Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, last year I listened to quite a lot of the debate during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act and contributed to it once or twice. I had difficulty making up my mind as to whether I was going to support that Act. Eventually, although I expressed my reservations about whether Rwanda was a suitable place, I was persuaded that it was a good thing to support and I gave it my backing. Unfortunately, in the light of subsequent events we now have this Bill. At the moment, having considered it carefully, I must say that the details of the Bill, or its main point as in Clause 2, are a step too far for me, so I do not think I could possibly support it unless it is substantially amended as it goes through this House; we should urge the Commons to revise it.

My motive was that, first, it is necessary to have a credible and effective policy on illegal migration. It is a big problem and it is growing. It is small in relation to our total migration but its symbolic effect on public opinion is very important. The public need to be reassured that we have control of immigration into this country; if they think we have lost control, that threatens a very nasty change in public attitudes caused by doubts. We should all be proud of the relatively strong, multicultural and multi-ethnic society we have created in this country, much more successfully than most other European countries. That will be threatened by reactions to illegal immigration if it obviously starts to grow again and gets out of control.

The only policy I have heard in the debates so far, either here or anywhere else, that really resembled a possible working policy was that of using a safe third-party country to consider the refugee status of applicants. I listened to the debates here, most of which were legalisms and arguments about international law—which I last studied for my postgraduate degree and which I have never practised. I thought that the safe third country proposal—if you could find a safe third country—was worth a try, and I continue to back it in principle.

That policy hit a brick wall when it got to the Supreme Court. It failed there not because of any finding of international law that a policy of using a safe third country was in any way contrary to any convention, such as the refugee convention or the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government were defeated on an issue of fact. Five Supreme Court judges considered the evidence submitted to the High Court, and all five of them were persuaded that on that evidence, which they had heard arguments testing, Rwanda was not a safe country for this purpose, particularly because of the risk of refoulement. That brought the Rwanda aspect of the policy completely to a stop.

The Government’s reaction, which we are asked to approve, is quite startling to me. They have decided to bring an Act of Parliament to overturn a finding of fact made by the Supreme Court of this country. If we pass this Bill, we are asserting as a matter of law that Rwanda is a safe country for this purpose, that it will always be a safe country for this purpose until the law is changed, and that the courts may not even consider any evidence brought before them to try to demonstrate that it is not a safe country.

That is a very dangerous constitutional provision. I hope it will be challenged properly in the courts, because we have an unwritten constitution, but it gets more and more important that we make sure that the powers in this country are controlled by some constitutional limits and are subject to the rule of law. Somebody has already said in this debate that Parliament, claiming the sovereignty of Parliament, could claim that the colour black is the same as the colour white, that all dogs are cats or, more seriously, that someone who has been acquitted of a criminal charge is guilty of that criminal charge and should be returned to the courts for sentence. Where are the limits?

As time goes by in my career, I always fear echoes of the warnings that Quintin Hailsham used to give us all about the risks of moving towards an elected dictatorship in this country. The sovereignty of Parliament has its limits, which are the limits of the rule of law, the separation of powers and what ought to be the constitutional limits on any branch of government in a liberal democratic society such as ours.

The way this should be resolved is for the Government to say that the facts have changed. We are not hearing or testing arguments. I am meant to cast a vote as to whether Rwanda is safe, and I have received an email, the text of the Government’s treaty and the Explanatory Notes. I do not have the expertise on Rwanda that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has just demonstrated. I have never been there. I know that it has been a one-man dictatorship for more than 20 years, that we sometimes give refugee status here to people fleeing persecution in Rwanda and, indeed, that it has a rather dodgy record—not as bad as some African countries—on human rights in various respects. I am not surprised by the judgment.

The Government say that things have changed, but I have no means of testing that, and I agree with all those who have said that change is subject to the Rwandans actually complying with the treaty, to the training being effective, to change on the ground reaching the required standard and to periodic checks being made of that. That is not what Clause 2, which we are asked to approve, sets out.

I hope we consider this Bill with very particular care. I will probably be attracted to support some pretty startling amendments that go to some of the main purposes in the Bill. If the Government wish to demonstrate that the facts have changed, some means should be found of going back to the court, facing another challenge, having a proper hearing of up-to-date evidence in the light of demonstrated improvement in the situation of Rwanda and getting a fresh judgment, if necessary, from the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, search for other safe countries. Do not vote for the Liberal amendment today because, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, although I would love to see the Conservative Party got out of this particular mess, the main effect of the amendment would be to get the Government out of the hole that they have dug for themselves. They have based far too much on this Rwanda policy, putting it at the heart of their political ambitions for the election. To be able to turn around and say that they would have stopped the boats but the unelected House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats and the metropolitan elite stopped them would save this Government from what I think are their follies in crashing on with this policy in this way, and I hope we will not fall into that trap, at least, in our proceedings.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to this amendment, and I declare an interest as a patron of Redress, the anti-torture organisation. A recent Westminster Foundation for Democracy report pointed out the common pitfalls that democratic Governments fall into when dealing with authoritarian regimes, one of which is to promote their economic and other development at the expense of acknowledging less desirable characteristics. Rwanda would seem to be a classic case of this pitfall.

As we have heard at length and in detail from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the human rights record of Rwanda is not good, to say the least. Torture, among other crimes against humanity, continues to be carried out. This amendment is therefore essential. I remind your Lordships of the case of Victoire Ingabire, who is the only opposition parliamentarian in Rwanda and has spent eight years in jail, some of them in solitary confinement. It would be useful to ask her what her views are on torture and other crimes against humanity in Rwanda at the moment, in both formal and informal sectors.

We have enough evidence to suggest that this amendment must be included in the Bill if we are to ensure freedom from torture for those whom we send to Rwanda.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, which seem to me to go to the heart of the most extraordinary feature of this Bill. It is essentially intended to reverse a legal defeat the Government suffered in the British Supreme Court on a matter of law. Five Supreme Court judges listened to the evidence and decided as a matter of fact that Rwanda is not, at the moment, a safe country for the purposes we are discussing.

The Government have reacted to that judgment in a way no other disappointed litigant could possibly have contemplated. They have decided to invoke the sovereignty of Parliament and to ask both Houses to pass legislation that declares that the facts are indeed contrary to those which the Supreme Court declared to be the factual situation. The facts are to be regarded as the facts the Government state for the indefinite future, whatever happens from now on, unless or until this legislation is amended or repealed—if it ever is. I spoke at Second Reading, so I will not repeat all the arguments I made then, but I continue to be completely flabbergasted by the constitutional implications of the Government acting in this way.

Has the Minister been able to find any precedent for this occurring? Have any Government in a similar situation ever decided to reverse any legal defeat by just passing legislation saying, “The facts are what we say they are, not the facts the Supreme Court has found on the evidence”? I think it unlikely. For that reason, it is an extremely dangerous precedent. For that reason, I very much hope that there will be a legal challenge that will enable the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional in due course. But the better step would be for Parliament not to pass the legislation in the first place.

Finally, the most striking feature is that the legislation declares the facts to be the facts from now on, so long as it remains on the statute book, regardless of future events. Let us say that a situation arises which I very much hope does not, given that the Rwandan Government are one of the more attractive, by comparison, of African Governments. But say a coup were to occur in Rwanda and the present, fairly benign dictator were to be replaced by a much more malign dictator. What the Government are asking us to declare is that the courts can be told that Rwanda remains a safe country and they are not to entertain credible evidence that events in Rwanda have occurred which change that situation. It is being laid down as a matter of law for the indefinite future, regardless of whatever startling further facts might emerge which someone might put before a court. I find that completely preposterous. I very much hope that we would never elect a British Government who would be so outrageous as to proceed in those circumstances, but that is the legal position this House is being asked to endorse.

I find it incredible that anyone can really expect a British Parliament, in 2024, to pass legislation of this kind. I ask the Minister to reconsider and to let us know whether the rule of law, the admission of evidence and the consideration of that evidence by British judges might be allowed to function in its normal way, and whether the Government are prepared to reconsider at least the wording and the detail, particularly of Clause 2 of the Bill they have put before us.

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester regrets that he cannot be here today to speak to Amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which he has added his name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for setting out the case clearly, and I am particularly grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as he has made the case so powerfully.

My right reverend friend and I are concerned, not as lawyers but as citizens, about the constitutional precedent the Bill sets. The role of the judiciary as distinct from the Government and Parliament must not be infringed. Parliament creates laws but judges and juries are responsible for the finding of facts. Where the Supreme Court has ruled that Rwanda is not safe, it is an abuse of Parliament’s powers, as we have just heard, for it to attempt to declare otherwise. We are concerned that the Bill represents a dangerous step. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, therefore attempt to preserve the important principle that facts should be considered by the courts. We must surely be able to take into account credible evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country.

It is not unreasonable to consider, as we have just heard, that the situation on the ground in Rwanda might suddenly change, even if the treaty is properly put into effect to take into account the Supreme Court’s concerns. It is surely right that such a change could be considered in law. Not only is this a vital safeguard for potentially vulnerable people at risk of being sent to Rwanda; it is a vital safeguard for our democracy itself. We must be able to take credible evidence into account when managing any policy, be it on Rwanda or anything else, and we must not be in the habit of setting aside court verdicts we do not like by bringing forward legislation.

My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester has also added his name to the proposition put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill. Removing this clause would remove the requirement that all decision-makers must treat Rwanda as a safe country. The amendments to which I have already spoken try to mitigate the implications of legislating that a country is safe ad infinitum, but in truth the courts, immigration officers and tribunals need the capacity to consider the facts about whether Rwanda is a safe country in general. Removing the clause altogether is the best way to do this and to maintain independent judicial oversight. My right reverend friend and I agree that this principle is fundamental to the rule of law and access to justice.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. Some important points have been made, but I want to focus on the exact drafting of Amendment 3, which is clearly central and what the vote will be about. The puzzling aspect is that new subsection (1B) makes the condition that

“the Secretary of State has considered all relevant evidence … and is satisfied that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the processing of asylum and humanitarian protection claims”.

Fine, no problem, but then it goes on to say:

“before successful claimants are returned to the United Kingdom by request of the Secretary of State under Article 11(1) of the Rwanda Treaty”.

I have looked at Article 11(1), and it does not say that. It says:

“The United Kingdom may make a request for the return of a Relocated Individual”.


Paragraph 12(c) of the Explanatory Notes describes that as a response

“to the Supreme Court judgment by … Creating a mechanism for the UK to require the return of a Relocated Individual”.

Which is it? Does this provide for the Secretary of State to bring people back or, as the noble Baroness implied, is that the outcome that is the purpose of the whole thing? I think that is the case, but the language needs to be cleaned up, or perhaps the noble Baroness would confirm it so that we know what we are voting for.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my old friend Lord Cormack, whom I knew for 60 years. I first met him when I was fighting the then ultrasafe Labour seat of Mansfield and he was fighting the ultrasafe Labour seat of Bassetlaw next door in the 1964 election. From that time, he was a very good personal friend of mine for well over 50 years in Parliament, when we both got there on a rather better basis for our political careers. He was an extremely good man. It has to be admitted that he was always regarded as speaking too much in the Commons and the Lords, as he was always forthright in his views, but that rather ignores the fact that overwhelmingly he spoke very sensibly and extremely well, and the principles that guided him throughout his political career were extremely sound. We will all miss him.

I will not repeat the arguments that I have made previously. I just acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has made a speech every word of which I agree with. The Government are in an impossible position. Another good personal friend, my noble friend Lord Howard, made a brilliant attempt to defend that position and to try to demonstrate that the Bill is compatible with the things that he holds as dear as I do—the rule of law and the separation of powers—but I fear that he fails. His arguments might apply if we were talking here about a matter of political judgment on a given set of facts that the Government were making a policy decision about. However, the Bill is solely about asserting a fact as a fact regardless of any evidence, and regardless of the fact that five Supreme Court judges unanimously considered that evidence and came to the conclusion, which is not too surprising, that Rwanda is not a safe country.

I cannot recall a precedent in my time where a Government of any complexion have produced a Bill which asserts a matter of fact—facts to be fact. It then goes on to say that it should be regarded legally as a fact interminably, until and unless the Bill is changed, and that no court should even consider any question of the facts being otherwise. It is no good blaming the Human Rights Act; I do not believe that it was in any way probable that the British courts were going to come to any other conclusion. If the Labour Party allows this Bill to go through, I very much hope there will be a legal challenge. The Supreme Court will consider it objectively again, obviously, but it is likely that it will strike it down again as incompatible with the constitutional arrangements which we prize so much in this country. I too will be supporting any of the amendments in this group as introduced. It is a very important principle that we are seeking to restore.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief, but I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Clarke of Nottingham and Lord Howard of Lympne, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, concerning Patrick Cormack, who was a dear friend of many of us. He was kindness itself to me when I became a Member of another place in 1979 and there were many issues on which we worked with one another, not least those around Northern Ireland. He did great service in uniting people around a complex and very difficult question during the years that really mattered. We were in touch with one another in writing just two weeks before his death. He had gone back to Lincoln to care for his wife Mary; he was deeply troubled about how ill she was, but he hoped soon to be back in his place. We will all miss him not being in his place and contributing to your Lordships’ House.

I would like to put just two points to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, or to his noble and learned friend Lord Stewart, whoever will reply on behalf of the Government. I put a question during Committee concerning the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, at that stage whether, before we considered this Bill on Report, we would have a proper reply from the Government to that Select Committee report. It is deeply troubling that there has been no reply and deeply troubling that Select Committees, not least one that is a Joint Committee of both Houses, can give a view about this Bill, specifically around the question of safety, and in a majority report say that it does not believe it right to say that Rwanda is a safe place to repatriate refugees to, yet not to have a response to those findings before your Lordships are asked to vote on amendments on Report. That is my first point.

My second point also concerns safety—the safety of our reputation as well. I was troubled to read in reports over the weekend that £1.8 million will be spent for each and every asylum seeker for the first 300 who are to be deported. That was described by the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place as a staggering figure. The Home Office declined to give information about it because of what it said was commercial confidentiality. I cannot believe that such a lame reply would be given, and I do not expect the Ministers to use that excuse when they come to reply today. It is not right for Parliament to be asked to take awesome decisions that will affect the lives of ordinary people, and to do so without giving all the facts being given to Parliament first.

I simply say that I have been reading the magnificent book East West Street by Philippe Sands KC. When we consider the way in which this country responded at that time to people such as Philippe Sands’ family, who had fled from Lviv, in what is now Ukraine, and when we consider the generosity of spirit and the response from people in both Houses of Parliament and all political traditions, that seems to contrast sadly—dismally—with how we are responding at this time through the Bill. I hope the Ministers will be able to reply to my points.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to and read the debates so far with great respect. They have been dominated by distinguished noble Lords who are lawyers, and I am not. I want to raise two questions of fact and ask those noble lawyers, and indeed the distinguished prelates, why they have not mentioned them until now.

The first point has just been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howard. Contrary to what has been asserted many times—that Parliament cannot by law state whether or not a country is safe—in 2004 the Blair Government did just that. They introduced legislation which created an irrebuttable presumption that a number of listed countries were safe. It was subsequently tested in the courts and upheld. Why have none of the noble Lords who have asserted that we cannot do that mentioned and dealt with the fact that we have done it in the past?

The second factual point was raised by the noble Lord who spoke from the Lib Dem Benches. He said that, if we do this sort of thing in the Bill, which gives us the right to override international law and not necessarily to respond to decisions and demands of the European court, we will forfeit our respect and ability to influence people in the international arena. Why does he, and others who have made similar points, not mention the fact that the French Government have done just that? They have returned an asylum seeker to Uzbekistan despite the order of the European court that they should not, and despite even a ruling of the Conseil d’État that they should bring him back. Have they lost all respect in international fora? Have they lost any ability to influence public opinion internationally? Why does that not get mentioned in this place?

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I cannot claim to remember this clearly, but did anybody challenge with evidence the earlier cases that my noble friend tries to cite as a precedent? If anybody had had evidence showing facts to be contrary to what was then laid down in statute, does my noble friend think it would have survived a challenge in today’s Supreme Court?

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I cannot say what today’s Supreme Court would do, but the supreme courts of our country in those days did entertain a challenge. Greece, in particular, was not thought to be safe, and presumably they would not think now that France is safe. They upheld the right of the Executive to make those decisions and did not try to supersede them or consider evidence as to whether the accusations were correct.

--- Later in debate ---

Regarding Amendments 1, 3, 5, 10 and 43, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and—

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend asserts that the Government are complying with the rule of law and respect the position of the courts and so on. Why does the Bill expressly rule out any court in future considering any evidence that Rwanda perhaps is not complying with the treaty that he has described, and why does the Bill expressly rule out the provision of various features of international law when it comes to consider future behaviour by the Government of Rwanda? The terms of the Bill seem to contradict the complete confidence with which my noble friend is putting forward this ideal situation that is likely to prevail for all time on the ground in east Africa.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the point of the Bill is to move the matter into the diplomatic and political sphere. The Bill and the treaty make the point that the matters are better considered there than they are in the court. That is my answer to the point which my noble friend makes.

Regarding Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I cannot accept that the provisions of this Bill undermine the rule of law. Amendment 2, implying that this legislation is not compliant with the rule of law, is simply not right. The Bill is predicated on Rwanda’s and the United Kingdom’s compliance with international law in the form of the treaty, which itself reflects the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom and Rwanda, as my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth pointed out following his recent visit.

As has been stated in the debates on this Bill, the Government take their international obligations, including under the European Convention on Human Rights, seriously. There is nothing in this Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with the United Kingdom’s international obligations. Along with other countries with similar constitutional arrangements to the United Kingdom, and again echoing points made by my noble friend Lord Murray, we have a dualist approach, where international law is treated as separate from domestic law and incorporated into domestic law by Parliament through legislation. This Bill invites Parliament to agree with its assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been properly addressed and to enact the measures in the Bill accordingly. The Bill reflects the fact—going back to my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne’s opening points—that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit, including, if it be Parliament’s judgment, requiring a state of affairs or facts to be recognised.

The principle of recognising that certain countries are safe for immigration purposes, as your Lordships heard from my noble friend Lord Lilley, is a long-standing one that is shared by many other countries as part of their respective systems. The European Union states are not the only countries that may be safe for these purposes. Therefore, to act as the Government are proposing in terms of the Bill would not an unusual thing for Parliament to do. There is other immigration legislation in which Parliament recognises that states are generally safe. It is not akin to Parliament stating something to be the case contrary to the actual position. The Bill reflects the strength of the Government of Rwanda’s protections and commitments, given in the treaty, to people transferred to Rwanda in accordance with it. The treaty, alongside the evidence of changes in Rwanda since the summer of 2022, enables Parliament properly to conclude that Rwanda is safe.

In addressing other points raised on this matter, and echoing what I said in response to my noble friend Lord Clarke, my noble friend Lord Tugendhat moved the sphere of literary references governing discussion of the Bill in your Lordships’ House from Alice in Wonderland to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The point is not that the Government are proposing that Parliament should legislate contrary to the Supreme Court’s findings, but that Parliament should pass a Bill reflecting those decisions and acting on them. We are acting on the court’s decision, not overturning it.

I respectfully echo my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne’s point, which again echoed his important speech at an earlier stage, that the theme of this matter is accountability—the accountability of Parliament and the Government to face the consequences of their actions and decisions before the electorate.

The importance of Parliament’s judgment is the central feature of the Bill and many of its other provisions are designed to ensure that Parliament’s conclusion on the safety of Rwanda is accepted by the domestic court. The treaty sets out the international legal commitments that the United Kingdom and the Rwandan Governments have made, consistent with their shared standards associated with asylum and refugee protection. It also commits both Governments to deliver against key legal assurances, in response to the conclusions of the UK Supreme Court. We are clear that we assess Rwanda to be a safe country and we are confident in the Government of Rwanda’s commitment to operationalising the partnership successfully in order to offer safety and security to those in need.

In answer to a point made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, while Sir Winston Churchill was instrumental in drawing up the body or making possible the creation of the European convention, he did not say anything to alter the constitutional principle of the supremacy of Parliament, to which I have made reference.

I return to matters raised in the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. He posed two questions, the first on the receipt of an answer to points made by committees of your Lordships’ House. I have checked that and it is anticipated that answers to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitution Committee will be issued by Wednesday.

The noble Lord also raised costs. The point is not that doing nothing does not have costs. We will doubtless return, later at this stage of the Bill, to the enormous expense inflicted on British taxpayers—running to billions of pounds a year—by maintaining the status quo. It is that status quo that we seek to interrupt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have been extraordinarily clear on this subject. As I said, the Bill provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force. The treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures, and these amendments therefore confuse the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill provisions to come into force.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My noble friend says that it will confuse it; it is actually perfectly straightforward. If everything happens as smoothly as he says it will happen—and I hope it does, because I do not object to the safe country policy that is being pursued if we can find a safe country—the monitoring committee will presumably confirm that it has happened. Why is he resisting it, except to save the Secretary of State having to send a letter asking for the monitoring committee’s principle? Why is this amendment a threat to the Government’s stated policy?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I say to my noble friend that I am about to come on to the workings of the monitoring committee in great detail, if he will bear with me.

I turn to the points raised with regard to introducing a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the monitoring committee every three months during the operation of the treaty. The committee is independent of both the UK and Rwandan Governments. It was always intended to be independent, to ensure that there is a layer of impartial oversight of the operation of the partnership. Maintaining the committee’s independence is an integral aspect of the design of the policy, and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton set out, the treaty enhances the monitoring committee’s role.

The committee will ensure that obligations to the treaty are adhered to in practice and, as set out in Article 15(4)(b), it will report to the joint committee, which is made up of both UK and Rwandan officials. As per Article 15(4)(c) of the treaty, the monitoring committee will make any recommendations it sees fit to the joint committee. Therefore, these amendments are both unnecessary and risk disturbing the independence and impartiality of the monitoring committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but I have answered this in considerable detail now.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

The more detail the Minister gives about the virtues of the monitoring committee, the stronger his argument is in favour of the amendment proposed to this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The briefing he has been given is totally contradictory to the conclusion that he is trying to invite us to reach.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I disagree again.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, makes the point for himself, and I absolutely support what he has just said.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

The noble Lord is of course quite right that if there is a conflict between the two Houses of Parliament, the elected House must prevail. But there is a power, rarely invoked, for the Lords to block a Bill in a single Parliament and a process under the Parliament Act whereby the elected Government can repeat their legislation, whereupon, quite rightly, we have to concede. I share the suspicion of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the Labour Party—like every other party contemplating power, and no doubt my own in the past—is hesitant to see the influence of the House of Lords grow at this stage, in case it starts exercising its influence on the successor Government.

If it is announced that we are not going to use our full powers, and if the Government know that they are not remotely going to be expected to rely on the Parliament Act, they are going to listen less to amendments to a Bill of this kind that is regarded as being of electoral importance for some sections of the population by both political parties. Given that we have just been discussing the rules-based international order, our obligations under international law and parliamentary sovereignty being used to sweep away what used to be regarded as our approach to international law, do the Opposition rule out altogether the idea of using the full powers of this House if the Government simply fail to listen at all, and actually blocking the Bill?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have said quite clearly all along that we will not block the Bill. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that there have been occasions in the past—he probably remembers better than I do—when the Parliament Act has been used. But with respect to this piece of legislation, we have said we will not block the Bill. I say to the Government that the constitutional quid pro quo for that is that they do not turn around, carte blanche, and say they will simply ignore what the House of Lords says.

I challenge the Government. They have challenged me and my party, our Leader in the Lords and our Chief Whip, constantly in the papers. We have been told that the Labour Lords, even though we do not have a majority, are going to block the Bill—that is the accusation—even though we have been clear time after time. Even on Monday, when we debated the Rwanda Bill in this Chamber, we had an article from the Home Secretary saying that those who sought to block the Bill were encouraging right-wing extremists. How is that the action of a responsible Government? How is that the action of a Government respecting the constitutional conventions of our country?

This is not just challenging His Majesty’s Opposition in the House of Lords; it is challenging His Majesty’s Government to respect the conventions and constitution of this country. That is what I object to. Why are we arguing about what His Majesty’s Opposition are doing all the time? Why are we not demanding that the Government, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary respect and obey the constitutional proprieties and conventions of the country? It is they who are driving a coach and horses through it. It is they who are challenging us all the time—the unelected Lords, the people who have no right to say to the elected Parliament, “You’ve got this wrong; you need to think again”—and just dismissing us as a set of trendy, left-wing, out-of-touch lawyers defying the will of the people, when I think every noble Lord in this House is trying to stand up for this House of Lords and say that even though there are differences in this House, there is a majority who think this is wrong.