Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate.

This Bill is an affront to the principle that human rights are universal and belong to all of us by virtue of our humanity. The amendments from the other place are an attempt to stop the Government violating that principle and, I would argue, undermining not just Parliament but the courts and the rule of law in the process. Despite unacceptable and unparliamentary pressure from the Prime Minister, who urged peers to rush their scrutiny and simply go along with his dangerous, authoritarian Bill, they have rightly inflicted 10 defeats on the Government. They have done so by large majorities, signalling profound opposition to the Prime Minister’s deeply illiberal, deeply inhumane Rwanda legislation. The Home Secretary’s motions to disagree are consistent with this Government’s track record of cruelty towards people seeking asylum. We saw another example of that very recently in the Home Office’s jaw-dropping admission that it does not routinely inform family members when asylum seekers die in Home Office care.

Lords amendment 1, tabled by Lord Coaker, simply adds maintaining full compliance with domestic and international law to the purpose of the Bill. One might have imagined that that would not be up for debate, and it is a measure of how low this Government have sunk that they are opposing an amendment which simply says that their Bill should comply with the rule of law, something I had thought Conservative Members were meant to believe in. In particular, the amendment is needed to stop the disapplication of the landmark Human Rights Act, something I believe we should be proudly defending. It is also needed to protect interim measures—a vital human rights tool under international law, issued on an exceptional basis in extreme circumstances when individuals face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm.

The Bill states that

“the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign”

and that

“the validity of an Act is unaffected by international law”,

and we have heard a great deal more of that from Conservative Members this afternoon. I think that Ministers should stop misusing the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which is not embodied by riding roughshod over the courts. Let me draw their attention to a point made very clearly by Professor Mark Elliot, chair of the faculty of law at the University of Cambridge. As he explains,

“Parliament can be meaningfully sovereign only within a functional legal and constitutional system—and such a system can only exist if its other component elements are permitted to play their proper part.”

I suggest that that is exactly the principle that the Government are seeking to trample over with the Bill, which brings me to the way in which the Government are attacking parliamentary sovereignty by undermining the jurisdiction of the courts.

Lords amendment 6, in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, is vital. It would allow our courts to play their proper part: to hear evidence and scrutinise the legality of Government decisions, allowing our system to protect individuals from risk to life or inhuman or degrading treatment. Likewise, Lords amendments 4 and 5 at least allow for the presumption in the Bill that Rwanda is safe to be rebutted. Without these amendments, the Bill directs courts to ignore the facts that are in front of them. The amendments are a modest reprieve for facts and evidence in what remains a thoroughly vile Bill.

It is extraordinary that the Government can be so fearful of evidence. Why would they not want to look at the evidence before them? Let me refer them to the recently published World Report 2024, which deals with human rights in Rwanda and makes pretty grim reading. It states:

“Commentators, journalists, opposition activists, and others speaking out on current affairs and criticizing public policies in Rwanda continued to face abusive prosecutions, enforced disappearances, and have at times died under unexplained circumstances.”

I also urge Members to consider how constitutionally and legally astonishing the Bill is. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been explicit about how extraordinary it is, stating that

“Requiring the courts to conclude that Rwanda is safe, even though the evidence has been assessed by the UK’s highest court to establish that it is not, is a remarkable thing for a piece of legislation to do.”

That brings me to Lords amendments 2 and 3, which stand in the name of Lord Hope of Craighead, the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court. There has been much discussion about them, but they require monitoring of the safety of Rwanda, while accepting the assertion that the treaty makes Rwanda safe. Let us suppose for a moment that we suspend our disbelief and our notice of all the evidence now that suggests Rwanda is not safe. Even if it were safe, how on earth can we be legislating that it will be into the future, for any degree of indefinite time? Much in this Bill is an affront to common sense, but that seems to be in a league of its own. Facts change and when they do, we need to change our view of those facts—to do anything less is moving towards a moment of madness.

I want to be clear that although I will vote to uphold these Lords amendments, because they are an improvement on this dreadful Bill, I maintain my view that seeking to legislate by assertion that Rwanda is safe is as dangerous as it is ridiculous. The Government cannot sign a quick treaty one week and legislate the next to make a country safe, when the highest court in the land has said just the opposite. The facts on the ground are what matter and these amendments say that the facts should be monitored. What kind of Government would oppose that?

To conclude, I will vote to uphold Lords amendments 1 to 10 because they make this Bill slightly less constitutionally transgressive and inhumane. The Home Secretary’s motions to disagree with the Lords are laughable, coming just days after he has been exploiting the desperation of vulnerable people by offering them £3,000 to go to Rwanda voluntarily. Amended or not, the Bill remains a grotesque waste of money that is neither practical nor strategic; it is no less than a piece of performative cruelty from a dying Administration.

[John McDonnell]

Leaving aside the decision of the Court, on Lords amendment 9 we are in danger of reversing the work that this House has put in to ensure the protection of victims of modern slavery and trafficking; removing the amendment makes them vulnerable again, particularly to re-trafficking. I cannot for the life of me understand why there is not support from the Government for Lords amendment 9, which merely asserts the decision maker’s opportunity to assess the impact on the physical and mental health of the individual and their potential to be re-trafficked.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and he is absolutely right in what he says. It is ironic that by refusing these amendments, the Government are, in a sense, going back on pledges and commitments they have made on trying to uphold issues relating to human trafficking; this Bill is hugely damaging on so many levels. Others have spoken about amendments to provide at least some possible protection for unaccompanied children or for victims of modern slavery and those at the highest risk of harm if removed to Rwanda. We must consider what voting against those amendments means, just as we must do in respect of Lords amendment 10, which relates to the people in Afghanistan who have done so much for us, putting their own lives at risk for our Government and our country. On the idea that we would simply send them off to Rwanda, the right hon. Gentleman has already made a powerful intervention about what that would do for people who are already so vulnerable.

I sum up with a message that I hope that peers in the other place will consider. It is, of course, right and fundamental that the House of Lords should act in accordance with its subordinate position in relation to this elected House of Commons—that is the usual way in which we proceed. For the other place to override the Commons, the bar must be an extraordinary and profound attack on the very fabric and operation of our constitutional democracy. I regret to conclude that this Bill is just that and so the other place would be well within its rights—indeed, this is its responsibility—to uphold the amendments it has already put in place. This Bill is demeaning and degrades both Houses by ignoring the rule of laws that we have passed.

Furthermore, the Bill seeks to legislate facts and prevent courts from considering them. Fixing the facts on which the law is to be applied is the kind of thinking that dangerous conspiracies are based on. That way lies authoritarianism. I urge those in the other place to put a stop to this Bill, and I urge everyone in this House to vote in favour of the amendments tonight.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I rise to reinforce some of the arguments that hon. Members have made about amendment 61, to which I have added my name. Many people in my constituency have raised this issue with me, and there is real concern about public safety. Nothing that I have heard from the Government this afternoon has put my mind—or, I am sure, my constituents’ minds—at rest.

Taxi companies in my constituency have also raised concerns. I come back to a theme to which other hon. Members have returned time and again: nobody really knows what is driving these measures. People are not asking for them; on the contrary, organisations that are watching the proposals are sounding the alarm. They include the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which we should surely listen to closely. Given that no counter-argument is coming from other organisations to balance the discussion, it strikes me as incredibly perverse for the Government to push ahead with these measures and fly in the face of so much advice suggesting that there are dangers involved.

I was particularly moved to hear the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) again tell the House the story of her 13-year-old constituent—she raised that topic in the Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) a few weeks ago. It was horrifying to hear that story then, just as it was today. The bottom line is that people with disabilities, young women, those worried about how they will get home at night, and those without access to a car will be watching for the implications of clauses 10 to 12, and they are worried about them.

Brighton and Hove has 1,800 drivers who serve our city well. Many of them have said that they are worried about the Government’s attempts to rush through changes to the regulations, and that the measures will be bad for the travelling public and the city, and potentially dangerous. The Government proposals seem rushed and are another example of unthinking, anti-regulation, small-state ideology that has no basis in evidence or common sense and, as has been said, risks putting public safety at risk.

We have had nothing close to meaningful consultation, and the Government even failed to discuss these changes with councils before tabling the clauses. The Local Government Association put it politely, but states clearly:

“We are disappointed that the LGA was not made aware of these proposed clauses until they were brought before the Deregulation Bill Committee.”

Where is the speed coming from? Why do we have to pre-empt other processes to get these measures into statute so fast?

There is concern that the proposals could lead to women being put at risk of assault or attack by unlicensed and unregulated drivers when they travel late at night. The deregulation of the taxi industry could also lead to rogue taxi drivers, criminals posing as drivers, passengers being ripped off, and people being unsure whether the taxi they have flagged down is legitimate.

Ministers should surely follow the 2011 proposals of experts on the cross-party Select Committee on Transport, who advised the Government to listen to users—particularly those in vulnerable groups—those in the trade, and local authorities, and to keep the situation simple and local. Instead, clauses 10 to 12 show a systematic attempt to water down standards and rules that were designed to serve and protect the public.

I come back to the sense that this is being driven by—I do not know: is it being driven by ideology or something else? During the debate of the hon. Member for Easington in Westminster Hall, I just observed that the boss of the minicab giant Addison Lee had made an individual donation of £500,000 to the Conservatives last year—it was reported as the third largest donation in the three months to the end of September. Government Members immediately started jumping up to point out that Addison Lee does not currently operate outside London and so has no particular interest. However, Addison Lee is on record as saying that it would very much like to operate outside London. I will leave it there; I simply say that when we are searching for a reason to understand why the Government are pursuing this policy, one cannot help but notice that there has been a very large donation from Addison Lee.

[John McDonnell]

I convene the RMT group in Parliament. I raised these issues at the RMT conference this morning and we had a discussion about their implications.

On the taxi and minicab issue, the RMT represents only the black cabs in London, which has been prayed in aid as operating the system that will now be rolled out elsewhere. I want to dissuade the Minister from the view that the RMT is happy with the regime in London at the moment. In fact, in the RMT’s view, there should be further regulation, with annual testing. The figures have already been given for assaults and rapes, which are occurring even in the capital city’s regulated regime.

What worries me is exactly what others have said. From the point of view of the union and a number of other organisations that have been cited, everyone thought that we were on a journey over the last couple of years: the Law Commission would conduct its investigation and review; there would be adequate consultation; a comprehensive Bill would be produced; and then we would establish a regime that, although perhaps not everyone would be happy with it, would at least be nationally comprehensive, effective, properly enforced and readily understandable. There is therefore a lack of comprehension of why the measures have been introduced in such haste. In fact, I am led to believe that one of the informal consultations on some of the legislation lasted only 10 days and was conducted by e-mail.

There may well be some association between donations, speed and amendments, but to be frank, what concerns me most is getting the legislation right, and I just do not think that the measure will prove effective. I think it will cause more problems than it is worth. I also think it will prove deeply unpopular as it is rolled out. If there is a lack of safety, particularly for women, the Government will reap the whirlwind. They will face a backlash, because what they are doing flies in the face of all the expert evidence that has been presented. Everyone who practises on the ground, right across the country, is saying that this is not the way to go about it, so I caution the Government: they are making a mistake today and may well want to think again before the day is out.

On marine investigations, again, people are slightly bewildered about why the measure is included in this Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who sits on the Front Bench, for taking us through the history and in particular the Derbyshire incident. I, too, want to go back to that incident, because I find it extraordinary. I remember the campaign about the Derbyshire and I remember that key period when a number of the unions and others were raising the problems with that type of ship. From 1975 to 1997, nearly 400 of them went down and we lost something like 1,300 seafarers. The Derbyshire was one of those ships. There was an issue with design and safety.

At the time, there were all sorts of insinuations about it being the crew’s fault. The RMT undertook its own investigation, along with Nautilus and the International Transport Workers Federation, as my hon. Friend said. They found the ship and discovered the real causes. However, the investigation would not have been reopened but for a piece of legislation introduced in 1995 by—who? By a Conservative Government. Until then, the system was not satisfactory. The Derbyshire relatives, the unions and others had to campaign because reopening an inquiry was left to the whim of a Minister. That was unsatisfactory. A Conservative Government thus changed the legislation to provide for an automatic reopening of an inquiry when new evidence was found.

Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to commission an independent cumulative assessment of the impact of changes in the welfare system on sick and disabled people, their families and carers, drawing upon the expertise of the Work and Pensions Select Committee; requests that this impact assessment examine care home admissions, access to day care centres, access to education for people with learning difficulties, provision of universal mental health treatments, closures of Remploy factories, the Government’s contract with Atos Healthcare, IT implementation of universal credit, human rights abuses against disabled people, excess deaths of welfare claimants and the disregard of medical evidence in decision-making by Atos, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Tribunals Service; urges the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education jointly to launch a consultation on improving support into work for sick and disabled people; and further calls on the Government to end with immediate effect the work capability assessment, as voted for by the British Medical Association, to discontinue forced work under the threat of sanctions for people on disability benefits and to bring forward legislative proposals to allow a free vote on repeal of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

We are making history today. This is the first time in the history of this Parliament that people with disabilities have secured a debate in the Chamber on an agenda of their choosing, so let us pay tribute to the War on Welfare campaigners. They initiated the campaign, drafted the petition that we have before us in the form of a motion, and worked hard for a year to gather more than 100,000 signatures in order to secure this debate. They are heroes and heroines who worked, many of them despite their disability, to ensure that this campaign was a success.

MPs may speak in this debate, but it is the voice of the WOW campaigners and petitioners that will be heard. What do the WOW campaigners want from this debate? They have said that they want a serious debate. They want MPs, party spokespeople and Ministers to listen, and to listen well to the statements that they have made. What do they want us to say? I have asked WOW petitioners what they want me and other MPs to say in today’s debate. They said, “We want you to get across as best you can what the welfare changes brought in over the last four years have meant to us and our families—the stark reality.” Why do they want that? Perhaps naively, they believe that if MPs and Ministers really knew what it is like, what disabled people are going through, they would not stand by and let fellow human beings suffer and be degraded in this way.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Ahead of the debate, the Brighton Housing Trust sent me some alarming data of 25 cases it had looked at concerning claimants of employment and support allowance. All of them won their appeal and had the decision overturned. In 72% of cases the decisions were overturned on the basis of a mental health condition, and 32% of that sample group stated that the process had caused an increase in suicidal intention. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the implications of the policy are literally a matter of life and death?

[John McDonnell]

I agree completely. The figures in Brighton are echoed around the country and have been reported for a number of years.

We met some of the disabled campaigners this morning. One of them said, referring to Ministers, “Do they realise that many of us feel terrorised by what the Government are doing?” Another disabled campaigner said to me this morning, “Can you tell them that they call their programme fulfilling our potential, but we feel that many of us simply won’t survive this round of cuts? A generation is going to be lost.” The central demand of the petition is straightforward: the motion is, in essence, a call for a cumulative impact assessment of all the welfare changes that have been introduced by this Government. The argument that campaigners put forward is that if politicians and society only knew the full effect of all the changes on the lives of disabled people and their families, surely they would not let that happen in a civilised society. Let us see whether we can move hearts and change minds in this debate.

Let us run through some of the figures. There are 11.3 million people with a disability in the UK, 4.5 million of whom have a significant disability that entitles them to a disability benefit such as the disability living allowance or the attendance allowance. The group the welfare cuts are hurting the most is the 2.7 million people with disabilities who live in poverty.

I remember the Prime Minister’s statements in 2010 when the Government launched their austerity programme to cut public spending. In October 2010, he said that

“it is fair that those with broader shoulders should bear a greater load”,

that the greatest burden would be placed on the better off, and that the cuts would be fair. Well, the reverse is the case.

I urge Members to read at least one of the relevant reports. In “Counting the Cuts”, Simon Duffy, the director of the Centre for Welfare Reform, explains that disabled people in poverty are bearing the cuts four times worse than the average, while the burden on people using social care is nearly six times that on the average person. Other reports escalate the figure and say that the burden on people with disabilities is perhaps 20 times the average. The reason for that is that disabled people are being hit by a combination of cuts in funding for social care and support and by wave after wave of cuts—almost annually—in welfare benefits.

Let us look at the cuts in care and support. Many disabled people rely on local authority social care and support. By next month, £2.68 billion will have been cut out of adult social care budgets across the country. In 2012-13, 320,000 fewer disabled people and 37,000 fewer adults aged between 18 and 64 with physical impairments received local authority care and support than in 2005-06. The number of adults with mental health issues receiving care and support has reduced by 30,000.

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

I shall come on to that in a moment. There are many reasons why that amount of money had to be spent. I do not suppose that any of us would choose to spend money in that way, but, to return to the wonderful comment by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), if people stopped breaking the law the RSPCA would not have to keep spending the money.

Given that the RSPCA has a 98% prosecution success rate, compared with 50% at the CPS, it would seem to be pretty well practised at assessing whether a case looks set to succeed. In the instance of the Heythrop hunt, the charity’s judgment was correct and a conviction secured. It was a landmark case, the first time that a hunt has faced corporate charges for illegal hunting and the first case brought by the RSPCA for breaches of the Hunting Act. That case was based on footage of foxes being chased by dogs, filmed on several occasions in Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire during November 2011 and February and March 2012. Expert analysis verified that the offences were deliberately committed.

All that indicates that the charity thought carefully before bringing a prosecution under the Hunting Act. It considered the evidence and judged accurately that the case was likely to be won. It assessed the impact of the case in acting as a deterrent and in sending out a clear message about upholding the ban on dogs chasing and killing wild mammals, thus preventing animal cruelty. Judging by the interest that the ruling has attracted, the charity made a pretty smart call on using resources effectively.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

To defend the organisation, is it not true that this has nothing to do with a false concern about the expenditure of money, and that it is about neutralising the RSPCA before a new onslaught to repeal the hunt legislation?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is a smoke screen, and I want to show how the case is not coherent and has no real rigour.

Much of the interest has been about the amount of money spent, with concerns expressed that the expense was not justifiable. I disagree. It was a test case and one based on a high volume of evidence, which needed careful examination to determine whether it constituted a strong enough case to bring to court. Ironically, many critics of the cost are also questioning the RSPCA’s judgment on the prospects of success, even though the charity’s thoroughness in considering whether prosecution was appropriate and its experience of other high-profile criminal prosecutions were what allowed it to budget accurately and appropriately.

It is also worth noting that the defendants indicated right up until trial that they would defend all charges rigorously. Given the importance of the case, and that the evidence and public interest tests were met, the RSPCA had a duty to respond with equal rigour and not to back down in the face of lawbreakers and those guilty of animal cruelty. Indeed, the Charity Commission has vindicated the RSPCA’s decision, stating in the letter I just quoted that it did not consider the trustees to have

“breached their duty of prudence”.

The public interest test is important. Enforcing such an important piece of animal welfare legislation is in the interests of the public, for both those who support the law and those who wrongly believe that they are above it.

CPI/RPI Pensions Uprating

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

That is also a move that I would not have supported, so I am being consistent in my opposition. I am sure that delegations of Labour party organisers and others will be making representations to the party on the matter.

As I was saying, there is also a sense of unfairness, in that people who have done the right thing, joined a pension scheme and saved through their scheme to protect themselves in their retirement are now seeing their pension undermined and, in some instances, even put at risk. The effects of the shift from RPI to CPI are serious for millions of ordinary people who have pursued a career and invested in a pension with the expectation of a decent pension.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, in the House last week, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) wrongly implied that the National Pensioners Convention was in favour of the switch from RPI to CPI? Will he join me in calling on the Minister to respond to the NPC’s request to set the record straight, given that the NPC actually favours a quadruple lock for pensions uprating involving CPI, RPI or earnings of 2.5%, whichever is the higher? Does he hope, as I do, that the Minister will take this opportunity to apologise?

[John McDonnell]

I am pleased that the National Pensioners Convention supports the quadruple lock, because that is what I have proposed in the House when we have debated this matter previously. It would come as a bit of a surprise if the NPC were to support the switch to CPI, given that a number of its members handcuffed themselves and blocked the road outside Parliament last week in protest against the measure. That is a form of direct action that I support.

The switch has had an impact on millions of people, as I have said. That is because, historically, the difference between CPI and RPI has been between 0.7% and 0.9 %. When the Government introduced their statutory instrument to force through the change, the Office for Budget Responsibility assessed that the difference would be 1.1%. Since then, in November, the OBR published a working paper that indicated that the gap would widen, and so increased its forecast for the long-run difference between CPI and RPI to 1.4%. What that means in practical terms for people’s pensions is that after 15 years a CPI-indexed pension would be 17.4% lower than an RPI-indexed pension, and after 20 years it would be between 23% to 25% less. That is a significant amount. That was confirmed by the much-cited Hutton report on pensions, which stated:

“This change in the indexation measure, from RPI to CPI, may have reduced the value of benefits to scheme members by around 15% on average. When this change is combined with other reforms to date across the major schemes the value to current members of reformed schemes with CPI indexation is, on average, around 25% less than pre-reform schemes with RPI indexation.”

Many hon. Members will have received representations from people working in different jobs about what the switch means to them. Let me cite some examples to give the House a flavour of why there is such depth of feeling out in the country on this issue. Let us take the case of Jim Singer himself, the creator of the e-petition. Jim has worked for the Department for Work and Pensions as a partnership development manager in the east of Scotland, based in Aberdeen. He has worked for the civil service for 35 years. He has just turned 60, and he will retire on a salary of £29,000.

As a result of the pay policy imposed by his Department and the Government, Jim has had a pay increase of only 3% in the last five years. That has had the effect of reducing the value of his final salary by around 25%, as against RPI inflation over the past five years. Even if his pay had kept pace with the Government’s favoured indicator, CPI, his final salary would have been 13% higher. That in turn means that his pension will start at a level of over £3,000 a year lower than if his pay had kept pace with RPI, and that his lump sum will be cut by over £9,500. So, he will have a £1,600 pension loss and a £4,960 lump sum under CPI. In addition, the switch from RPI to CPI is likely to cost Jim nearly £23,000 in pension over a normal retirement. Jim’s wife, Sheena, worked for British Telecom and has a pension which is also affected by the switch from RPI to CPI. She stands to lose £9,000 over a 20-year retirement.