Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We have constitutional roles for Parliament and the courts. It is right for Parliament to respond to court judgments, to adapt and to change policy, but this Bill instead puts at risk the compliance with international law that we need to be able to make further agreements.

I do not think that, in the end, all of this is about Rwanda; it is about the deep divides in the Conservative party. It is about their chaos. It is about the Prime Minister’s inability to show leadership. It is about the fact that they just want to tear lumps out of each other. They are creating chaos while letting the country down.

The former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark, has said that the Government are now aiming for just

“one or two symbolic flights off before the next election with a handful of illegal migrants on them”.

That is not the same as stopping the boats, strengthening border security or fixing the asylum chaos.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way, because I know that the right hon. Member likes to think of himself as the leader of the Common Sense Group of Conservatives.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Lady is right; I am the very personification of common sense, as she has just acknowledged. The real divide is between those people, very largely on the Opposition Benches, who believe that international law trumps the supremacy of this place, and those who believe that the reason this place is supreme is that our legitimacy is derived from the people. For that reason, only a polity can make law. International treaties matter, but they do not matter as much when it comes to this kind of legislation and the people expressing their will through those they elect to speak for them.

[Yvette Cooper]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing this legislation not because of a European court, but because of a decision by a British court: the Supreme Court. It made a decision based on British laws. I know that there are Members on the Government Back Benches who want to make everything about the European courts, and that is the heart of their dilemma. They want to get rid of the European convention on human rights. The Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all said that they do not and they will not. That is at the heart of the Conservatives’ divides and chaos. That is what their row is all about. It is not about having a workable solution to the serious problem of our border security being undermined, of dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk and of criminal gangs whose profits have soared as a result of effectively being allowed to let rip along the channel, because the UK and France have failed to work together sufficiently to stop them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Through the Bill, this country is turning its back on its international obligations. It is a pathetic excuse for policy—a foghorn signalling to the far right. It is too weak for some of the Home Secretary’s colleagues, but too harsh for a few exceptional others. For all the talk of full fat versus semi-skimmed, it is more akin to milk that has gone stagnant and sour—utterly repellent to decent people and best binned altogether, for everyone’s safety. For the SNP, the Bill is an abhorrence that undermines the UK’s international obligations and the principles of human rights. It costs a fortune and it is highly unlikely to achieve even its tawdry aims. We shall be tabling a prayer against the Rwanda treaty.

The legal experts I have heard from are appalled by the implications of proceeding with a Bill that, by the Home Secretary’s own frontispiece to it, cannot be declared compliant with the ECHR. The Home Secretary claims that he respects the Supreme Court’s decisions, but he comes here today with the sole purpose of overturning them and preventing the Court from ruling on anything ever again. For a Government to disapply human rights when it suits them, and instruct courts and public bodies to do likewise, is deeply troubling.

Liberty has stated that the Bill will

“tie the hands of every court in the UK while also abandoning the UK’s international commitments”.

Far be it from me to be concerned about the UK’s constitution or standing in the world, but I note that the Law Society of Scotland has questioned the UK’s rationale in disapplying a range of human rights agreements dating back 70 years, and the global implications of that departure from the international rights order. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Justice and Freedom from Torture say that the Bill

“sends a devastating signal to the world about the UK’s reliability as an international partner”.

The Bill also begs the question whether breaking international law is something that the Rwandan Government would accept. Minister Vincent Biruta reportedly said:

“Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.”

It is beneath contempt for the UK Government on the one hand to say, “We are presenting a treaty with Rwanda—marvel at how solid and unbreakable it is,” while, on the other, to tell us that they want to breach the human rights convention, the refugee convention, the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights, the 1984 United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings agreed at Warsaw on 16 May 2005, as well as customary international law and any other laws that might get in their way, including from the European Court of Human Rights.

International law is binding: no welching, no backsies, no keys up. The Government are supposed to adhere to it; that is why they signed up to it in the first place. This is abject nonsense. The Law Society of England and Wales goes further, stating clearly that

“domestic legislation cannot immunise the Government from the enforcement of international law. To claim it can is disingenuous”.

It also states that refusing to comply with an interim measure would be a

“clear and serious breach of international law.”

It accuses the UK Government of using law to manufacture a reality. It is the time of year that we all indulge in some Christmas magic and imagine reindeers on the roof, but this UK Tory Government have asked the entire United Kingdom legal system to engage in a far more dangerous pretence.

The UK Supreme Court sought out the facts for itself and, upon clear and substantial evidence, found Rwanda to be unsafe. That seems most likely why the Government want to ban courts from doing that again, via this legislation. The Court spoke of the risk of refoulement and of sending people back into harm’s way. Indeed, if Rwanda were safe, why would it be able to send asylum seekers to the UK as part of the deal? The Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza was sentenced to 15 years in jail for speaking out against the Rwandan Government. Despite being released in 2018, to this day she still cannot exercise her political rights. She had to criticise the deal in the international media, because she says that the local media dare not give her a platform.

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

[Alison Thewliss]

If the right hon. Member can explain how Rwanda is safe, I will certainly give way.

[Sir John Hayes]

The key thing about this whole debate is the tension that the hon. Lady has described. Is she familiar with the rulings of Lord Denning, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Bingham and, more recently, Lord Reed, all of which directly contradict what she said about the balance between international law and laws passed by this Parliament? Does she acknowledge the truth that all those very distinguished jurists say the opposite of what she said?

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, because I had the disobliging necessity to read some of the Supreme Court judgments from Germany. Sometimes—believe me—they run to nearly 1,000 pages, for the simple reason that they are struggling to find something that will support the German people, compared with some of the rules of law that are applied more generally on an international footing, which cause them so much trouble.

As I have said—my hon. Friend has just made my point for me—the European Union is in a complete mess on the issue of illegal migration, and we are well out of it. It still has the charter of fundamental rights, which we excluded in our withdrawal agreement, and legal changes to its immigration law, all of which will require hotly contested constitutional changes and referenda in its member states. It is going to be bedevilled by referenda and constitutional change, and I fear it will not succeed. Very many are up in arms about compulsory quotas and fines for non-compliance being imposed on them under the new pact on migration and asylum, which was passed by majority vote. It is noteworthy that recently the French Government defied rulings of the Strasbourg Court regarding the deportation of an Uzbek national, but they cannot apparently trace him as ordered by their own Supreme Court—[Interruption.] In reply to the barracking I am receiving, I simply point out that the relevance of this is that we are talking about our constitution, which can solve the problem, and about theirs, which cannot.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling argument about the difference between this country and those abroad who failed to take back control when we did. He will know that constitutionalists from Dicey to Denning, and from Lord Woolf to Lord Sumption, agree with him that this place is supreme. The supremacy of Parliament is at stake as we debate his amendment and the Bill.

[Sir William Cash]

I have to say, with all humility, that it is not so much that I agree with them, or that they agree with me, but that this is the law of our land. This is the rule of law as it applies to the United Kingdom, and it is a tribute to the British people that they took that decision in 2016.

As I said to the Prime Minister in December’s Liaison Committee, he can be a world leader on the issue of illegal migration, not only in the EU, but also in the United States, Canada and Australia—every country in the world. The international refugee convention, among other conventions, is seen as requiring reform. In Europe, it is clear that they need to change the European convention on human rights as well as EU immigration law, and European Union voters are voting with their feet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I start by raising my concerns with the Government about using a Committee of the whole House for this part of the scrutiny of the Bill. We had this with the Illegal Migration Act 2023. In that case, there were hundreds of amendments and the Minister just got to speak at the end for a short time. When we are debating and scrutinising such Bills, we need to do so line by line, and we need to debate and hear the argument from the Minister and the argument from the proposers of amendments. The process we are going through does not allow Parliament to conduct that effective scrutiny that we all want to see when passing laws in this place.

Turning to the Bill, when the Home Affairs Committee published our report on channel crossings 18 months ago, we were clear about the potential problems posed by the Rwanda scheme. As I have highlighted on several occasions in this Chamber, we said that the small boat crossings are an issue on which “no magical single solution” is possible and that:

“Detailed, evidence-driven, fully costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change”.

We warned that the Government risked

“undermining its own ambitions and the UK’s international standing if it cannot demonstrate”

that the scheme was

“compatible with international law and conventions.”

We said that aspects of the scheme carried

“significant reputational risk for the UK”.

The amendments we are debating today contain provisions that are incompatible not only with the UK’s obligations under international law, but with basic principles of liberty and freedom under common law. The amendments’ implications are therefore profound and affect every single one of us. Despite what the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said, I take in all sincerity the Rwandan Government’s view on the importance of upholding legal obligations. We can conclude that some of the amendments would prove fatal to the implementation of the Bill. Indeed, yesterday, the UN Refugee Agency declared that the Rwanda treaty and this unamended Bill are

“not compatible with international refugee law.”

I will speak to amendments 2, 3, 10, 56 and 57 and then focus my comments on amendments 19 to 22. Amendments 2 and 3 would prevent any claim based on risk derived from individual circumstances being considered until the person in question had arrived in Rwanda. That would effectively exclude the very narrow possibility for suspensive claims that the Bill currently allows, and it could result in the person being exposed to the risk on which their claim is based—including claims based on fear of persecution and torture—before it is even considered. The European convention on human rights requires

“independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3”.

It also requires that the person concerned should have access to a remedy with automatic suspensive effect. The amendments would therefore be inconsistent with that requirement of the ECHR.

Amendment 10 would extend the notwithstanding provision to apply to all the Bill and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. It would effectively prevent a claimant relying on any pre-existing legal protection to prevent or delay their removal to Rwanda. The amendment would expressly allow removal to Rwanda, despite that removal otherwise breaching domestic law and despite that removal being in breach of international law. That includes fundamental human rights from which we know no exception or derogations are permitted, such as the prohibition on torture. Needless to say, the amendment is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under international law and risks undermining our international standing.

Amendments 56 and 57 would provide that courts and tribunals would not be permitted to consider a claim on the grounds that Rwanda is not a safe country where the claimant has engaged in activity or made serious allegations that have brought into question the safety of Rwanda, or colluded or conspired with others who have done the same. Worryingly, the amendment appears to exclude people who have made serious allegations about the safety of Rwanda from asylum and human rights protection. That would be inconsistent with rights to asylum and humanitarian protection under international law and could also be inconsistent with freedom of expression as guaranteed under article 10 of the ECHR.

Amendments 19 to 22 have profound implications for us all. They would prevent any individual set to be removed to Rwanda from arguing that they could not be sent there on the basis of their own circumstances. In the inevitable absence of absolute certainty that no risk to any individual could arise in Rwanda, that would mean that legitimate claims based on a real risk of persecution and human rights violations would not be heard, and that those people whose claims are unheard would be removed to face the persecution and human rights violations in Rwanda on which their claims are based. That is clearly inconsistent with the refugee convention, the ECHR and the other international legal obligations cited by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment.

Amendment 22 would prevent the courts from reviewing not only the asylum claims of individuals being sent to Rwanda, but also claims for unlawful detention, for assault in the course of removal or for discriminatory treatment in the course of the removal process. To be clear, denying those claims would be inconsistent not only with human rights law, but with fundamental principles of liberty and freedom under our common law that have been protected for centuries, including by the writ of habeas corpus. All Members who do not want to see habeas corpus sacrificed today can surely not support these amendments.

Finally, I add my support to amendments that would make sensible and logical revisions. Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to monitor whether Rwanda remains a safe country. New clause 6 places conditions

“on when the classification of Rwanda as ‘safe’ can be suspended in accordance with material conditions and/or non-compliance with obligations”.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Lady will know that under this Government and previous Governments of all political colours, many people who came here illegally have been deported from this country. When that happens, it invariably does so notwithstanding claims they make about their circumstances. Sometimes, those are claims about their personal circumstances; sometimes, those are claims about the place they are being deported to and from where they come. On the basis of her speech so far, she would deport no one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I rise to speak to amendments 28, 29 and 30 tabled in my name. Although they would amend clause 9, they relate to the operation of clause 2; hence their selection for debate today.

It is important that we focus on what clause 2 actually means, what its effect is and what the changed reality is with regard to the position in Rwanda—and, indeed, the position between the United Kingdom and Rwanda—since the decision of the Supreme Court in November and since the facts on which it based its decision, which relate to the spring and early summer of 2022. There is no doubt that matters have moved on significantly. We have not only a treaty between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, which was signed late last year, but an indication in the form of a policy document published by the Government, and indeed further information, as to the hard and fast changes that the Rwandan Government will be making to, in effect, answer the questions asked of it by the Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court decision really was not about the law; it was about the evidence. When we look at what the Supreme Court justices decided, we see that it was very much narrowed down to whether refoulement was still likely, bearing in mind the position of Rwanda. The Court decided that it was, and that is the sole reason why the policy was held to be unlawful. Other grounds were tendered in that case, including one on retained EU law. A specific ruling of the Court was that that did not apply; the law was clear that that part of retained EU law had fallen with our departure from the EU. Other aspects of the appeal were not ruled on by the Court. The decision was not, for example, based on compatibility with the ECHR. Importantly, the decision was not based on a challenge, which was upheld, to the legality of the removal of people to third countries.

In my view, it is neither illegal nor immoral to seek third-country assistance when it comes to this unprecedented challenge. Indeed, other European countries either are doing it or wish to do it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was right to say that other countries are looking to what happens here and to the precedent that we might set.

In setting precedents, we have to tread carefully. That is why the amendments that I tabled are very much focused on the factual reality and the need to ensure that Rwanda does indeed carry out its policies. When we look carefully at the policy statement, we see that particular tasks will need to be completed, including new operational training for decision makers in Rwanda—I think the latest figures show that over 100 people have now been trained to implement the deal—and the need for clear standard operating procedures with regard to the reception and accommodation arrangements for asylum seekers, the safeguarding of their welfare and access to healthcare.

Of course, there needs to be strengthened procedural oversight of the migration and economic development partnership agreed in 2022 and the asylum processes under it. That means that bodies have to be set up—the new MEDP co-ordination unit and the MEDP monitoring committee of experts. The involvement of experts is needed, certainly in the early days of the decision making to be made by the new body, which will be set up by the Government of Rwanda. There will be a new appeal body that consists of panels of three judges, with subject-matter experts, including Rwandan judges and judges from other Commonwealth jurisdictions. All those details are important, because they go towards answering the question, which I think will be answered in the affirmative: that individuals in the scheme will not be at risk of refoulement and, therefore, there will not be a breach of the 1951 convention.

That reality has to match the deeming provision. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be anxious to ensure that deeming provisions do not either perpetuate or encourage legal fictions. This is difficult law, but it is not unprecedented. Deeming provisions are used often in tax legislation. The leading authority is fairly recent: Fowler v. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs back in 2020 in the Supreme Court, in which Lord Briggs made it clear that deeming provisions creating statutory fictions should be followed as far as required for the purposes for which the deeming provision was created, but the production of unjust, absurd or anomalous results will not be encouraged. That is clearly somewhere that the courts do not wish to tread or to encourage, and neither should we as a Government or a Parliament.

We must dovetail the coming into force of the deeming provisions with the reality on the ground in Rwanda, so that we create not a statutory fiction but a series of facts reinforced by statute. That degree of care does not have to take ages—it can be done in weeks, bearing in mind the quick work that has been done already. That would go a long way to satisfying the natural concerns that many of us have about the use of such provisions. We understand why they have to be made, and we do not oppose the principle of their use, but I simply caution that we take care to make sure that we get that co-ordination right.

Many of us have been down the road of discussing ouster before, and it can take many forms. There have been examples where ouster proceedings and clauses have clearly not worked, and they are not the sole province of this Government. Previous Labour Governments tried to enact bold and sweeping ouster clauses, only to find that their efforts fell flat either before the Act became law or as a result of court intervention. I think of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, when Labour tried to be too extensive and expansive.

Experience has taught us that where we have clearly defined reasons—and, importantly, limited exceptions—ouster clauses will work. We had a recent example of that in the removal of the Cart jurisdiction in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, where my hon. and learned Friend the Minister finished the job that I started. In the consultation on the judicial review, my noble friend Lord Faulks and others embarked upon those provisions at my direction. That worked—it has been tested not just in the High Court but in the Court of Appeal in the Oceana case, and it is held to be sound and watertight. Why? Because there was a clear rationale behind it, and there were limited exceptions. Herein lies the danger posed by the otherwise well-intentioned amendments by my right hon. and hon. Friends: without those limited exceptions, we are setting the Bill up to fail. That is what history has taught us.

I am a strong believer that it is from this place that the core of our constitution comes. It is from Parliament that our constitutional authority is derived. To contradict the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who in many respects couched his remarks well, we do not have a separation of powers constitution. We have a checks and balances constitution, where each part of the body politic respects each other. I do agree with him that restraint is an important principle.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making a profound and important point about the nature of the separation of powers. There is a lot of misunderstanding about it. The separation of powers is not about equal bodies or each of those bodies performing the same role. As he describes, it is entirely a matter of the balance between those bodies. This House is the body that makes laws. Judge-made law is something he and I have debated, discussed and agreed on many times, and it is invidious because, as I said earlier, this House is supreme when it comes to making or changing law.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I entirely agree. My right hon. Friend and I are both romantic Tories of an old school, which might surprise many Members. We share that common fount of Toryism that is important to us both and, within that, we utterly respect the independence of the judiciary. It is a separate part of our constitution. To trespass upon its domain—as, sadly, in the Post Office case we have had to—is something that we do extremely reluctantly, and I hope in a very rare and unique way in that tragic and scandalous example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Where there is a will there is a way. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I do not want to detain the Committee unduly lengthily today—some would perhaps say uncharacteristically, but I really do not—[Laughter.] Self-deprecation takes you only so far in this place! I yield to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in that department.

To conclude, the Privacy International Supreme Court case from about three or four years ago is a warning. Where Governments, with good intention, try to overreach and wholly exclude a particular judicial review approach, they will often fail. In that case, we saw an inevitable consequence of a line of thinking that has gone back in our law for about 50 or so years since the Anisminic case. We have to be alive to that reality. We should not put the courts in a position where we end up with what was a highly contested case with dissenting judgments. In the end, it gives us a very important guide on how carefully we need to approach these matters.

I will not pretend that I can ever love notwithstanding clauses. I do not like them, because they create all sorts of internal conflicts. Those conflicts are not necessarily in international law—I am less interested in that; I am more interested in conflict in our own domestic law—but anything that this House does that is ambiguous, contradictory, self-contradictory or unclear serves only to draw the courts further into the realm of politics, where none of them ever want to go.

We do not have a constitutional court in this country and I hope we never, ever see one. Because of our unwritten constitution, we are able as a Parliament to legislate as we wish. But—this is the qualification—I said on Second Reading that the principle of comity, that mutual respect that needs to exist between the arms of the constitution, is one that means we need restraint and to take care when we legislate. However grave the situation might be—previous generations faced wartime challenges—we must remember that in legislating in this place, we do not protect ourselves out of the very freedoms we cherish.

At some point there will not be a Conservative Government sitting on the Treasury Benches, but a Government of another hue. I hope, having been in my party for nearly 40 years—I am much older than I look—that we do not see that day, but a day will come when we, as an Opposition, will be worried about an overweening socialist Government that will try to impose their will through the will of Parliament and will not show the restraint that we expect a democratically elected Government to show. That is why the challenges we faced during Brexit were exceptional. I do not think that, despite the maelstrom we all went through and some of the things we had to do to get that done, we should be seeking to normalise them now.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. and learned Friend is once again right that this place should not act in an arbitrary way. I mentioned Dicey earlier and he will be familiar with Dicey’s view on that subject. But in the end our legitimacy is derived from the people and we are answerable to the people. On this issue above all others, the people expect us to stand by our pledge and to stop the boats.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that we are not just another public agency. This is Parliament and this place has a particular status, position, responsibility and privilege—that word privilege that he and I know and cherish so much in its true sense—that means we are absolutely at the core of our democracy and our constitution. But it is also our responsibility to make sure that the legislation we pass works. I know that he and my hon. Friends who are supporting the amendments want this law to work—I absolutely accept that—but I say in all candour and frankness that I genuinely think the amendments they have tabled will make it less likely. I do not say that with any pleasure; I say it with a heavy heart. History has taught us that where, despite good intention, we end up being too expansive and we overreach, the check and the balance that exists in our constitution will then apply. All that we will do is end up having the sort of arguments about the constitution—not arcane to me, but arcane to many people—which, while important, do not solve the problem, and do not deal with the issue that is facing us as a people.

That is why I urge the Government today to ensure that the intention in the treaty becomes a reality, that Rwanda does what it says it is going to do so that we can avoid refoulement, and that we focus on the practicalities and also avoid more unnecessary legal clash. If I may paraphrase Matthew Arnold, ignorant armies clashing by night is something that we as Conservatives should seek to avoid at all costs.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

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

[Robert Jenrick]

It seems as if we are having a dialogue of the deaf, because that is not what I said at all. I said that the debate about the European convention is for another day, but the hon. Gentleman is saying that the decision of the Strasbourg Court in 2005 to confer upon itself, without seeking the consent of any of the signatories to the convention, the ability to impose binding interim injunctions on other countries is the right way forward and, indeed, that those injunctions should be able to be made at the eleventh hour, in the middle of the night, without giving reasons, without asking for our arguments and without even naming the judge behind the ruling. That poses very serious rule-of-law questions and is a reason why conventions such as the ECHR are increasingly out of step.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, right that it contradicts the long-established custom and practice that was the accepted basis for the rule of law in this country. He cites Lord Sumption and Lord Woolf, but he might also have cited the constitutionalist A. V. Dicey who, long ago, supported by Lord Denning and many others after, established that the relationship between the rule of law and this place is that a polity can make and change laws because it has the legitimacy to do so, conferred on it by the people. Frankly, that means this House is supreme. That in no way underestimates the significance of international agreements and treaties, but it affirms the significance and sovereignty of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes]

The shadow Minister makes a good point about co-operation. He is right that the only way to tackle the problem is through a suite of measures under an umbrella policy but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) just described, an important part of that is deterrence. The brand and the marketing message of the criminal gangs is that people will get to Britain and never leave. Sadly, that has too often been the case, has it not?

--- Later in debate ---

Few in this House are as familiar as I am with the vagaries and complexities of international law. If international law means anything, surely it must mean that it does not lie in the hands of any individual nation state—even this one—to determine its own compliance with it. Were it otherwise, international law would not really be international, and it would certainly serve no purpose in containing bad behaviour, as we sometimes ask it to do.

[Sir John Hayes]

I work closely with my right hon. and learned Friend in a number of ways, as he knows, and I am well aware that he is a former Attorney General. If he were right that it is not for the Government or this House to determine whether measures are compliant, why on earth would they seek and get the Attorney General’s advice on just that?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My right hon. Friend knows that the Attorney General is consulted on a variety of different legal questions, both domestic and international. He would not expect me to disclose any of the advice I have previously given, but I can tell him that the Attorney General does give advice on whether the Government’s actions may or may not be in compliance with international law, but neither the Attorney General, nor, I think the Government, expects to be the ultimate arbiter of that question. The advice is given as to whether it is likely that that action would be in compliance with the law. I will come in a moment to what I think the Bill and the Government can properly do in relation to international law responsibilities, but it seems to me that what they cannot properly do is set themselves up as judge in their own cause on questions of international law. This House would be wrong to pass a Bill that suggested that they could. That is really where my amendments are focused.

As I say, there is a good practical reason why we should be nervous about this: because we do sometimes rely on international law to discharge our own policy intents and purposes. Not more than 48 hours ago in this place, we were doing exactly that. We were saying that it is important to criticise the actions of the Houthis in the Red sea because they contravene principles of international law. We were saying too that we justify our own response to that because it is in accordance with the principles of international law, and quite right, too. We would not have accepted the Houthis’ unilateral declaration that they were in compliance with international law when they did what they did, nor should we have, and we would not of course accept a Russian legislative Act to say that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was in compliance with Russia’s international law responsibilities.

Let me make it clear that I am not, of course, suggesting that what the Government have in mind here is in any way comparable to those two examples, but it seems that the point here is that to arrogate to oneself the right to declare one’s own compliance with international law runs the risk of, first, other states finding comfort in our example and, secondly, undermining our own messages in other situations. That makes this not just bad law, but bad foreign policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I certainly will not be supporting the other notwithstanding clauses in the Bill, but I felt that it was perhaps time that we had one that benefited Scotland for a change.

My amendments are designed to protect Scotland’s courts and constitutional tradition. They are there to ensure that asylum seekers in Scotland might still enjoy the protection of the courts from the infringement of their fundamental rights. That is what people in Scotland want, and it has been expressed repeatedly through the Scottish Parliament. I am, of course, a Scottish MP and a member of the Scottish Bar, and I am here to do what I can to protect Scotland and its legal system from the extraordinary attack on human rights and the rule of law that this Bill constitutes.

However, I am not a Scottish exceptionalist. I recognise that—as reflected in the House of Commons Library’s excellent legal briefing on the Bill, and indeed in the speech that preceded mine, by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam—concerns about the impact of the Bill on the rule of law and the constitution are shared by many in England, including many lawyers. For every lawyer cited by Conservative Members in favour of the Bill and the draconian amendments to it, they will find two lawyers who disagree.

The Library briefing, which is an excellent summary of the different legal views on the Bill, concludes:

“Tension between the sovereignty of Parliament to legislate, and the role of the courts in enforcing the rule of law principle that executive bodies must exercise their powers within their statutory limits, may be tempered by restraint on both sides. If either the courts or Parliament ceased to exercise such restraint, significant constitutional uncertainty could result.”

I believe that if we pass the Bill, this Parliament will have ceased to exercise the restraint referred to there—it would be a major departure from such restraint. I predict that, if the Bill passes, we will see what might be an unprecedented constitutional challenge to an Act of the British Parliament.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. and learned Lady is making a good point about the checks and balances that prevent arbitrary power, and she is right that that is central to our constitutional settlement, but this is not the exercise of arbitrary power, because the Bill, and the amendments to it, are quite specific about their provisions. For example, in the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), our separation from the international obligations that I know she holds so dear is very specific to this particular legislation. That is not arbitrary—it is anything but.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Bill seeks to carve out a group of people coming to our country, or who are in our country, from the protections that the rest of us enjoy. History shows us that that sort of legislation can put a state on a pretty slippery slope. That brings me to my arguments in relation to clauses 3 and 5 stand part.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has not yet had the chance to complete legislative scrutiny of the Bill given the speed with which it has passed through the House, so we have not as a Committee reached a concluded view on the Bill. However, before Christmas and before Second Reading, a Chair’s briefing paper referring to the legal advice that the Committee had received was published, and it is extensively referred to in the excellent legal commentary published by the House of Commons Library.

The briefing says, inter alia, that the disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 in clause 3 is very significant. As I indicated a moment ago in my answer to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), human rights are meant to offer a fundamental level of protection for every person on the basis of their humanity alone. As our Committee has noted in a previous report, if those protections are disapplied when they cause problems for a policy goal, they lose their fundamental and universal character. Arguably, that is especially the case when they are disapplied in respect of a particular group. In this case, fundamental human rights are being disapplied in respect of migrants who come to the United Kingdom without prior permission.

Bills that disapply parts of the Human Rights Act are not unprecedented under this Government, I am sad to say. Both the Illegal Migration Act and the Victims and Prisoners Bill have sought to disapply section 3 of the Human Rights Act in respect of certain legislation. However, this Bill seeks to disapply section 6 of that Act—the obligation on public authorities to act compatibly with human rights—which has never before been attempted, even by this Government, and represents a significant inroad into human rights protections. If we pass the Bill with clause 3 in it, it will effectively mean that this Parliament is authorising public authorities to breach human rights. That is an awful long way from what this Parliament intended when it passed the Human Rights Act, and what the United Kingdom intended when it signed up to the convention.

As we heard at some length yesterday, as a result of parliamentary sovereignty, if we pass the Bill, breaching human rights would be in accordance with our domestic law. However, it would still violate the UK’s obligations under the convention, because we cannot unilaterally change what the convention says. Also, as the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has noted in its briefing on the Bill, if we disapply the Human Rights Act in the manner proposed, we are also breaching article 13 of the convention, which entitles people to an effective remedy.

I am afraid to say that the amendments to clause 3 tabled by the right hon. Member for Newark, who is no longer in his place, would make the situation even worse. His amendments 11 and 12 appear to extend the disapplication of the Human Rights Act to anything done under the Illegal Migration Act that relates to the removal of a person to Rwanda. That could potentially mean that the detention of people awaiting removal to Rwanda and their treatment prior to their removal would not be protected under the Human Rights Act. Is that what this Parliament really wants to legislate for?

Additionally, the right hon. Member for Newark wants to extend clause 3 to disapply section 4 of the Human Rights Act. As it stands, that clause does not disapply section 4; if the clause remains as it is when the Bill becomes law, it would be open to a court in future to declare that it is not compatible with the convention. That would be through a declaration only: it would not affect the ongoing function of the Bill, or allow removals to Rwanda to be prevented or delayed, but this Parliament and the Government would have to decide whether any changes to the law should be made. If we amend the Bill to disapply section 4 of the Human Rights Act, again, that would be something that has never been done before, and would further restrict the jurisdiction of our courts in saying to the Government and the public what their view is on the law’s compatibility with human rights.

Finally, I also believe that clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill. We have heard a lot today about Conservative Members’ concern about interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights. The reality is that, no matter what this legislation ends up saying, it can only affect domestic law. In respect of the ECHR in particular, the UK will remain bound by the convention as a matter of international law. Indeed, even if this Government—God forbid—were to exercise the nuclear option of withdrawing us from the convention, thereby putting us in bed with Russia and Belarus, we would remain bound for a further six months after withdrawal takes place. I hope they will bear that in mind.

At the moment, clause 5 says that only a Minister can decide whether to comply with interim measures, and that the domestic courts should ignore them. It remains to be seen what a Minister would do, but we all know that the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he would not let a foreign court—to use his words—prevent flights taking off, which indicates that interim measures may be ignored. As I said earlier, in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Newark, interim measures are made under rule 39 of the Court’s rules of procedure. They do not form part of the text of the convention ratified by the UK, but when we ratified that convention, we signed up to the idea that the European Court of Human Rights is the body that determines its meaning, and since the 2005 case that the right hon. Member mentioned, it has held consistently that failing to comply with interim measures amounts to a breach of article 34.

Interim measures are fundamental to any court—they are issued to protect the position of an individual while their legal rights are determined. All this fuss about people in their pyjamas in the middle of the night is very silly. Judges in the United Kingdom, both in the English jurisdiction and in the Scottish jurisdiction, are regularly got out of their bed in the middle of the night to issue interim injunctions in England and interim interdicts in Scotland. It is a standard part of any legal system, and many of the concerns that Conservative Members have expressed about those interim measures have now been addressed by the Court in the reforms it is proposing.

Any decision of a Minister not to comply with an interim measure would be inconsistent with our obligations under the ECHR. That means that if we let clause 5 stand part of the Bill, we will expressly authorise British Government Ministers to act in breach of international law. That is the reality, and I note that according to The Times, that is the advice that has reportedly been given to the Government by the Attorney General and by the Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), when he was Solicitor General. That does not surprise me at all; it should not surprise anyone, because any legal undergraduate would be able to tell them that. As such, in so far as amendments 23 to 25 state that interim measures are not binding, that is inaccurate as a matter of law, and we must understand that they would put the UK directly in conflict with our international legal obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct, and he and I would probably have very happily argued the UK’s case in Strasbourg on those grounds, so let us be realistic about what we are fighting against. With respect, a bit of an Aunt Sally has been set up because steps are already being taken to deal with the objectionable matters relating to rule 39s, but the principle of them is not itself objectionable.

Secondly, with respect, the characterisation of a “foreign court” is not helpful in these circumstances, because it implies something alien, which it is not the case for international law as a concept or for the Court itself. The fact that it happens to meet in a different place from the UK is inevitable because it has to meet somewhere. We should bear in mind that not only was the UK one of the driving powers behind the creation of the convention in the first place, behind the Court itself and behind much of the jurisprudence of the Court, but the UK does actually have shared ownership of the Court, along with all the other member states.

That is demonstrated not just in the treaty, but in practical ways. For example, the British members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—Members of this House and the other place—have a role in the appointment of the judges of the Court. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I served at one time on the sub-committee of the Assembly that dealt with that process, and I like to think that we did so diligently, so there is involvement in that process. A British judge always sits on the Court and is a member of the Court. Judge Tim Eicke, the current judge, is a very distinguished international lawyer, and we are very lucky to have him. Two of the recent registrars of the Court, who run its administration, have been British lawyers, and British lawyers appear regularly in cases before the Court.

This is not an alien body; it is a Court of which we have joint ownership. It is our Court, along with that of all the other member states of the convention, and it is wrong to mischaracterise it as something alien. Certainly, in all international matters, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it operates on a different plane, but the tone of comments about its alienness is, with respect, both inaccurate and somewhat offensive. It is also unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill anyway, and that is the point I want to come on to in relation to rule 39.

The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark are otiose. They are unnecessary and, frankly, would make a difficult situation worse. As a matter of law, an interim measure under rule 39 is an indication made to the Government of the member state. It is not made to the courts of the member state; it is conveyed to the Government of the member state concerned. Therefore, it is for the members of the Government of the member state—the Ministers—to decide what to do about it.

I personally take the view that we should be very loth indeed to ignore the findings of the Court on an interim matter. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West rightly said, it runs the risk of putting us in breach of our international law obligation in that regard. However, the truth is that it is a political decision that the Ministers can take. So what the Bill in its current formulation states is actually no more than a statement of the law as it stands, and we probably do not need clause 5 in the Bill. I am not going to die in a ditch over that, because it is simply stating what the law is already, but, equally, there is absolutely no need for the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark to put bells and whistles on otioseness, if I can put it that way.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend as he is describing not so much the separation of powers as the desiccation of power. However, on the specific point he made about his reticence or reluctance not to abide by the advice of the Court—he said Ministers could do that, but he would not—would he on that basis not have done what the noble Lord Cameron did as Prime Minister when he resisted the overtures from the Court to give prisoners votes?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I would make two points about that. In fact, I supported the noble Lord Cameron in that regard because it was a political decision. It is also worth looking at the practical politics. Although we were for a period of time at variance with the Court, no harm was done to the polity of the United Kingdom in that regard. No harm was done to the interests of the United Kingdom and no terrible international consequence for us flowed from it. I think the Court got it wrong on that occasion, and one of the problems is that there is no appeal system in the Strasbourg Court, so we have to wait until some future decision goes a different way. I think many of us take the view that, in reality, the Court as currently constituted in Strasbourg—it is perhaps less activist, if I may say so, than its predecessors—might well have found differently in the prisoner voting case. However, the fact was that UK Ministers took the decision, and they did what was right in the UK, which was supported by those in all parts of the House, and no harm was done. So the idea that some terrible consequence will flow for the UK because of the ability to seek rule 39 interim measures is just misplaced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman where we have a problem with a foreign court. In that scenario, when English courts had refused injunctions by the migrants to get off the flight, the foreign court overrode English judges, overrode the will of the Government and overrode the will of the British people to control our borders and stop the boats. That is the problem with a foreign court, and that is the problem that we are trying to fix.

When that flight was grounded in June 2022, it was because of rule 39 interim injunctions. Those orders are not contained in the European convention on human rights, and they are not a product or a content of the original convention. They are a creation of the Strasbourg court and the Strasbourg judges, and they have evolved over time pursuant to the living instrument doctrine that is espoused by the Strasbourg court and that has inflated and expanded its remit over decades, beyond anything conceived by the original drafters or any intention set out in the original versions of the European convention.

I believe that no one here disagrees with the aspirations and the content of the European convention on human rights. I do not disagree with anything set out in that document, which contains noble, vital and fundamental human rights that we are all proud to defend fervently and fiercely: against oppressive regimes; against authoritarianism; against genocide; against mass killings; and against some of the worst atrocities history has seen. That is the context of the European convention’s genesis.

To respond to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the problem we are dealing with is the Court. It is the Court that has become politicised. It is the Court that has become interventionist. It is the Court that does not follow the traditional common-law rules of precedent to which the English courts subscribe. The Strasbourg Court and its judges have distorted the original European convention on human rights into something that bears no reflection to its original intention.

That has been exacerbated by Labour’s Human Rights Act. In recent decades we have seen a rights culture and litigiousness around immigration, asylum and many other areas. Public sector decision making has been stymied, thwarted and undermined by a heavily resourced, activist legal industry that is undermining Government decision making, stymying policy making and undermining law enforcement and public safety.

I have a few examples. Take the case of OO, a Nigerian national who was sentenced in 2016 to four years in prison for offences including possession of crack cocaine and heroin with intent to supply. He pleaded guilty to battery and assault in 2017. Those are serious offences. In 2020, the first-tier tribunal allowed his appeal against deportation on the grounds that he had very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria that outweighed the public interest in his deportation. Despite the seriousness of his offending, and despite the risk he posed to the public, his article 8 rights, interpreted in a vastly elastic way—a distorted, illogical way—operated to stop him being deported.

Article 3 was invoked in the case of D v. UK. We can all agree with article 3, which prohibits torture and inhumane or degrading treatment but, in this case of a non-UK national who was convicted of dealing drugs, the Strasbourg court held that the effect of discontinuing his medical treatment, available in the UK but not in his destination country, amounted to inhumane or degrading treatment under article 3. Why should a convicted drug dealer be entitled to public services here and not be deported?

[Sir John Hayes]

Surely on that basis almost any deportation could be blocked, for few countries in the world can match the standard of our NHS, and once that precedent has been set every person will claim that they require treatment for the most minor of ailments.

[Suella Braverman]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that point. Article 3, and a stretched interpretation of it originating in the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, by politicised judges pursuing a political agenda, has led to a perception that here in the UK we have an international health service, not a national health service.

Lastly, let us consider the case of AM (Zimbabwe) in 2022, thanks to which it has now become law that states that want to remove someone have to prove that medical facilities available to the deportee in their home country would remove any real risk that their lifespan would be shortened by their removal from NHS facilities. That is exactly the point that my right hon. Friend has made: the UK Government now have a duty to establish that foreign health services are sufficient before we deport people who may well pose a risk to public safety and, in some cases, national security in this country.

Those are the overall problems with the Court—not the convention, but the Court. Rule 39 is another symptom of the problem that we have with the Court and the judges, which is why the amendment is vital. It will make it clear that rule 39 orders are not binding and that it will be for the UK Government to make the decision on deportation, not a foreign court—an unidentified judge somewhere far away who does not have the same ambition or aspiration as this UK Government to stop the boats. That is why I will support the amendment enthusiastically today.

Let me conclude by saying that this is our last chance to fix this problem. We have stretched the patience of the British people. This comes down to a simple but profound question: who governs Britain? Is it us, the democratically elected representatives who have been directly sent here on behalf of the British people, on a clear mandate and with a clear instruction of what to do, and whose laws are passed by a clear and transparent majority, to which we can all be held to account at the ballot box? Or is it an opaque forum many miles away, in a different country, that is distant, outsourced, foreign and does not share our values—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The debate on the Government side of the Chamber, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, is not on a difference in aims or ends; it is about the means to those ends. Government Members want to travel to the same destination; what we are debating is the journey to get there. So let us not exaggerate the differences between us. I know that the Minister shares that view. We have engaged with him and hope to continue to do so, even at this late stage, to improve the Bill and realise the delivery of those intentions—the journey to that end.

We have to do so, because mass migration is perhaps the biggest existential crisis facing this country. I do not say that blithely—unfortunately, people say things in this Chamber as though they were definitive and use all kinds of superlatives; indeed, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has made a brand out of that, as we heard earlier. That view would be shared by a large number of my constituents and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham also said, it is now widely shared in other countries. The Bill and the amendments to it therefore affect our constituents directly and personally, contrary to the contribution of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who claimed that it is a distraction. Far from it; we cannot absorb into this country the number of people who are coming as a consequence of both legal and illegal migration in a short period of time without a devastating effect on public services, a displacement effect on investment in the skills of our own people, a displacement effect on the need to reform welfare and, beyond all that, the ability to integrate those incoming people into cohesive societies in which we all share a common sense of belonging.

In dealing with the amendments, we need to be realistic about the scale of the problem and the British public’s view of that problem. They know that the vast majority of people arriving here on small boats—about 75%—are men under 40. By the way, about nine out of 10 arriving are male, which is far from the picture painted by some of the critics of the Government and our policy. They know, too, that large numbers of those people are not genuine asylum seekers but economic migrants. That truth is so evident to the electors of this country that they look with bemusement at this place where it is not widely recognised. We hear speech after speech—from Opposition Members in particular, I must say—that seems to be either ignorant of those facts or unwilling to face them.

[Alison Thewliss]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady is the first or the second, but I happily give way to her.

[Alison Thewliss]

Perhaps the right hon. Member would like to correct the record. Most people who come on small boats are in fact refugees, because the Home Office grants them that status. They are not economic migrants as they do not get economic migrant status; they get refugee status.

[Sir John Hayes]

What we certainly know about them all is that before they got here they have travelled through safe countries—more than one in many cases—and failed to claim asylum. The hon. Lady is right that we are probably too lax in how we process claims. Certainly, we offer asylum to more applicants than France. On average, we grant a higher proportion of asylum claims than most European countries.

We know, too, that the failure to remove those people costs the British taxpayer an immense amount of money. When I looked at the figures, I was staggered. The cost of asylum is now £3.97 billion. It is extraordinary that a single matter should cost so much. The need for the Bill is justified alone on the basis that we can no longer afford to deal with the current scale of illegal migration. We simply cannot afford for it to continue, as the British sense of fair play has been tested to its limits. The public see that, and they are increasingly disillusioned by the apparent inability and unwillingness of the political elite in this country—we are the political elite, like it or not—to accept the facts.

Progress has been made in clearing the backlog, largely as a result of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman). During their stewardship of the Home Office, they focused resources on processing claims more quickly and had considerable success in doing so. But the problem is that as fast as we process people, more arrive.

Until we deal with the root of the problem, we can never really tackle the cost I described nor the disillusion felt by our constituents. That is why the Prime Minister pledged to stop the boats. In order to do so, we need an Act that is as effective as possible. The amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark, which I strongly support, would ensure just that. Amendments 11 to 18 deal in particular with the Human Rights Act 1998. Taken together, they would fully disapply the Act from the Bill and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, particularly in relation to removals to Rwanda.

A lot of nonsense was spoken earlier about rights; indeed, a lot of nonsense prevails in this House about rights. Rights are fundamentally important. We believe in the essential rights that characterise our country: the right to a fair trial; the right to go about one’s business freely and unimpaired; the right not to be arrested without cause; the right to vote in free and fair elections. Those are important parts of what it is to be British, but they do not spring from the ether. They are not a given—it is a liberal myth that rights are natural. Rights are the product of decent Governments in decent places doing the right thing. They are special because we have chosen them, not because they were given to us by some ethereal source. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), whom I like and respect, will know, because he knows scripture even better than me, that rights do not get a mention in the ten commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps he can find a part in either of those to contradict me.

[Tim Farron]

I did not mean to intervene, but the right hon. Gentleman has tempted me. This is not a liberal thing, as many Conservatives ought to support it. I do not believe there is any case for human rights having any standing whatsoever without some form of metaphysical. He is quite right to say that the Bible does not talk about rights; it talks about individual duties. If I have duties to him, he therefore has rights. I do not believe that rights are made up by human beings; they are literally God-given.

[Sir John Hayes]

My opinion of the hon. Gentleman has soared to an even greater height. I knew he was the best of liberals—that is not a great thing to be, by the way, but it is better than nothing—and he has confirmed it in that pithy intervention.

The crucial point about amendments 11 to 18 is that they rule out using sections 4 and 7 of the Human Rights Act. We know from experience that the good intentions of Governments, backed up by legislation passed in this place, have been routinely frustrated by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham rightly described as activist lawyers abroad, and, I would add, dodgy lawyers in this country and deluded pressure groups; it is not just malevolent foreigners, but malevolent people here, too. I say to the Minister that the only way we will effect the policy is if we do not allow that kind of gaming of our system by those who come here. I entirely accept that there are among them people whom we should of course welcome. Of course there are people fearing persecution, and of course we should be proud of the fact that we provide a safe haven for people in desperate need—we always have and we always will—but people who are legitimate applicants for asylum are being effectively compromised by a system that does not adequately distinguish them from the very people I have described as gaming our far too lax system.

The Bill is an opportunity to put that right, but only if it is fit for purpose. The amendments are not designed to frustrate the Minister’s intentions or to allow the Prime Minister’s pledge to fail. On the contrary, they are designed to make his pledge real: to allow it to be effected. For if the amendments are not accepted by the Government, I fear the Bill will do just that: fail and disappoint the very people to whom we made that pledge to stop the boats.

Section 4 of the Human Rights Act deals with declarations of incompatibility and section 10, as I described it, deals with remedial measures. As it stands, they are not excluded by the Bill. That means that unamended, the Bill will allow a court to issue a declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR, which would effectively kill the Rwanda scheme. The Minister must know that that is a possibility at least—we would argue a probability —but even if it is a possibility, why would he not want to exclude that possibility?

[Robert Jenrick]

Perhaps I could just elaborate on the point my right hon. Friend is making. What is most likely to happen were the amendment not to be accepted by this place is that on Royal Assent someone will bring a case seeking a declaration of incompatibility for the Bill. That will then go through the courts. If the Supreme Court were then to rule, ultimately, that the Bill was incompatible with the Human Rights Act, it would then be up to this House and Parliament to determine what to do. But if the Prime Minister is correct that the Government of Rwanda would not wish to be a party to any scheme that was in breach of international law, the scheme would be dead.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend explains exactly the point I was making. The intentions of the Bill are put at risk by the failure to close the loophole. It is just that: an opportunity for people to exploit, in exactly the way he says, the absence of provisions that would strengthen, or in the Prime Minister’s word tighten, the Bill sufficiently to avoid such an eventuality.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

All the British people expect is real fairness and hearings with real judges. We have been speaking about the European Court of Human Rights. Is it not the case that many who are appointed to that Strasbourg Court have never even been lawyers—they are not qualified—let alone judges? Often, they are academics, civil servants or even politicians. More recently, as time has gone on, they have been human rights activists. These non-lawyers are often guided by non-governmental organisations, who even help to draft their judgments. They are what Lord Sumption has described as “ideologically committed staff lawyers”. Why should we in this place and in this wonderful country be subservient to that notion of international justice? Make laws here—that is what our people want.

[Sir John Hayes]

In that pithy intervention, my hon. Friend has described much of the fundamental problem of allowing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) described as a foreign court with foreign judges to determine outcomes that directly affect the interests of this country.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will my right hon. Friend give way, on that point?

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) advanced so many compelling arguments in her intervention that I want to deal with all of them before I give way to my right hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

People talk about the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg as if it were rather like our own Supreme Court or that of the United States but, as I said earlier, I am a member of the Council of Europe, so I know exactly how these judges are appointed. We in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe appoint them: it is the one power that we have. We are given three names, and we have very little information about who those people are, but it is undoubtedly true—there is evidence of this—that more and more of them are not, like our judges, distinguished lawyers and judges; they are, for instance, human rights lawyers and academics. What is worse about the process is that, unlike our judges, they are not appointed through an independent process. The political groups in the Parliamentary Assembly, dominated by the socialists and the federalist Christian Democrats, join together to appoint the most federalist pro-European judge.

[Sir John Hayes]

It is that to which I was alluding. The separation that exists in this country between the judiciary and the legislature in the political process and the process of justice simply does not apply in many of the other countries in Europe, and it certainly does not apply further afield. There is a problem of the politicisation of the courts and also, as I said earlier, there is a problem of quality, both of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.

Secondly, there is an issue of accountability. The point about law in this country is that it is made in this place. The reason why that is so significant is that this place derives its legitimacy from elections—democratic and fair elections. We were empowered to make laws in this Parliament because we were accountable and answerable to the people. As soon as we subsume that accountability into some pan-national arrangement, especially the kind outlined in my hon. Friend’s intervention, we weaken this House, and by weakening this House we weaken the people who send us here. That is partly why their view of the world is so at odds with what I described earlier as the political elite, although what I really mean is the bourgeois liberal elite who dominate far too much of the establishment in all its elements.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

There is a bourgeois liberal incarnate!

[Sir John Hayes]

I exclude the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. He is liberal but he is not bourgeois—at least, as far as I am aware.

[Tim Farron]

I am not.

[Sir John Hayes]

He definitely is not.

The amendments that disapply the Human Rights Act are fundamental to the Bill’s success. May I just say as an aside—it is, of course, entirely relevant to the Bill, Sir Roger—that we should, in government, from 2010 onwards, have got rid of the Human Rights Act anyway? It is a Blair construction, through the prism of which all legislation now seems to be seen. It is a very damaging statute that has stymied much of the work of subsequent Governments.

Amendments 23 to 25, taken together, would prevent the notorious rule 39 injunctions—the so-called last-minute pyjama injunctions—which emanate from Strasbourg. These amendments would ensure that the default position was that rule 39 indications were not binding and this was explicitly a matter for Ministers. The Government’s own legal advice has made it clear that without amendment to the Bill, flights may be grounded yet again. Ministers will indeed have the opportunity to introduce exceptions, but will not be bound to do so. The Bill must be amended so that Ministers can disregard rule 39 orders. We really cannot allow Strasbourg judges to overrule this Parliament and halt flights. Decisions must be taken by those elected in Westminster, not by courts in Europe. This is what the people expect of us; it is what the people demand of us.

The Bill may block claims about the general state of Rwanda, but it will still permit individual claims, which will block removal unless such individual claims are explicitly excluded. We know that spurious cases are used to frustrate removal, and thus the legislation will have no teeth. The Minister knows that these things go on for days and weeks and months. These cases are never resolved quickly, and time is short. Consequently, the Government must surely acknowledge that, at the very least, the flights that they, and we, regard as a necessary part of dealing with the scourge of illegal immigration will be delayed.

The amendment will block individual claims and suspensive claims, limiting such claims to exceptional circumstances. There are circumstances, perhaps when a seriously ill person cannot travel, that should be accepted—I hope we would all agree with that—but those will be rare cases. The Home Office has already correctly excluded families, children and pregnant women, but those circumstances are incredibly unlikely, given what I have said about the profile of those people arriving in small boats being overwhelmingly fit men under the age of 40.

This is the third migration Bill in recent times. It is our third and final chance, as others have said, to deliver on our promise to the British people to stop the boats and control our borders. If we fail to strengthen the Bill in the way that these amendments do, it will simply not work, and if we fail to make the Bill work, we will fail the British people. We will have broken our promise to them. Thousands more people will make risky journeys in perilous conditions and our hotels will remain full of those awaiting judgments at enormous cost. The British people will regard this as a failure that is rooted here in this House and in this Government.

The Minister is a good man and a diligent Minister and I am sure he understands the thrust of the arguments that have been made in the Committee today. He will know that, in the end, this is about a fundamental crisis of democratic efficacy: the ability of a nation state to deliver for its people. The greatest Conservative Prime Minister of all time, Benjamin Disraeli, said that

“justice is truth in action.”—[Official Report, 11 February 1851; Vol. 114, c. 412.]

This issue is a matter of justice—legal justice and social justice. It is for that reason that the British people want to see the boats stopped. They simply regard it as unjust that our borders are being breached with impunity.

If the elected Government of the United Kingdom cannot remove people who arrive here without permission, a more troubling and profound question must be asked. Who governs our country? My constituents want the Government they elect and the Parliament they vote for to determine who governs Britain. Only by improving this Bill and by delivering the Prime Minister’s mission of stopping the boats can we answer that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are intolerable pressures being placed on this country through mass legal migration and illegal migration. It is right that more and more of my constituents are seeing the link between that issue and pressure on public services, strains on social cohesion and other things. Immigration at sustainable levels with integration is a force for good. Immigration at unsustainable levels without integration causes intolerable troubles for the people of this country. That is something they want to guard against.

[Sir John Hayes]

That view is held not just by my hon. Friend, by many in the House and by many in the country, but by many countries in Europe. Mass migration is now seen as an issue of salience by countries right across Europe and the wider world. He is far from alone: he is speaking for the people.

[Tom Hunt]

We have heard lots of arguments about the ECHR and about Winston Churchill forming it. That has been defeated time and again but continues to be wheeled out by Opposition Members. I do not agree. I do not think for a moment that if Winston Churchill was alive today, he would be comfortable with the way in which today’s ECHR operates and its supranational nature.

Ultimately, I applaud the Prime Minister’s desire to stop the boats, but it is not enough just to try, and it is not enough to be just 80% or 90% of the way there. We need to be 100% of the way there. We have seen previously that any chinks in the armour of any Bill designed to tackle this issue will be ruthlessly exploited. We share the Prime Minister’s desire and we want to work with him to get a Bill that we can all unite behind to stop the boats.

Immigration is not just an important issue. I honestly believe that it has become an existential issue. Ultimately, it is important that we unite behind the Bill, but it needs to work. The question is: do we think that the Bill will work or not? Do we think it can be strengthened? For all those reasons, I will vote for the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark with a certain degree of pride. I believe in the sovereignty of this country, I believe in listening to the people of this country, and I believe in narrowing the unhealthy disconnect there is between the views of the majority of people on immigration and where we are at the moment.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for again making a powerful argument about the sovereignty of Parliament, and he will understand why the sovereignty of Parliament is so fundamental. In democratic polity, Parliament speaks for the people and is given legitimacy by the people, and lawmakers here are answerable to the people. International obligations and treaties matter, but they do not matter more than the people’s will.

[Sir William Cash]

I am bound to say, with no disrespect to the noble Lords, who passed this amendment with a majority of 102, that they do not have that legitimacy because constitutionally they are unelected; that is a fundamental point that needs to be taken into account. They have a function to perform, but it is our intention and the Government’s clear, stated objective, to overturn the amendment. The issue goes much further and deeper, in my opinion, than just the question of the Rwanda Bill, but it is in the Bill. In my 40 years in this place, or in my constitutional legal practice beforehand, I have never seen any statute that purports to include words that are so all-embracing as the words in the amendment. I do not know who devised the amendment but, with a majority of 102, we had better look to our merits and make quite sure that we turn it down.

The people who are behind amendment 1 are internationalists. That worries me, too. There is a cohort of internationalists in various Government Departments: the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in particular. Being a mere Back Bencher, I am more than happy to castigate those who want to internationalise the sovereignty of our country. I had a bit of trouble—a local difficulty, as one might say—over our leaving the European Union. These internationalists wanted us to be part and parcel of this great European Union, and I have never been happier in my life than on 23 June 2016, when we decided to reject the proposals, as I had been arguing for—shall we say, for a year or two?

The European Union itself is in a terrible bind over the global problem of illegal migration. I have not yet discovered what Germany will do about its own constitution in this respect. It is not just the European Union but the United States of America—day in, day out we see the problems they face on the Texas border. It is beyond imagination. What that country is trying to do about the numbers of people flowing in raises all the same kind of questions on the international refugee convention. This issue affects not just the United Kingdom, but we are taking a stand. I say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that by rejecting the amendment we will enhance our international reputation—by using our unwritten constitution to make it clear that what the people want and what the principles of common sense demand is that we just cannot allow illegal migration to overtake our entire national interest.

I have been to Madrid for a summit of the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of the Parliaments of the European Union, as the British representative and Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I hope to go back again in a few weeks’ time. There was sheer consternation at the last conference, which is comprised of the chairmen of the European affairs or scrutiny committees of the 27 member states; they were appalled by the proposal by a majority vote to accept quotas and compulsory fines if they were to have any sensible arrangement in the European Union, which they cannot have because it is inconsistent with their constitutional arrangements. It is inconsistent with the charter of fundamental rights. That is why we need to focus on the European convention on human rights in this particular context. I am not going to make a speech about that, because that would be outside the terms of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

It is a pleasure to speak in this very important debate, which is about defeating these awful amendments from the House of Lords and then getting the Bill through Parliament, the flights off to Rwanda and the wheels down in Kigali. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) claimed that Labour supported the Lords amendments not in order to wreck the Bill, but to help it along and make it better. Yet we also heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), speaking from the SNP Front Bench, that they want to upset the Bill. These are clearly wrecking amendments—there are no ifs or buts about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), in his rejection of Lords amendment 1, made clear the dangerous precedent it would set—not just for this Bill but for all Bills—for the supremacy and primacy of this House, and that is the first thing we need to reflect on properly. This Parliament is sovereign. The House of Commons is sovereign. By taking that sovereignty away from us, we upset everything. Lords amendment 1 talks about compliance with the rule of law. How can it be against the rule of law when the democratically elected body of this House wants something, and the free and independent sovereign country of Rwanda wants something? By rejecting the amendment, we will enhance our sovereignty and the Bill.

It is clear that the Bill is needed, but why is it so needed and why is it essential that we stop these wrecking amendments? For far too long we have had far too many illegal immigrants coming into our country. Those illegal immigrants, who are jumping the queue by going outside the rules and regulations on how they should come into our country, are making it harder and harder for people in this country. The Bill is necessary, needed and proportionate. Illegal immigrants are putting a huge strain on public services. They are putting a huge strain on the things that everyday people use: doctors, GP services, schools. The human cost of people being killed as they travel across the channel needs to stop. The financial cost to residents in Rother Valley and across our areas needs to be curtailed. The amendments try to wreck the Bill, and that is why we need to double down.

For some reason, we have had a lot of debate about how many people will go to Rwanda. That is clearly out of the scope of the Bill, but many Opposition Members mentioned it. We have heard estimates of 150 or a handful. I sincerely hope that the number will be in the thousands and tens of thousands, to get rid of the backlog and stop the illegal immigrants coming here. Fundamentally, the point of the Bill is to stop illegal immigrants coming here. Any attempt to wreck it is an open-door policy to let human traffickers traffic people illegally into our country and upset our local communities. Ultimately, more people will die if the Bill does not pass, because of the loss of life in the channel.

No one has really talked about the Bill’s deterrent factor. A similar process worked in Australia, where illegal immigration rapidly decreased due to the deterrent effect, and it is important that we reflect on that. If we stop people coming here in the first place, we will save lives and save money, so it is so important that we get the Bill through.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend refers to the Australian system, which was known as Operation Sovereign Borders. It is true that the offshore processing that Australia enjoyed was only part of the solution, and the Government have always acknowledged that. Rwanda is not a be-all and end-all, but it is a critical part of our policy, as it was in Australia. I wonder whether he might comment on this: it seems to me that the House of Lords is either careless about the threat of our borders being breached with impunity, or clueless because it does not know it is happening. Which does he think it is: careless or clueless?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank my hon. Friend, who does so much work on this issue in her constituency. Indeed, France is a very safe country—as are Spain, Italy, Germany and so many countries crossed by illegal immigrants. They should claim asylum in the first safe country. They have no duty or right to come over this way, but we do have a right and duty to protect our country, protect our borders, protect our sovereignty and protect our people. That is why we need to have a clear idea of who is coming here and ensure that we can deport the people we do not want or do not need, and process them elsewhere.

Turning back to Lords amendments 4 and 5, we cannot allow individuals to challenge their removal grounds on the basis that Rwanda is not a safe country. The UK Government have made the assessment and we cannot let the amendment allow for individuals to challenge their removal grounds. New international treaties mean that our decision cannot be second-guessed, and that is vital in moving forward with this legislation.

I disagree with Lords amendments 6 and 9, as Rwanda has its own safeguarding system to ensure the safety of individuals who will be relocated to Rwanda. If we start questioning each claim and whether to send them to Rwanda, we are adhering to the idea that Rwanda is not a safe country, which contradicts the safeguarding processes that Rwanda has already introduced. We have already identified that Rwanda is a safe country, so it should not be up for interpretation based on an individual’s claim that they cannot be sent there.

I also disagree with Lords amendment 7, as it can incorrectly favour individuals who want to abuse our immigration system. We need robust measures to be implemented to ensure that the Rwanda plan is executed with efficiency to prevent those who want to play the system. We need to ensure that this is the toughest legislation ever. We need to do everything we can to prevent individuals from impersonating children to bypass the Rwanda scheme. We have already discussed checks on whether people are children. To protect children, we need to make sure who is a child and who is not. There are safe and independent ways of verifying a person’s age. That goes on in other countries. I believe German and maybe France use similar processes, and I do not think any of us is claiming that France or Germany are not safe countries. If it is good for them, it is good for us. We heard how the legislation in Germany and France is different from ours, but if they can have such checks, then so should we. They will safeguard the British people but also genuine child refugees, to make sure they are not put in an awful situation.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on two occasions. He will remember that when we were debating an earlier piece of legislation with the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), this issue of age verification was raised. My hon. Friend is right to say that other countries use it. On that occasion, my right hon. Friend explained why it is so important; it is because the oldest so-called asylum seeker found to be here claiming to be a child turned out to be 42 years of age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

Let me just develop this point, and then I will take some interventions. I agree with the House of Lords on that. It fits with what I observed on the ground in Rwanda, which I will come on to in a moment. Importantly, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is no longer in his place, earlier referred to what he described as the views of the UNHCR. When I met UNHCR officials on the ground in Rwanda, they said that they did not believe that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers. They said that it will take systemic and structural change to happen first and then that change will need to cascade through the system. That will take time. I also believe that a greater commitment to meaningful human rights protection is required.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. and learned Lady is making, as she usually does, a considered argument based on her visit to Rwanda. I have not been there. I wonder whether, in making that argument, she is mindful that previously both the United Nations and the EU have designated Rwanda as a suitable place to accept refugees. What does she make of that?

[Joanna Cherry]

The Rwandans host more than 100,000 refugees on their border who have come over from neighbouring countries such as Burundi and the Congo because of conflict in those countries. They are people from neighbouring countries who have the ambition to go back to their own country as soon as they can, and they live in refugee camps on the border. They are a completely different category from asylum seekers who have sought to come to the UK and who are going to be sent to Rwanda. That is not just my view; that was the view of the UNHCR.

--- Later in debate ---

Rwanda, which has the world watching it, has entered into a legally binding treaty. It is very ambitious for its future, and its population and Government are very genuinely caring for those who seek refuge. Why would they breach the treaty? What damage would it do to the Rwandan Government’s reputation to breach such a regulation by the refoulement of people? It would do huge damage, and I therefore think we can trust them. Having met members of the Government and members of the public there, I think we can trust them not to do that.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend, as I and many other Members of this House did, sought to strengthen this Bill, including clause 4, knowing that people’s individual circumstances as they game the asylum system can be acquired, altered or amended, and frequently are. However, Lords amendment 6 to which she refers not only does not strengthen the Bill; it weakens it. It makes clause 4 even weaker, and the interim orders that would be issued as a result of that amendment would delay, obfuscate and make a nonsense of the intentions of the Bill. She knows that—she has articulated it very well, as she always does—and the Lords knows it too. This is a wrecking amendment: nothing more and nothing less.

[Dr Johnson]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is, as he says, one of many wrecking amendments that the Lords have passed. We understand that those in the other place wish to do so, but as a democratically elected Chamber, we need to send the Bill back to the Lords with a very clear message that this is what the people of the United Kingdom want to see.

I want to clear up an issue relating to our meeting with the UNHCR, based on the contemporaneous notes that I made in Rwanda and have with me in the Chamber today. The UNHCR representative in Rwanda was asked why there is an apparent contradiction between its desire to bring refugees to Rwanda from other nations, but specifically not from the UK—what is it about a person having come from the UK that makes them less safe in Rwanda than a person who has come from Afghanistan directly, which does not seem to make sense to me?

The lady said very clearly that Rwanda is a welcoming country. She said this had “nothing to do with the safety of Rwanda”, and she felt that the UK should keep its own asylum claimants and was concerned about Rwanda’s capacity. She also said that she thought the UK had a more experienced system, and she felt that, because most of the current refugees Rwanda is accommodating—95% of them—are from Congo or Burundi, there is a similar culture, and a similar ethnic and religious population. She thought there would therefore be greater inclusion more quickly, and that people would integrate more quickly. I asked her to expand on whether the UN would be more supportive of the scheme if all the individuals relocated were of such origin, but she was not willing to answer that question.

I want to touch on Lords amendment 7. There has been much talk this afternoon about the safety of children in Rwanda. The Government clearly have a duty to protect all children, but one of the challenges is that we know that there are people who will pretend to be a child when they are not; my right hon. Friend gave the example of a gentleman who did that at the age of 42. The Government have to protect children by preventing them from being deported to places they should not be deported to, but they also have a duty to protect children in the United Kingdom from being accommodated or educated with people who are not children, and who may therefore cause them harm. In my view, the Government have a duty to make their best efforts. These systems are not perfect, but they are the best we have, so it is right that the Government make their best efforts to ensure that they do assess the age of children using the most important medical interventions we have at the moment. I am pleased to say that I will be supporting the Government this evening.