Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Joanna Cherry

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know, Dame Rosie, you would not want me to abuse the privilege you have given us to range slightly more widely in this debate to range quite that widely, so I will not. He is right that I am making a fairly precise point about what this language appears to me to say. I stress that I do not think it is necessary to include this language in order to achieve the objective that the Government have set in this legislation—with which I have some sympathy, although their methods make me nervous, and I make no bones about that. Worse than unnecessary, it presents some dangers that I do not think we need to present in order to achieve the Government’s objectives.

I suspect my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will tell me in a few moments’ or hours’ time that I do not need to worry about any of this. He may give two reasons for that. First, he may say that the Bill does not mean what I think it means. You will forgive me for saying this, Dame Rosie, but I am increasingly troubled that in this place we answer points such as mine by saying, “Yes, well, it doesn’t really mean that, and we don’t really mean that by it.” We should be concerned as legislators with what the language we are passing into law actually says, not what we meant to say. I am concerned that what this language says is not in accordance with what I am sure the Minister wants to do or what the Government want to do, but it might none the less have that effect, or be taken by others to mean the things that I am concerned about.

When the Bill says what a safe country is, it is potentially confusing two different things. One is deeming our own compliance with international law, which I do not think any country should be able to do, and the other is saying that Parliament resolves to do something even if it contravenes the UK’s international law obligations, which, going back to the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I do think the British Parliament can do. We as a legislature can resolve to do that if we so choose.

We have to decide whether that is a wise and sensible thing to do, with all the ramifications it might bring, but as a matter of law it seems to me that the UK Parliament can, if it wishes, pass a law to say, “Despite or irrespective of our international responsibilities, this is none the less what we want to do.” That is not the same as deeming our own compliance with international law, which I worry this language almost certainly seems to do.

The point I make about the UK Parliament being able to do things even when they contravene its international responsibilities is already in the Bill and reflected in the language of clause 1(4)(b), which points out that

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

Quite right. We can, if we so choose, deem a country a safe country for the purposes of domestic decision making if we want to. What I do not think we can or should do is legislate to say that we comply with our international law responsibilities when we do not—and when, crucially, to achieve the objective of this Bill we do not need to.

The second reason the Minister may give for why I do not need to worry myself about all this is that he may say that domestic and international law exist on different planes, and that this legislation is only targeted in any event at domestic authorities, so the Bill could not, even if it chose to try, deem our compliance with international law in actual fact. I would agree with that. It is perfectly true that domestic law and international law operate on different planes, and it is not likely that this Bill could determine any question of international law before any international tribunal.

If that is so, though, why include the language? If it does not have any meaning or legal effect, it does not serve any purpose, but I fear it may send a damaging political signal to other states. The language I am concerned about, which amendments 54 and 55 would remove, is either offensive or otiose, and in either respect the Bill would be better without it.

[Joanna Cherry]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I find myself in agreement with much of what he said, and he made his points very forcefully.

I rise to speak to amendments 32, 33 and 34 and new clause 4 in my name and amendments 4 and 5 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), and to support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I also want to comment on clause 3 and clause 5 stand part and the amendments that have been put forward, particularly by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), in my capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I turn first to my amendments, which relate to the impact of this Bill in Scotland, and in which respect I am speaking in a personal capacity. My amendments and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North deal with the extent of the Bill, its extension to Scotland and the date of its commencement in Scotland. We both seek to prevent this Bill’s extending to Scotland and, in the event that we are not successful in doing that, my amendments seek to ensure that the Bill will not extend to Scotland without the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament and that nothing in it will interfere with the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session or its nobile officium. I will explain what that means later.

We must not forget that the regime this Bill seeks to impose, together with the Illegal Migration Act 2023, is imposed on asylum seekers across the United Kingdom, not just those who arrive in small boats on the Kent coast. The UK Government have not forgotten that, and that is why they want this Bill, with its far-reaching and unprecedented ouster clauses, to extend to Scotland. Accordingly, asylum seekers in Scotland looking to our courts for protection will find that the courts in Scotland have been emasculated in the same way as this Bill emasculates the courts of England and Wales.

As well as having their jurisdiction ousted on certain matters of fact, as was debated yesterday, the Scottish courts will find themselves unable to apply the Human Rights Act or to respect the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European convention on human rights and other international treaties. I believe that that constitutes a serious and unprecedented intrusion on the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts, and a serious interference with the separation of powers between legislature, Executive and judiciary. I do not think that this Parliament should be rubber-stamping the Bill at all, but particularly not in relation to Scotland.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Joanna Cherry

Report stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Yes, that is a possible way forward. Ofcom will need to produce a code of practice in this area. I am sure my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will say that that is a suitable way to deal with the problem that I have identified. It may well be, but at this stage, it is right for the House to recognise that the drafting of the Bill at the moment seeks to offer support to platforms, for which I am sure they will be grateful, but it will need to offer some more in order to allow these judgments to be made.

I restate the point that I have made in previous debates on this subject: there is little point in this House passing legislation aimed to make the internet a safer place if the legislation does not work as it is intended to. If our regime does not work, we will keep not a single person any safer. It is important, therefore, that we think about this Bill not in its overarching statements and principles but, particularly at this stage of consideration, in terms of how it will actually work.

You will not find a bigger supporter of the Bill in this House than me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to see it work well and be effective. That means that some of the problems that I am highlighting must be addressed. Because humility is a good way to approach debates on something as ground-breaking and complex as this, I do not pretend that I have all the right answers. These amendments have been tabled because the Bill as it stands does not quite yet do the job that we want it to do. It is a good Bill—it needs to pass—but it can be better, and I very much hope that this process will improve it.

[Joanna Cherry]

I rise to speak to new clause 24 and amendments 193 and 191 tabled in my name. I also want to specifically give my support to new clause 6 and amendments 33 and 34 in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).

The purpose of my amendments, as I have indicated in a number of interventions, is to ensure that, when moderating content, category 1 service providers such as Twitter abide by the anti-discrimination law of our domestic legal systems—that is to say the duties set out in the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate against, harass or victimise their users on the grounds of a protected characteristic.

I quickly want to say a preliminary word about the Bill. Like all responsible MPs, I recognise the growing concern about online harms, and the need to protect service users, especially children, from harmful and illegal content online. That said, the House of Lords’ Communication and Digital Committee was correct to note that the internet is not currently the unregulated Wild West that some people say it is, and that civil and criminal law already applies to activities online as well as offline.

The duty of care, which the Bill seeks to impose on online services, will be a significant departure from existing legislation regulating online content. It will allow for a more preventative approach to regulating illegal online content and will form part of a unified regulatory framework applying to a wide range of online services. I welcome the benefits that this would represent, especially with respect to preventing the proliferation of child sexual and emotional abuse online.

Before I became an MP, I worked for a number of years as a specialist sex crimes prosecutor, so I am all too aware of how children are targeted online. Sadly, there are far too many people in our society, often hiding in plain sight, who seek to exploit children. I must emphasise that child safeguarding should be a No. 1 priority for any Government. In so far as this Bill does that, I applaud it. However, I do have some concerns that there is a significant risk that the Bill will lead to censorship of legal speech by online platforms. For the reasons that were set out by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I am also a bit worried that it will give the Government unacceptable controls over what we can and cannot say online, so I am keen to support any amendments that would ameliorate those aspects of the Bill. I say this to those Members around the Chamber who might be looking puzzled: make no mistake, when the Bill gives greater power to online service providers to regulate content, there is a very real risk that they will be lobbied by certain groups to regulate what is actually legal free speech by other groups. That is partly what my amendment is designed to avoid.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

What the hon. and learned Lady says is sensible, but does she accept—this is a point the Minister made earlier—that, at the moment, the platforms have almost unfettered control over what they take down and what they leave up? What this Bill does is present a framework for the balancing exercise that they ought to apply in making those decisions.

[Joanna Cherry]

That is why I am giving the Bill a cautious welcome, but I still stand by my very legitimate concerns about the chilling effect of aspects of this Bill. I will give some examples in a moment about the problems that have arisen when organisations such as Twitter are left to their own devices on their moderation of content policy.

As all hon. Members will be aware, under the Equality Act there are a number of protected characteristics. These include: age; gender reassignment; being married or in a civil partnership; being pregnant or on maternity leave; disability; race, including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin; religion or belief; sex and sexual orientation. It is against the law to discriminate, victimise or harass anyone because of any of those protected characteristics, but Twitter does discriminate against some of the protected characteristics. It often discriminates against women in the way that I described in an intervention earlier. It takes down expressions of feminist belief, but refuses to take down expressions of the utmost violent intent against women. It also discriminates against women who hold gender-critical beliefs. I remind hon. Members that, in terms of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in the case of Maya Forstater, the belief that sex matters is worthy of respect in a democratic society and, under the Equality Act, people cannot lawfully discriminate against women, or indeed men, who hold those views.

Twitter also sometimes discriminates against lesbians, gay men and bisexual people who assert that their sexual orientation is on the basis of sex, not gender, despite the fact that same-sex orientation, such as I hold, is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

At present, Twitter claims not to be covered by the Equality Act. I have seen correspondence from its lawyers that sets out the purported basis for that claim, partly under reference to schedule 25 to the Equality Act, and partly because it says:

“Twitter UK is included in an Irish Company and is incorporated in the Republic of Ireland. It does pursue economic activity through a fixed establishment in the UK but that relates to income through sales and marketing with the main activity being routed through Ireland.”

I very much doubt whether that would stand up in court, since Twitter is clearly providing a service in the United Kingdom, but it would be good if we took the opportunity of this Bill to clarify that the Equality Act applies to Twitter, so that when it applies moderation of content under the Bill, it will not discriminate against any of the protected characteristics.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am currently the acting Chair, looked at this three years ago. We had a Twitter executive before our Committee and I questioned her at length about some of the content that Twitter was content to support in relation to violent threats against women and girls and, on the other hand, some of the content that Twitter took down because it did not like the expression of certain beliefs by feminists or lesbians.

We discovered on the Joint Committee on Human Rights that Twitter’s hateful conduct policy does not include sex as a protected characteristic. It does not reflect the domestic law of the United Kingdom in relation to anti-discrimination law. Back in October 2019, in the Committee’s report on democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association, we recommended that Twitter should include sex as a protected characteristic in its hateful conduct policy, but Twitter has not done that. It seems Twitter thinks it is above the domestic law of the United Kingdom when it comes to anti-discrimination.

At that Committee, the Twitter executive assured me that certain violent memes that often appear on Twitter directed against women such as me and against many feminists in the United Kingdom, threatening us with death by shooting, should be removed. However, just in the past 48 hours I have seen an example of Twitter’s refusing to remove that meme. Colleagues should be assured that there is a problem here, and I would like us to direct our minds to it, as the Bill gives us an opportunity to do.

Whether or not Twitter is correctly praying in aid the loophole it says there is in the Equality Act—I think that is questionable—the Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to clarify matters. Clause 3 of clearly brings Twitter and other online service providers within the regulatory scheme of the Bill as a service with

“a significant number of United Kingdom users”.

The Bill squarely recognises that Twitter provides a service in the United Kingdom to UK users, so it is only a very small step to amend the Bill to make it absolutely clear that when it does so it should be subject to the Equality Act. That is what my new clause 24 seeks to do.

I have also tabled new clauses 193 and 191 to ensure that Twitter and other online platforms obey non-discrimination law regarding Ofcom’s production of codes of practice and guidance. The purpose of those amendments is to ensure that Ofcom consults with persons who have expertise in the Equality Act before producing those codes of conduct.

I will not push the new clauses to a vote. I had a very productive meeting with the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who expressed a great deal of sympathy when I explained the position to him. I have been encouraged by the cross-party support for the new clauses, both in discussions before today with Members from all parties and in some of the comments made by various hon. Members today.

I am really hoping that the Government will take my new clauses away and give them very serious consideration, that they will look at the Joint Committee’s report from October 2019 and that either they will adopt these amendments or perhaps somebody else will take them forward in the other place.

Belhaj and Boudchar: Litigation Update

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Joanna Cherry

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Attorney General for the tone of his statement and for generously giving me advance sight of it. His statement acknowledges that a previous UK Government were complicit in the abduction, detention and rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya of a man who was an opponent of that vile regime. That is particularly shocking to us when we remember that the blood of so many innocent civilians, including British civilians, was on Gaddafi’s hands. The extraordinary rendition of Mrs Boudchar makes this even worse, particularly as she was pregnant at the time. I pay tribute to her fortitude in pressing this claim and in being here today.

The UK Government’s complicity in these events is shameful and is a gross breach of international humanitarian law, human rights and the rule of law. I am pleased that the Attorney General has acknowledged that lessons must be learned and sought to give us some reassurance for the future. May I ask him three questions? Will he specifically assure the House that such an occurrence could not take place again under a UK Government? Will he assure this House that in future information will not be shared with so-called international partners who flout international law and human rights? Can he tell us whether the investigations that have gone into settling this claim have uncovered whether what happened was part of the dark side of Tony Blair’s deal in the desert with Gaddafi in 2004?

[The Attorney General]

May I start at the end, but first express my gratitude to the hon. and learned Lady again for her remarks and the tone of them? She will understand that I cannot comment in detail about the position on the behaviour of the former Prime Minister and his Government. I am sure she will expect that Tony Blair has been told about the outcome of this process, and that is the case, but I cannot comment further on what happened during the course of his Government.

The other two questions the hon. and learned Lady asks are about the future, and she raises concerns that the whole House will have about how certain we can be that this will never happen again. The best that I can do is to restate the points that I have made about the changes that have occurred. She will be conscious of the substantial difference that the changes that I have described have made, not just to the processes that the Government apply in such cases but to the approach that they take to them. Formality needed to be brought back into these processes, and it is now there. The hon. and learned Lady will know that as Attorney General I am now a full member of the National Security Council; for me, that is a clear indication of the seriousness with which the Government take the questions of legality and the rule of law that must of course be at the heart of these judgments.

On the broader picture, the hon. and learned Lady will recognise that it is vital that the British Government and their agencies are able to recover intelligence that enables us to keep the British people safe, and it is difficult to give the absolute assurances that she seeks. The best that any Government can do is put in place the processes and practices that mean that the right values are applied to the judgments that we have to take, including in what are very difficult cases. I hope I have been clear that on this occasion we did not get those judgments right. We must do better in future.

Leaving the EU: Scotland and Wales Continuity Bills

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Joanna Cherry

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Attorney General if he will make a statement on the Government’s position on the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill and the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill.

[The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)]

The continuity Bills—that is, the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill and the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill—passed, as the hon. and learned Lady knows, through the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly on 21 March. As she also knows, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006 provide the Law Officers with the power to refer to the Supreme Court the question whether devolved legislation falls within legislative competence. That power enables us to fulfil our constitutional roles in upholding the rule of law and monitoring the boundaries of the devolved settlements in the interests of legal certainty.

The continuity Bills raise serious questions about legislative competence that need to be explored. That is apparent from the view of the Scottish Presiding Officer at introduction that the Scottish Bill was not within the legal scope of the Parliament, and the recognition of the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly that the assessment of competence in relation to the Welsh Bill was not a “straightforward” decision,

“as it was recognised that there are significant arguments both for and against legislative competence existing for this Bill.”

The key purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill before this Parliament is to provide certainty across the UK on day one after exit from the EU, and the Scottish and Welsh continuity Bills would frustrate that objective. If the continuity Bills were to become law, there would be impacts not just on the Governments and legislatures but on the widespread understanding of and confidence in UK law after exit. The UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments therefore agree that the best place for the provisions to ensure legal certainty after exiting the EU is in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, and we are working hard across Governments to reach an agreement on how that might best be achieved.

However, the four-week statutory limit for making a reference closed yesterday, and an agreement has yet to be struck, so the Law Officers have made references to the Supreme Court in relation to both Bills, as a protective step in the public interest towards upholding legal certainty. This is therefore now a matter for the Supreme Court to determine. However, I remain hopeful that the ongoing negotiations with the devolved Administrations will result in an agreement. It is clear that that would be the best outcome for all involved. Should an acceptable agreement be reached and should the Scottish and Welsh continuity Bills consequently not take effect, the UK Government would seek to withdraw the references.

[Joanna Cherry]

I thank the Attorney General for his answer. These combined challenges are unprecedented in the 20-year history of devolution. Indeed, it is the first time that the UK Government have challenged legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Parliament’s Bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of 95 votes to 32. Only the Tories and one Liberal Democrat did not support the Bill. The rest of the Parliament—the Scottish National party, the Labour party, the Greens and the rest of the Lib Dems—supported the Bill. Scottish Ministers are satisfied that the Bill is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In that view, they have the support of Scotland’s most senior Law Officer, the Lord Advocate.

The purpose of the Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament is to prepare for the consequences for devolved powers of UK withdrawal, and it is designed to work with the Westminster EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Can the Attorney General tell the House why this Tory Government are seeking to defeat a Bill in the courts that they could not defeat by democratic means in the Scottish Parliament? Does he agree that working with the Scottish Government and Parliament to resolve those political differences is preferable to resorting to law? Does he appreciate that this will widely be seen as an attack on the Scottish Parliament and the democratic legitimacy of the devolved settlement? Finally, how much will this cost and who will meet the legal costs?

[The Attorney General]

I agree with the hon. and learned Lady that the situation is unprecedented. She is right that no reference to the Supreme Court about Scottish legislation has previously been brought. However, she will recognise that that is not the only unprecedented factor here. As she knows, it is also the first time the Scottish Parliament has been prepared to proceed in the face of the advice of its Presiding Officer that the Bill is not within its competence. History is being made in more than one way.

I recognise that, as the hon. and learned Lady said, the Lord Advocate is of the view that the Bill is within competence, and I am heartened by her confidence in the unassailable wisdom of Law Officers, but she will recognise that his is not the only view and that legitimate questions have arisen about the Scottish Parliament’s competence to pass the legislation. Law Officers in the United Kingdom, in accordance with our powers under the devolution settlement, are seeking to refer those questions.

The hon. and learned Lady says that the continuity Bills mirror the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, but she will recognise that there are significant differences between them. Those differences create the difficulty about legal certainty. We cannot have two versions of rules operating at the same time. That needs to be resolved.

Finally, the hon. and learned Lady said that we are seeking to defeat a Bill in the courts that we could not defeat in the Scottish Parliament. I gently point out that a substantial part of the Bill that was certainly passed in the Scottish Parliament was a rerun of amendments that she sought and failed to get passed in this House. As I said, there is more than one way of looking at the position. I hope that she and her colleagues would accept that there is a legitimate dispute, at least about competence, and that it is in accordance with the devolution settlement that the Supreme Court resolves it, unless we can do so by negotiation. I fervently hope that that is the case, because I agree with her that that would be a far better way forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Joanna Cherry

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the things that we rather suspect led a great number of our fellow countrymen and women to vote for European Union exit was exactly that prospect.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) asked the Attorney General to comment on clause 6 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. It is not just the Scottish Parliament that thinks that clause 6 is inadequate. Yesterday, the President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court told the House of Lords Constitution Committee that clause 6 as it stands is “very unhelpful” and that it could leave the judiciary at risk of

“appearing to make a political decision”.

What is the Attorney General going to do to address not just the concerns of the Scottish Parliament, but those of the President of the UK Supreme Court?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Joanna Cherry

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I certainly think that the Serious Fraud Office has an important role to play in doing what it can to deal with economic crime, as of course do other agencies. As for the future, we are looking carefully at how we can improve performance in tackling economic crime across the whole range of organisations that do that work.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that she was going to rip up human rights in order to fight terrorism. Can the Attorney General confirm that he has advised his Cabinet colleagues that there is nothing in the Human Rights Act 1998 or in the convention on human rights that would prevent the Government from taking a robust approach to terrorism, and that this plan to rip up human rights will be shelved?

[The Attorney General]

No, the Prime Minister said nothing of the kind. Let me read out exactly what she did say, which was that

“we should do even more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court. If our human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change the laws so we can do it.”

That seems eminently sensible, and something we should all agree with.

European Convention on Human Rights: UK Membership

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Joanna Cherry

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that these are not simple matters and that there is huge complexity here, and it would be quite wrong to attempt to reduce this debate to simplistic statements. However, it is also right that our commitment to human rights is not limited to our signature on pieces of paper but is explained and demonstrated in the actions that we take.

I have set out some of the actions that this Government have taken as well as those that the previous Government took, in conjunction with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and others. I have mentioned some of the things that we have achieved, and there have been others. We were the Government, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who reduced the maximum period that someone can spend in detention without charge to 28 days. We were the Government, too, who abolished ID cards. These are pro-human-rights measures. We demonstrate our commitment to the protection of human rights by what we do.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to the Attorney General for what he has said so far, but his response, and the absence of the Home Secretary, simply will not do. There is confusion here. Less than an hour ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), assured me that the Government have no plans to withdraw from the ECHR, but yesterday in her speech the Home Secretary said that withdrawing from the ECHR was a must. Why is she not here to answer this urgent question? Does she not realise that what she said yesterday has caused grave concern across these islands, particularly in Scotland?

I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that the unity and purpose missing from the Conservative and Labour parties is present in the Scottish National party in relation to the ECHR and human rights, and also present in the majority of the elected Members of the Scottish Parliament, who made it very clear that under no circumstances would they ever consent to a repeal of the Human Rights Act.

As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, the ECHR is hard-wired into the Scotland Act. Everything that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament do is governed by the ECHR. I assure the British Government that given the composition of the current Scottish Parliament and the likely composition of the next one, there is no question of the Scottish Parliament ever giving its consent to Britain’s withdrawing from the ECHR. Does the Home Secretary not realise that if Britain were to attempt to withdraw from the EHCR, it would cause a constitutional crisis within these islands?

On EU law, it is correct that all EU member states and candidate states are required to be signatories to the convention. If the Attorney General is in any doubt about that, he could consult a number of legal academics, including Professor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, the professor of European and human rights law at Oxford University, who has written extensively on this issue. I was going to suggest that the Attorney General needed to give the Home Secretary a tutorial on European Union law, but if he does not accept that signatories to the EU must also be signatories to the convention, perhaps he himself needs such a tutorial. [Interruption.] Yes, there is a question. When will this much-promised consultation come forward? Prevarication will not do any longer. When will the Government bring it forward, and will it include withdrawal from the ECHR as well as the HRA?

[The Attorney General]

There is a risk in this discussion that we make a little too much of what happened yesterday. Let us be clear. I have said a number of times, and the hon. and learned Lady has heard different members of the Government make it clear a number of times, what our policy is in relation to human rights reform. I say again that the Prime Minister has been clear and we have all been clear—we rule nothing out. It follows from that that we do not rule out withdrawal from the convention should we not be able to achieve the changes that we all believe are necessary.

I accept that the hon. and learned Lady’s party and the official Opposition do not take the view that the status quo is unacceptable; we disagree about that. What I find odd about her position and, indeed, that of the official Opposition is that, as far as I can tell, they are saying to us: “Whatever you do on human rights reform we will oppose it. There is nothing you can do that we will ever support. There is no reform you can bring forward that we would ever regard as valid, but would you please get on and bring forward your reforms, which we will oppose anyway whatever you say?” That is not a sensible position for her and her colleagues to take.

The hon. and learned Lady is right, of course, that whatever proposals we make, there will be significant devolution consequences. As she has heard me say, and ministerial colleagues say, when we bring forward proposals we will ensure that full consultation happens with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we work through those issues.