Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Yes, it is. It was changed two or three years later, but in the Nasseri case before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, their lordships upheld, as a matter of law, the deeming of countries to be safe and within the law. Indeed, they went on to say—Lord Hoffmann being one of them, I think—that while Parliament deemed it such, there were plainly risks if the Home Office did not keep an eye on the state and conditions in the countries that were thus deemed, but otherwise it complied with the law and the courts would respect Parliament’s decision.

What is being said in this case is that a Supreme Court decision has already held Rwanda not to be a safe country for the purposes of the guarantee against refoulement. It is said that for this House to overrule the decision of the Supreme Court in such an individual case is constitutionally undesirable and contrary to fundamental constitutional principle. I do not agree with that analysis. First, it is open to this Parliament at any point to take steps to reverse the effect of a judicial ruling—that is the consequence of parliamentary supremacy. It is clear that Parliament should be restrained in doing so in cases, for example, where individual rights in a case to reverse a determination made in favour of an individual would plainly be contrary to fundamental constitutional principle, but that is not what we are doing here. We are seeking to do precisely what the Labour Government did in 2004. We are saying that Parliament, legitimately weighing the evidence, has concluded that Rwanda will not engage in the refoulement of those sent to it. That is something the courts have already accepted. It is something that it is open to this House to do, and it is something that, in my judgment, it is perfectly legitimate for Parliament to undertake. It would be different if it were to reverse a decision against an individual.

But even if I am wrong about that, and even if as a matter of constitutional convention it were undesirable for this House to reverse the effect on a question of principle—namely, whether Rwanda is safe for the purposes of refoulement—the facts have changed. There is now a binding treaty, and it is binding not only in international law but in domestic Rwandan law. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has rightly analysed the situation of international law. In this country we have a dualist jurisdiction where treaties are not self-executing, but in Rwanda the treaty is self-executing, so it will be binding on the Rwandan Government not only as a matter of international law, but as a matter of their own law.

That treaty contains a range of important safeguards, including, as a longstop, the fact that no individual removed to Rwanda from this country can be removed to a third country without the consent of the United Kingdom. If that longstop is in place, if the treaty is binding in Rwandan law and if it is binding, as it is, in international law, then I would suggest that there is simply no credible risk of refoulement if treaties and legal rules mean anything in the United Kingdom and in Rwanda. If the risk of refoulement has been removed, then there is nothing inappropriate in this House determining, as the Labour Government did in 2004, that Rwanda is safe for the purposes of refoulement. So I say to the House that this is appropriate, and it is a judgment that we can make as a House to take the step that we are now taking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who made one of the best speeches so far today against the Bill. Unfortunately, he does not follow through on his logic, but I am sure that by the end of this process he will do, because he knows perfectly well that the Bill is not really acceptable. I am sure that in his heart of hearts he would like to vote against it tonight.

There are five reasons to vote against the Bill. The first is that it will not work; the idea that someone who is not deterred by a dangerous journey in a dinghy across the most crowded sea lane in the world will be deterred by this flimsy piece of nonsense is just laughable. Secondly, the Bill will lead to protracted and expensive chaos, because, as the hon. Gentleman says, it sails so close to the wind legally that it will inevitably lead to legal challenges. Ironically, since the ouster clauses mean that challenges cannot be adjudicated in the British courts, they will go to the European Court of Human Rights. So the Government are actually replacing a UK court with a European court here, and simultaneously declaring in the Bill that they are not satisfied that the Bill will withstand a legal challenge based on compatibility with the European convention on human rights. That is a recipe for chaos and for expense.

Thirdly, the Bill seeks to reverse by statute law a finding of fact by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, and it therefore creates a legal fiction. Its title, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, gives the game away. According to the Bill, “Rwanda is safe, even if it isn’t safe, simply because the Government, through the Bill, say it’s safe.” Declaring that somewhere is safe does not make it, of itself, safe. We can no more change reality by law or legal diktat than we can by mere imagination. As Bolingbroke says in Richard II, we cannot

“cloy the hungry edge of appetite

By bare imagination of a feast”.

We cannot make Rwanda safe just by saying it, so the declaration in clause 2 that

“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”

is utterly fatuous. If Rwanda is, either now or in the future, in fact safe, the provision deeming it safe is, or will at that point be, otiose or redundant. But if Rwanda is not now or in the future safe, that provision is self-evidently wrong in fact and therefore wrong in principle. So clause 2 is either unnecessary or wrong—or both, simultaneously.

Fourthly, the Bill establishes in UK law a completely new doctrine of the separation of powers, as the ouster clauses, which prevent judges and tribunals from supervising the conduct of Ministers in operating the policy they have laid out in statute, put Ministers above the law. It is not the sovereignty of Parliament that the Bill asserts, but the sovereignty of Ministers. Fundamental to the rule of law is the idea that the Crown—or its modern proxy, the Executive—cannot act arbitrarily, even if it uses its majority in Parliament to declare that it can. That would be the worst form of Henry VIII Act, equivalent to his Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539, which deemed that all the King’s proclamations, even though they were not approved by Parliament, shall be observed

“as though they were made by Act of Parliament.”

Fifthly, now is not the time to undermine human rights and the rules-based order. The UK relies on foreign courts and tribunals being effective. We watch events in Ukraine and declare that the butchery in Bucha or in Mariupol is a war crime. Who do we want to adjudicate that? We want an international court to do so. We rightly lecture China about human rights abuses in Xinjiang province and about abiding by the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. We invoke Magnitsky sanctions against human rights abusers around the world. How can we expect others to abide by the rule of law, and their human rights and other treaty obligations, if we abandon those things?

The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) was right about one thing—incidentally, he was wrong about 2004, because what we did not do at that time was put in an ouster clause meaning that Ministers were free to do what they wanted. Those who think the Bill should go further will get no help from anyone on this side of the House, in any of the parties, in Committee or on Report. As we have heard, if the demands of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) were to be met in amendments in Committee or on Report, Rwanda would withdraw, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would withdraw his support for the Bill.

I do not know why anyone would vote for this Bill, but voting for it, despite knowing that it is legally offensive or believing it is fatally flawed, in the desperate hope that the Government will help you amend it, is just delaying the inevitable. I say that because the most extraordinary irony of all is that the Prime Minister has had to rely on the Rwandan Government to tell him and his MPs that Rwanda will not accept any law that breaches international law. Rwanda is theoretically and nominally democratic, but it is, in effect and in actuality, an authoritarian one-party state. That is who is keeping us on the straight and narrow legally. Just think about that before you vote for this nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

The answer is: no, no and no. [Interruption.] I am here; I have been in the Chamber.

Turning to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns), I thank my constituency neighbour for his delivery of a powerful and compassionate speech, as he always gives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) asked me to work with him, to be open-minded and to look at ways to make the Bill more effective. In contrast to my response to the previous intervention, my answer is: yes, yes and yes. He and I have worked together before and I commit to continuing to work again with him during the rest of the passage of this Bill.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

Forgive me, but I will not.

In the time I have left, I will refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who I hope will continue to work with me on this Bill. I listened carefully to what he had to say. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee and spoke with great authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) spoke clearly about her position, the direct impact on her constituency and the imperative of ensuring we stop the boats. My notes about the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) say that he was “on fire.” I am grateful for his contribution; those who missed it should go and watch it on playback.

My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) made a powerful, measured and careful speech, and I was grateful for his earlier intervention. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for his contribution, particularly and sincerely for mentioning our late colleague James Brokenshire and his able work in this area.

There was common sense from my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman); I thank him for his contribution. There were attempts to shout down my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) while he was speaking. He stood up, as he often does in the Chamber, in the face of that barrage. He talks openly about his faith. I respect him sincerely for the way he does that and for the way he conducts his business in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) has the distinction of serving on not one but two Select Committees. Not only does he do that, but he does it with distinction and diligence, and I always like listening to his speeches. He had the temerity to suggest that lawyers may, from time to time, disagree with each other—what an outrageous suggestion. I am only sorry that there were not more lawyers in the Chamber to hear that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made an outstanding speech. More people should have been in the Chamber to hear the inescapable, inestimable and irresistible logic of his compelling speech. As one of my predecessors, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for his work in this area and for pointing out what has already happened since the Supreme Court judgment—namely, the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) gave us actual numbers, not just percentages, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) took us on a tour du monde. It is not just our country that faces these challenges; this is a global challenge of our time.

Let me end by saying that I have sat through more than six hours of this six and a half hour debate. I heard every single speech from the Government Benches and most speeches from the Opposition Benches. I heard every single speech made from the Labour Front Bench, and what was missing was a plan. Labour has no plan. There was intervention after intervention, but where was the plan? There was chuntering from a sedentary position by the Home Secretary, asking “Where is the plan?” Answer came there none. There was a verbal vacuum—not even a cut-and-paste solution. There was no plan whatsoever. Contrast that with the clear determination of all those on the Government side of the Chamber to stop the boats. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.