Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

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

[Robert Jenrick]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As somebody who has served on the Council of Europe and was proud to do so because of the United Kingdom’s history of setting it up to protect citizens from overbearing Governments, I think it is worth looking at the data on interim measures. In 2019, 82 requests were made to the Strasbourg Court for interim measures against this Government and zero were granted; in 2020, 47 requests were made and two were granted; and in 2021, 51 requests were made against this Government and five were granted. That is just seven out of 180. Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that this Government get things right all the time, so there should be no capacity to challenge them legally, even when irrevocable harm is on the agenda?

[Robert Jenrick]

That is not the point I am making. Once again, the hon. Lady is not listening. The point I am making is not about the virtues or otherwise of our membership of the European convention on human rights, which I have said is a matter for another day. The discussion on the amendment is simply about whether we believe it is right that the Strasbourg Court should confer upon itself, without our consent, the ability to impose binding injunctions. There is a separate question, not unrelated, as to how those injunctions are made. I would like to believe that most of us agree that doing them late at night with an unnamed judge, without giving reasons, raises serious rule-of-law questions. Perhaps the hon. Lady disagrees with that, but the purpose of the amendment is to enable us to return to a previous position. [Interruption.] She now has her clip for social media, so the rest of the debate is largely irrelevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Dame Rosie. It is against the backdrop of chaos, confusion and “party before country” that we consider the amendments before us today. I wish to start by commenting on the amendments in the name of the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

This Bill is riddled with shamefully anti-democratic clauses that undermine the rule of law and seek to undermine the conventions and values that we on the Labour Benches hold dear. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the admission in the Bill that its provisions may not comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law. Indeed, clause 3 explicitly disapplies international agreements, including the 1951 refugee convention and the 1984 convention against torture. The leader of the more moderate Conservative caucus, the one nation group, described this approach as “authoritarian” and “a betrayal” of who we are as a nation. He was absolutely right on both points. Our liberal democratic nation is founded on the rule of law and our respect for the judicial function; our international standing is founded on our commitment to human rights and international law; and our proud history is founded on the delivery of those principles, including, indeed, Winston Churchill himself helping to establish Britain as a founder of the 1951 convention.

I made the point yesterday—I will make it again now—that it is not for politicians to interfere with court judgments, and it is not for the Government to respond in a knee-jerk manner to court rulings that they dislike. That is the behaviour of an autocracy, not a democracy. How on earth can our country be the international standard bearer for the rule of law in the face of, for example, Putin’s barbarism or an increasingly belligerent China if we are breaking our own international obligations? Indeed, how can we even hold Rwanda to account on its commitment within this new treaty if we are not practising what we preach? Then there is the real and present danger that this Bill represents to the international agreements that Britain is party to, all of which are central to our national interest.

[Stella Creasy]

Those who are worried about social media may also find it useful to use their phones in the Chamber to double-check those international obligations, and indeed the original text of the European convention on human rights, which states explicitly:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”

From the start, it was intended that there was a check—[Interruption.] I listened to the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick); I hope that he will accord the same respect and courtesy to me. Does my hon. Friend agree that, from the start, it was envisaged that it was an important check and balance to involve the courts in decision making?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As we have also seen in the letter that Nathalie Loiseau sent to her about the potential risks that there are to the trade and co-operation agreement, and to a range of other commitments, it is absolutely clear that it is in our national interest to pool our sovereignty with other nations through these conventions in order to strengthen our own national sovereignty. I agree absolutely with her on that point.

Let us look at some of these agreements. First, the European convention on human rights is woven integrally into many different parts of the Good Friday agreement. The political settlement in Northern Ireland should not be taken for granted, so disapplying the ECHR in British legislation would be playing with fire in that regard. The Prime Minister’s very own Windsor framework, which sought to resolve the issues around trade and Northern Ireland post-Brexit, was agreed on the basis of the UK’s full commitment to the Good Friday agreement. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not want to accidentally set fire to his own carefully crafted negotiations.

The EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement includes clauses on important mutual security co-operation, which are reliant on Britain’s commitment to the European convention on human rights. Under articles 1 and 692 of the TCA, UK withdrawal from the ECHR entitles the EU to immediately suspend or terminate the entirety of section 3 of the TCA. Therefore, introducing notwith-standing clauses into the Bill means that the Government would also be dicing with the risk of jeopardising security co-operation with our European partners and allies.

The irony here is that this very security co-operation and data sharing is of pivotal importance when it comes to smashing the criminal gangs that are behind the small boat crossings. This Bill, which is designed to deal with the issue of the small boat crossings and the criminal gangs, could undermine the very co-operation that is supposed to be smashing those gangs—you literally could not make it up. I do not believe that such legislative belligerence is in the interests or the traditions of the Conservative party, and I certainly do not believe that it is in the interests or traditions of our own proud nation. The amendments that have been tabled by the former Immigration Minister would, I am afraid, simply increase all the risks that I have described, so we on the Labour Benches will be opposing them.

Let me turn now to Labour’s amendments. Again, I stress that we reject the Bill in its entirety and that our amendments are designed to limit the damage of this unaffordable, unworkable and unlawful piece of legislation. A major concern of ours is the way the Government are handling the entire Rwanda saga from the point of view of transparency—everything from costs and the processing capacity of the Rwandan Government, to Ministers trying to hide the fact that criminals will be sent from Rwanda back to the UK, and the fact that the UK may have to take some refugees from Rwanda.

Our amendment 36 and new clauses 7 and 8 are all part of an attempt to force the Government to shed more light on the less clear aspects of the scheme, and to introduce more accountability. Amendment 36 would require the Government to publish a full impact assessment, setting out the costs per person for the removal scheme, and the confidential financial memorandum already agreed between the two countries. We believe that the cost per person is far higher than the £169,000 already acknowledged by the Government, and we want Ministers to come clean on that point.

New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on a regular basis—every 90 days, as with the monitoring committee—on the operation of the scheme, including data on the number of people relocated to Rwanda and the costs incurred by the UK Government. Similarly, new clause 9 would require regular reporting on the number of asylum seekers declared inadmissible under the Illegal Migration Act 2023 from the point of its entry into force—whenever that may be—and the number of such asylum seekers who were subsequently removed to Rwanda.

New clause 8 would impose further reporting requirements on the Government, including on the number of individuals involved in criminal activity who have been transferred from Rwanda to the UK. In the event of any such transfers, the Government would be required to table a debateable motion in Parliament, so that MPs could consider whether, in the light of the transfers, the operation of the treaty should be suspended. It is important that the British public understand just how many foreign criminals the Conservative Government will be importing back into our country as part of this Rwanda deal.

Further amendments relate to the monitoring committee—a central part of the new treaty, which both sides are required to set up in order to oversee the operation of the removal scheme, and to provide a mechanism for individual asylum seekers to lodge confidential complaints directly with the committee. The Supreme Court raised initial concerns about the capacity of the committee to review complaints in its judgment. Our amendment 59 would make the establishment of this committee a necessary precondition for the commencement of this Act. New clause 5 would place the committee on a statutory footing. The monitoring committee would be required to report to Parliament every 90 days, confirming that all the relevant obligations set out in the treaty are being fully complied with.

In the event that the monitoring committee either fails to meet the 90-day requirement or reports to Parliament that Rwanda is not in full compliance with any provision of the treaty, this Act would effectively be suspended from being in force until any issues with timing or compliance have been resolved. Linked to this, new clause 13 stipulates that the operation of this Act should be suspended at any time when the monitoring committee “is not in operation”.

Finally, new clause 5 states that it is for a Minister of the Crown, and that Minister only, to decide whether to comply with any “interim measures” issued by the ECHR for the purposes of blocking a person’s removal to Rwanda. Amendment 38 stipulates that, in making such a decision, the Minister in question must consult the Attorney General.

The Conservative psychodrama of the past 24 hours only goes to serve the old political adage: if a Prime Minister is incapable of managing his own party, he must be utterly incapable of running the country. The resignation of not one but two deputy chairs last night, followed by a 60-strong rebellion, illustrated the level of utter incompetence at the heart of his Administration. We know what they say: to lose one deputy Chair could be down to misfortune; to lose two in one night looks like sheer carelessness. At least we might see a bit more of them on their GB News show, discussing days of yore while spoon-feeding each other cold baked beans, which was my personal television highlight of 2023. It also explains quite a lot about the amount of hot air emanating from the Government Benches. I certainly hope to see and hear more from them in this election year.

In all seriousness, what on earth is going on? The country is looking on, baffled that the Prime Minister could pay the Rwandan Government £400 million for nothing, yet place such little focus on strengthening our security co-operation with Europe to stop the boats in the first place, and he has spent little time improving our broken public services or helping our struggling households during the cost of living crisis. They are perplexed that the Conservatives are spending so many hours on a piece of legislation that is not really meant to stop the boats; it is about the Prime Minister getting a single plane in the air, with a handful of asylum seekers on it, so that he can say, “Look, I did it! I delivered the Rwanda plan and removed a few refugees.” He thinks the British people will deliver something to him on that basis.

We are perplexed because this is not the behaviour and politics we can afford to expect from a British Prime Minister. These are not the serious policies that will fix our asylum system and make our country a better place—all the headline-chasing gimmicks over hard graft and getting a grip. That is not what the British public voted for. Indeed, nobody—not even his own party—voted for him at all.

This plan is a con. This Bill is a sham. I urge all hon. Members to get behind Labour’s amendments to limit the damage and to vote against the Bill on Third Reading. It is unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful. If we are to stop the Tories’ small boats chaos and end expensive asylum hotel use, which costs £8 million a day, this Conservative psychodrama needs to end. We need Labour’s five-point plan to end this chaos, starting with going after the criminal gangs upstream in a new security partnership with Europol. We need a Government that put country before party, and we need a general election this spring.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Stella Creasy]

I am pleased to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say on the question of international law. Does he share my concern—and I fully accept that I am not as legally qualified as him—that the Government’s own legal advice says that by stating that the Bill is incompatible, it makes it compatible? Is that not worthy of the mad March Hare when it comes to consistency in standing up for the rule of law?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I suspect that what the hon. Lady is referring to is the statement of incompatibility with the convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 at the beginning of the Bill. Of course, that provision is there for a reason: to allow the Government, if they so choose, to act in defiance of those responsibilities. That is perfectly proper, and I will come on to explain why I think that is something the Government can properly do.

I am concerned about something a little different. Instead of saying, “We don’t think this is in compliance with international law, but we’re going to do it anyway.”, the Bill is saying, “We think this is in compliance with international law; it is down to us to decide that, and we have so decided.” That feels to me like something that we could not and should not do. It would be concerning enough, in my judgment, if this Bill only tried to deem the UK’s compliance with international law, but it also seems to say that we can deem Rwanda’s compliance with international law.

That is set out in clause 1(5)(b), which goes on to say that, for the purposes of this Act, a safe country includes, in particular, a country

“from which a person removed to that country will not be removed or sent to another country”.

So far so good; that is essential, to me, to doing what the Bill seeks to achieve. However, it goes on to say,

“in contravention of any international law”.

Again, it cannot lie in the hands of this Parliament to decide whether or not a person may be removed to another country in contravention of any international law. It goes on in sub-paragraph (b)(ii) to say that a country would be a safe country

“in which any person who is seeking asylum or who has had an asylum determination will both have their claim determined and be treated in accordance with that country’s obligations under international law.”

It seems to me that the Bill is seeking to say that, if we deem it so, not only is the UK in compliance with its international law responsibilities, but Rwanda is going to be as well. That feels to me not valid and somewhat over-ambitious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I am glad to accept that intervention, and the shadow Minister has made his point and I have made my point. I suspect we will find as much safety in the point that has just been made as in that of those who stand bullishly and say that this is the strongest, most robust piece of legislation ever, irrespective of whether it works. I just put that on the record.

As Members will be aware from Second Reading, we have concerns about the operability of the Bill in the light of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the legislative framework that surrounds that relationship. That is why our new clause 3 is a notwithstanding clause. I know that we have had some humour around notwithstanding clauses from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but that notwithstanding clause is there because we have concerns, in contradiction to the Government’s position, that the claims that have been made in this House and the position that the Government have deployed are not sustainable legally.

Our amendment states:

“The provisions of this Act shall have effect in Northern Ireland, notwithstanding Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”,

amended in 2020. That is important from a principled perspective as a Unionist and from a practical perspective as a Member of this Parliament who believes that our immigration policy applies equally across the United Kingdom—it always has applied equally across the United Kingdom. The worry is that the Government are blindly ignoring our concerns and allowing a situation to develop that will cause a fracture in the immigration policy, which until this point has applied equally across the United Kingdom.

I have engaged with the Minister on this issue and I am grateful to him for both making the time available and the courtesy with which he always approaches these issues. Colleagues will recall that we raised this issue on Second Reading and the Minister gave a commitment, which fundamentally comes in two parts: that the Government have never accepted that the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement engages immigration policy, and furthermore that the Government have in the past robustly defended the position that the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement does not engage immigration policy and have won. They have advanced that argument in court and have won. The argument that the Government are putting forward is predicated on article 2 of the withdrawal agreement—that there be “no diminution of rights” for the people of Northern Ireland whenever the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. As a consequence, and given that they say the rights chapter does not apply to immigration, they say there is no diminution of rights, so this situation is not captured by article 2. We engaged with the Government—

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

I will not take an intervention at this stage, because there are a few elements that I want to get out clearly and cleanly. I will then be happy to give way.

The Minister put forward his point, and we exchanged positions on Second Reading about the potential of an updated legal note. I have to say in all candour that the Minister and the Government have been forthcoming in more formally addressing this point in terms of article 2 of the European Union withdrawal agreement alone, and not article 7.

Let us be clear: we as a national Parliament are considering on a national basis our national immigration policy, and our amendment is intended to elicit a response from the Government. Eyes wide open, they could choose to ignore us at this point, to dismiss the concerns that have been raised and ultimately leave it to the courts to decide and the judiciary to determine whether there is cause for concern. Or they could take the simple step on immigration grounds alone to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That is the choice.

Yesterday I shared with the Minister—I share it with the Committee today—the details of a High Court case in Belfast. It was an application for judicial review by Aman Angesom, and it was interesting reading. Paragraph 94 of that judgment states clearly:

“The combined effect of section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018…and Article 4 of the Protocol limits the effects of section 5(4) and (5) of the EUWA 2018 and Schedule 1, para 3 of the same Act which restrict the use to which the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU General Principles may be relied on after the UK’s exit. Thus, the Charter of Fundamental Rights remains enforceable in Northern Ireland and falls within the ambit of Article 2(1) of the Protocol.”

Contained within the charter of fundamental rights is article 18, the right to asylum. Everything we have seen from the Government has engaged the discussion around the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement. It has not engaged the consideration that was resolved and shared in paragraph 94 of that Belfast High Court judgment, which has a completely separate legal construction for the Government’s ambition for how this Rwanda Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland.

The Minister has said clearly on the Floor of the House that the Bill will apply in full in Northern Ireland in the same way as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom. New clause 3 is our attempt, first, to get the Government to rule out the concerns that have been raised by agreeing it. Then, if they should not do so, they should at least articulate their intention, their position, what they believe to be the case, why they believe that interpretation and why the judgment from Belfast is wrong. I raise those issues on a number of levels: as a parliamentary spokesperson on home affairs and somebody who has engaged on immigration issues for a while, as someone who has voted against previous attempts because I do not believe they are the right approach, and as someone who voted against the Bill on Second Reading because I still do not believe it is the right approach.

I also raise those things as a representative for Belfast. Believe it or not—I say this with no alarm and no theatrics but as a matter of record—House of Commons Library figures from September point out that, across the entire United Kingdom, Belfast has the second-highest number of asylum seekers, housed within our city. We have 78 asylum seekers for every 10,000 of the city’s population. I am not being alarmist about that and I will not over-egg it; I am just making the point that these are important issues, and the unity of our immigration system is important. The protection of our borders is an important issue in immigration terms.

Heaven knows, we have had enough difficulty around the creation of a trade border in the Irish sea that we are having to deal with. We cannot casually, or mistakenly, or through misplaced hope, walk ourselves into the creation of an immigration sea border in the Irish sea because the Government fail to accept the strength of feeling on this issue, the cause for concern surrounding it and the legal and judicial opinion that has been given that leans into it. This is our opportunity to put it right, and we should take it.

I am about to finish, but in fairness I did indicate to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) that I would give way, and I mean no discourtesy, so I will.

[Stella Creasy]

I appreciate the case the hon. Gentleman is making. My concern is that the Angesom judgment—I looked it up after he and I talked about it—states:

“The applicant and respondent both agree that the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity enshrined in Strand Three of the GFA do not exclude asylum seekers.”

The Home Office, which brought the case, accepts that the Good Friday agreement extends to refugees in Northern Ireland, yet with this piece of legislation the Government are seeking to exempt them from those rights and therefore undermine the Good Friday agreement. I just wanted to clarify my reading of the ruling he mentioned.

[Gavin Robinson]

The hon. Lady is entirely right in the quote that she shares. It is fair to say that the Government won that case. We therefore did not see the Government—indeed, they did not have any rationale to do so—taking forward an appeal to defend some of the points that they may well have chosen to defend, but she highlights a frailty in the position, if the Home Office is not accepting a position that it has defended in other cases by saying that the rights chapter is not engaged. That is a frailty of the Government’s position, and that is why, in fairness, the hon. Lady has tabled her own amendment. It is not as fatal as our new clause 3, in terms of the notwithstanding provisions, but it is at least asking the Government not to proceed with the Bill until they are in the firm position to publish a position. This House has agreed that that is the basis upon which we should proceed.

I have been in this place for almost nine years. There are many occasions when this House has agreed to proceed in the face of what I believe to be well-grounded, politically supported and principled decisions. It is not an amendment I take comfort from, but I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, given the day that this is and the potential for Third Reading this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I hope that is taken up in the other place as well. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I want to discuss that further with him and with Ministers in the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office—directly with the Home Office would probably be the best way forward.

That opens up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) about the interaction of Scots law with all this. She is not wrong to remind us that Scots law looks at parliamentary sovereignty differently from the law of England and Wales. We cannot get around that. However, I would qualify her remarks by saying that that is overcome by having a United Kingdom Supreme Court, which has at the moment two very distinguished Scots lawyers, in the form of the president and vice-president, who understand these principles deeply. At any time, the composition of that Court will include senior Scots lawyers, and it also has a senior judge from Northern Ireland, Lord Stephens.

The whole function of the Supreme Court is to bring together the slightly differing concepts of constitutional law that undoubtedly exist in our jurisdictions and strike the right balance, based on restraint—we come back to that word again. I will not labour the point I made yesterday, but my hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows that he is walking a tightrope to get this legislation right. Anything that smacks of a lack of restraint, such as the amendments tabled by hon. Friends—I said obliging things yesterday and I will repeat them today—does not follow that sense of restraint and balance.

It is about the risk of an imbalance not just between the courts of England and Wales and this Parliament, but between the differing jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. That should give us all pause for thought, particularly those of us deeply committed to our Union and who believe in this United Kingdom. I am not saying that my hon. Friends are deliberately trying to undermine that, but I am sounding a word of warning about treading too heavily down this path of exceptionalism and going too far in normalising what were the exceptional circumstances of withdrawal from the EU. I should know about that because I sat on that Front Bench making the case for many of the provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that are cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and others. Those were exceptional times.

I know that this is an exceptional global challenge, but before I conclude my remarks, I will simply say that we need to tread carefully. If we do not do so, in trying to deal with an external problem we will create internal, constitutional and legal problems of our own. I do not think that any self-respecting Conservative Government would want to do that, and no self-respecting Parliament would want to follow that. For those reasons, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to reject many of the amendments that complicate the Bill, and to follow the maxim that less is more.

[Stella Creasy]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and many of the colleagues sat next to him who have brought an immense level of legal expertise to their concerns about the Bill. Let me try to offer something different, as somebody who is not legally qualified: a lay person’s view or perspective on what the Bill is doing, in particular why I tabled and will speak to amendment 9, and why I support the amendments in the name of my Front Bench colleagues.

This is not about the R of refugees or even the R of Rwanda; it is about the R of rights—the rights we enjoy that protect those freedoms and liberties that so many of us fight for, are passionate about, and believe are intrinsic to a good life. The Government state that the Bill is:

“a clear statement of Parliament’s view that Rwanda is safe, ‘notwithstanding’ all specified domestic legislation and the common law, and any alternative interpretation of international law including customary international law”.

For those of us who are not qualified, the word “notwithstanding” is doing an awful lot of work to justify the diminution of rights for people in our country and the concept that somehow international law does not protect us.

So much of the anger we have heard about the idea of a foreign court has come from it being about the European Court of Human Rights: that it is an affront to our democracy that that organisation is part of protecting those rights, liberties and freedoms on which we depend. How dare Winston Churchill sign us up to such a thing? How dare he believe that working with other countries was the way to protect those rights? As he said:

“In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”

The scoundrel. What sort of rights was he trying to protect? What sort of abuses by the state did he dare to think we might need a court to uphold for us? The right to family life? A travesty, surely. The right to privacy? I mean, goodness me, what a terrible thing to be concerned about. The right to freedom from torture or the right to liberty, or even the right to freedom of thought? Well, no wonder we need to look at all this again. How terrible those things must sound to those of us who are not legally qualified and who cannot see the rub there.

Let me to try think through a real world example of why those rights might be upheld by a third party. One could think of somebody, perhaps a Member of this House who did not have the respect and courtesy for other people speaking in this debate to even stay and listen to them shortly after he had spoken; somebody who thought that the rules did not apply to him, that the treatment of others was not something that mattered and who perhaps was far too busy worrying about his social media account. The Chair would want to hold him to account, and rightly so. Goodness, many of us would think he might need legal representation for what could happen next. He would want his day in court. He might not want to be in the Chamber when we were talking about those very issues. He might be concerned about the idea of a judge and jury existing in the same person. The very principles that led to setting up the European Court of Human Rights are ones that we all feel every single day, because it does not just defend those basic things like a right to family life or the right to privacy, it also defends a process by which those rights are upheld. Even if the Chair wanted to take somebody to task for not following the rules in this place, they might at least be entitled to a fair hearing or a fair trial for what they had done.

Yet what the Bill does is remove that concept of a fair hearing from those people in our country who are often some of the most vulnerable: people fleeing torture and persecution. They want to uphold Government Ministers as judge and jury, and it does not even align with their own data on how many people they were granting asylum to when their cases were heard. Nevertheless the point about the ECHR is the point that was understood by Churchill and, I believe, by many of us in the Chamber: we withdraw at our peril the opportunity for that freedom to be heard, that freedom for a fair trial and for somebody else to hear your case against an overbearing state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

Oh, go on, then.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is constantly and sarcastically evoking Winston Churchill. Obviously he did sign up to the ECHR and he sent lawyers to deal with the drafting process, but will the hon. Lady acknowledge that he did not initially think that the United Kingdom would join it; and when he did sign us up to it, there was no right of individual claims to the European Court? It was properly on the plane of international law—between states, which is the appropriate place for this sort of law.

Nor would Churchill accept, surely—and nor should any of us—what the ECHR has become under the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court and, I am afraid, our own lawyers. All the articles that the hon. Lady has mentioned, including the right to human life, have been so extended and expanded by the courts ever since that it has become entirely inappropriate for us to belong to the Court in this way. I really do not think that Winston Churchill would have supported what Strasbourg has become, and neither, surely, does the hon. Lady.

[Stella Creasy]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not here earlier to be part of the conversation. I am sure that he would want his own right of remedy to explain why he could not be bothered to be here at the start. He would have heard the debate that we had about the original intention of the Court. Let me quote back to him the original document, which states:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”

From the start, Churchill himself advocated for the Court as a backstop against overbearing Governments that could speak for people and prosecute people in ways that were being talked about after the second world war without any challenge. I do not quote Churchill sarcastically. I recognise what he saw at the time: the danger of authoritarianism. The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on that and perhaps reread some of those arguments—as well as the rules about taking part in a parliamentary debate.

When Churchill talked about welcoming any country in which the people owned the Government, he was talking about democracy, and our courts are an integral part of our democracy because they keep Governments honest, even if they are straining with this current Administration. Just two countries have left the European Court of Human Rights. I was there when we expelled Russia because of its aggression and when we tried to prevent it from coming back. Greece left in 1967 when it was under a military regime and rejoined once democracy was restored. We should be proud and confident in our capacity to speak up for human rights and to recognise that a right to an effective remedy is an integral part of that. There is no point having a right if we cannot exercise it, and that means having a separate body to oversee the process and ensure that it is fair to all parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I will not give way.

Is it a forum that does not share our values, that has made decisions time and time again that are odds with what the British people have indicated they want and that has operated to undermine our public safety, national security and good governance?

It is the operation of the Strasbourg Court—we can call it the Strasbourg Court or a foreign court, and we can argue about semantics—the European Court of Human Rights, that we are concerned with here. That Court is currently controlling this country’s ability to stop the boats. That Court and its jurisprudence are preventing this Government from delivering for the British people. We made a vow to the British people that we would stop the boats. That was a solemn vow that I took incredibly seriously. It was what people voted for in 2016 in the Brexit referendum by a majority. I know that most Opposition Members do not want to believe in the majority, still live in denial and do not want to accept the facts. It is what people voted for by a huge majority in 2019: to control our borders and to stop the boats. We made a promise.

[Stella Creasy]

I know the right hon. and learned Lady feels this passionately, but will she clarify her concern about a “foreign court”? What does she think NATO is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I could not have been clearer. There is the confirmation that we have the power, we would use the power, and the civil service will give effect to it.

Let me respond directly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham? She spoke powerfully, as she always does, and I always listen carefully to what she says. She set out a number of cases in which medical reasons were cited in court. Medical arguments were presented that, as she said, frustrated the will of this place. In fact, section 39 of the Illegal Migration Act—the very Act that she took through this place with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark—addresses that exact point about medical records and medical evidence.

The following are examples of harm that do not constitute serious and irreversible harm. The first is:

“where the standard of healthcare available to”

the person

“in the relevant country…is lower than”

that available in the United Kingdom. It is there in the statute, in the Bill that we passed last year.

The second example is:

“Any pain or distress resulting from a medical treatment that is available to”

a person

“in the United Kingdom not being available to”

a person

“in the relevant country”.

That is not, does not and will not constitute serious and irreversible harm.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham is right to be concerned about that, but those concerns have been addressed and met in the legislation we have passed, and in the legislation that is mirrored in the Bill.

Let me turn to the important provisions of clause 8. I will directly address the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and his submissions in response to new clause 3. Nothing in the Windsor framework, including article 2, or in the withdrawal agreement affects the Bill’s proper operation on a UK-wide basis. Any suggestion to the contrary would be to imply that the scope of the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity chapter of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is far more expansive than was ever intended.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I will not give way.

We are unequivocal that that is simply not the case, and article 2 of the Windsor framework is not engaged. I would be happy to write further to the hon. Member for Belfast East and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on that point to set out further detail. I hope I can reassure the hon. Member that we have already achieved the aim he seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend has heard what I said on that point. I respect and admire him; he knows the esteem that I have for him. We have a good-faith disagreement on the effect of clause 5, but the clause is clear: it is for a Minister to decide, and a Minister will decide.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I finish my point in response to the hon. Member for Belfast East? I hope I can reassure him that we have already achieved the aim he seeks. The Bill will apply across the whole of the United Kingdom, in line with the application of our sovereign immigration policy across all four nations of the UK as a territorial whole. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his kind and generous comments about me personally, and for his engagement. I will continue to engage with him on this issue.

We have made progress towards stopping the boats, with small boat crossings down by a third in 2023, but we must do more. The only way to do so is if it is abundantly clear that illegal entry will never lead to a new life in the United Kingdom. The power of deterrence is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the success of our agreement with Albania. Parliament and the British people want an end to illegal immigration, and we need a deterrent. We have a plan—a plan to stop the boats—and I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to back it.