating tactics by the UK Government. On the Opposition Benches, on the Government Benches and in Brussels, everyone can see quite plainly the Government’s recklessness in this scenario. At every stage of this laborious and unnecessary process, they have sought to undermine trust in proceedings. Any remaining shreds of goodwill that the UK Government have internationally are in absolute tatters. The UK Government are at the wind-up at a time when we no longer have time to waste. An EU diplomat quoted in the Financial Times this morning said that the moves of the UK Government amounted to the UK

“trying to use rogue behaviour as leverage”.

Presumably the UK Government have caved today in taking the clauses out of the Bill, but we have to ask why they were there in the first place. How does it help us to say that we will break international law? It is a pretty basic principle that the Government have breached. Presumably, if the negotiations take a further slide backwards, the clauses can be put back in again. With apologies to Mark Durkan, because it is the kind of thing he would have said, it is hokey-cokey legislation.

It is perhaps not a surprise to those of us in Scotland that the Prime Minister and this Tory Government would sell a devolved nation down the river in order to appease those on the more extreme fringes of their party—

Finance Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and William Cash

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Members may have seen the images circulating on the internet of groups of world leaders with the men photoshopped out, where Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton cut lonely figures. A version has even been done of the House of Commons. I imagine that some of these Benches would look pretty bare this evening if we took away the men.

That is a stark reminder that despite much progress, we still have a long way to go before gender equality is realised. That is desirable not just for its own sake but because without women the issues that disproportionately affect women do not get resolved. VAT on essential women’s sanitary products is one such issue: it affects only women. I dare say that if it did affect men, it would have been resolved long before now. Every month when I purchase a box of tampons or towels, the Chancellor benefits. Women, on average, begin menstruating at age 12 and continue until age 52. That represents a significant sum of money spent by every woman in the country over their lifetime. This seems particularly unfair for younger women who may not even be old enough to work. That is why our new clause mentions women under 25, who will most likely be in lower-paid jobs or not yet working at all.

I do not know of any woman who exclaims on a monthly basis, “I have my period—what a luxury!” For women, these items are not treats, and they are certainly not optional. Any number of female colleagues here today may have their period and nobody knows, and that is quite right. But people would certainly know all about it if, like the brave London marathon runner, Kiran Gandi, we came into this House deliberately forgoing sanitary protection. That is no doubt an uncomfortable prospect for male Members of this House, but I would say, “Good. I did not come here today, or any day, to make you feel comfortable but to challenge any status quo that I feel is unjust, and I am not done yet.”

I want to highlight the particular case of maternity pads. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, it is illogical that incontinence pads are zero rated but maternity pads are not. Such pads are essential for women who have just had a baby; they are absolutely essential for post-birth lochia for up to 10 days after birth. I do not understand why these items are not treated as medical items and similarly zero rated.

[Sir William Cash]

Can the hon. Lady explain—I am genuinely curious—whether these matters have been raised in the Scottish Parliament and what is the attitude of the Scottish Government?

[Alison Thewliss]

As I suspect the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Scottish Parliament does not have jurisdiction over this matter, but the SNP feels sufficiently strongly about it that we put it in our party manifesto for this place, and the First Minister has been vocal in speaking out in support of zero rating for sanitary products. We would very much like this to happen, and we will give any support that we can in the Scottish Parliament as well as from our Benches here.

This issue has been very protracted over many years, and this House cannot resolve it alone, but we can make a start. VAT has already been reduced by a previous Labour Government, and we have a good deal of cross-party support here tonight. I think that we can do much better than the Prime Minister, who, during the election campaign, described this as a “difficult” issue and said that he “can’t remember the answer”. The answer, of course, is that we can take a lead on this. In June 2015, the European Commission, which is yet to have a female President—perhaps that would make a difference on such issues—gave an answer that was not entirely positive. It set out the background to its reasons why this cannot be done, but it also said:

“As part of its upcoming work on a definitive VAT regime based on the destination principle, the Commission will assess the functioning and possible improvements to the system of reduced rates.”

So we have an opportunity to get involved in this debate to say that this is an important issue for us as a nation and for women across Europe.

We have an opportunity and an obligation to try again to resolve this issue. Members may not know this, but the Republic of Ireland entered the European Union at the time of a 0% rating on sanitary products that it was able to retain in much the same way as we have derogations in different areas, so there is already a precedent within the EU of a zero rating in a European member state. I urge the Government to take a lead on this for women across these islands and across the EU. Let us end this bloody unfairness.