Nationality and Borders Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has asked me to open the batting on this amendment. It is a very short, important and simple amendment that addresses an unnecessary problem. The Minister has told us—no doubt on the basis of legal advice—that the Bill in its present form is compliant with the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol. In being so, the argument is, it will fulfil the Government’s repeated assertions that this is precisely what the Government intend. Indeed, the Minister said so in terms in answer to my request in Committee, and I apologise to her because at that late time of night I had simply missed what she said, or at least I had not fully absorbed it. She said:

“We are absolutely firm … that nothing in the Bill undermines our convention obligations”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1985.]


So what is this all about?

I mean no disrespect to the Minister, of course not, but her statement is no more than mere assertion—an assertion of opinion based on what the department’s legal advisers have told and advised her. Some of us—indeed, many of us—share the Government’s apparently absolute commitment to the convention, but we do not think that the Bill does. We believe that the Government are wrong. In our view, provision after provision in Part 2—the debate will happen later on—contravenes the convention. With many others, I shall support the later amendments that seek to achieve compliance, simply because we believe that the provisions are not compliant. Many of us are lawyers too; we have to address convention issues, but many of us are not lawyers and are simply reading what the proposed legislation actually says. We are convinced that, as things stand, the Bill contravenes the convention, and does so repeatedly.

This is not a lawyerly quibble: even as we speak the problems of refugees are being shown to us in Ukraine. Rather than a lawyerly quibble, what worries me is that the debate has gathered echoes of the Christmas pantomime: “Oh yes,” say the Government, “This Bill is compliant with the convention”, and I reply, on behalf of others, “Oh no it isn’t compliant”, and the Government say, “Oh yes it is”, and we say, “Oh no it isn’t”, and so it goes on. But this is not a pantomime; this is lawmaking. I suspect that I am not the only person here who thinks it is a very strange parliamentary debate in which honest views exchanged in this way overlook that this is a deeply sensitive debate about which there has been much human suffering. The level to which it has plunged in relation to the pantomime is really rather serious.

The only place where this “Oh yes it is, oh no it isn’t” exchange can be resolved is in the legislation itself. If it is accepted, this very simple amendment will achieve both the frequently declared intention of the Government and the objective of those of us who believe that the legislation fails to do so. Let me explain this in a few words.

In future cases, the court will be bound by the provisions of the legislation which we have enacted—by its statutory provisions, not by repeated government declarations of their intentions. Even an advocate of the immense standing of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who sought to rely, in court, on the repeated assertions of the declared intentions of the Government, was met with: “But that’s not what the legislation says”. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would have an answer to this, but even if he produced one, it would not be very effective.

If we are right—and I believe we—then we have this absurdity whereby the expressed intentions of the Government will be defeated by their own legislation. That is rather stark. If the expressions on behalf of the Government are genuine—and, although she is not here, I do not for one moment doubt the Minister’s personal good faith—we really are in cloud-cuckoo-land. The amendment will avoid that absurdity. There will be no uncertainty or equivocation. Any decision or policy in relation to the provisions of Part 2, whatever form they may eventually take, will be subject to the convention and protocol. This is on the unequivocal basis that it is a primary requirement of the legislation that any decision of the Home Office officials responsible, and any decision of the court considering those decisions under Part 2, must comply with them.

There is nothing new about a provision like this. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, among others, for drawing my attention to Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. We are right here in this very field. Nothing in the Immigration Rules shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the convention. This is all that we are asking for here. Let us have that principle set out in the Bill in the form of this amendment.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, those who heard the Minister outline the position of the Government earlier today with regard to the plight of Ukrainians must have been dismayed by his response. None the less, I make no personal criticism of him at all.

Some of us have in mind the cavalier attitude of Mr Johnson to treaties that he recently signed, such as the Northern Ireland protocol. When I consider many of the suggestions which come out of the Home Office as to how to deter migrants from coming to this country, I have no confidence that this Government will always comply with the letter—far less the spirit—of the convention. I do not suppose that the new clause proposed by Amendment 24 will be a complete remedy. However, it is a very useful statement of an important principle, and I shall vote for it.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Not surprisingly, there is nothing I could add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said. We shall certainly be supporting this amendment if it ends up being put to a vote.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Viscount Hailsham Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

I urge Her Majesty’s Government to commit to setting out safe and legal routes and a numerical target, as set out in Motion H1. I urge the Minister to accept both Motions F1 and H1, but if she does not, and subject to my listening carefully to the continuance of this debate, I am presently minded to test the opinion of the House on Motion F1.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion F2, which stands in my name. Perhaps I might make three preliminary points. First, I apologise to your Lordships for having come late to this debate. I was moved to table Motion F2 by the Government’s announced decision to enter into the agreement to offshore responsibility for asylum seekers to the Government of Rwanda; that is what has moved me to participate. Secondly, as alluded to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the substance of Motion F2 is in fact drawn from the Motion moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, which successfully passed in this House on 4 April. Lastly, on a point alluded to by the right reverend Prelate, Motion F1, which he tabled, is of course to be considered before F2. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate, and certainly myself, will listen very carefully as to the sense of the House, as to whether there is support for either or both and, if so, in which order; that doubtless will influence us in deciding whether to test the opinion of the House.

The purpose of Motion F2 is a simple one: to ensure that the designation of a state as a safe country requires a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. As to the merits of the policy, I have very grave reservations about the cost and practicality of the Rwanda proposals. The experience of the Israeli Government, when they tried something rather similar, is not encouraging. I have great reservations about the legality of what is proposed. I accept of course that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has much greater expertise in this field than I do.

I note, of course, that Ministers have repeatedly said that the policy is consistent with international law and our obligations under the 1951 convention. Ministers repeatedly said that the policy of turning back the boats of asylum seekers was both legal and practical. However, it seems that, in the face of legal challenge as to both the practicality and the legality of the policy, the Home Office yesterday backed away from that position. I view the advice from this Home Office on these matters with very great caution.

Above all, my reservations about the Rwanda policy are based on my concerns as to its propriety. Can it be right to offload to somewhere else the responsibility for individuals who, for a time, have come into our jurisdiction? By doing so, we will have ensured that Ministers who are responsible for where they have gone are not accountable for the way in which they are treated, and I am finding myself extraordinarily uncomfortable with that concept. I might say, as someone who was here yesterday morning when the Minister had to answer a Private Notice Question on this matter, that I think she would agree the House was deeply concerned about that proposal.

However, if the Government wish to proceed with this policy, I can see no reason in principle why they should not seek as a precondition the express authority of Parliament. If I have correctly interpreted the Minister’s remarks in the debate on 4 April with regard to the 2004 Act, the principle of the affirmative resolution as a precondition to adding states to the list of safe countries has already been conceded. As I understand the 2004 Act—and it is not an easy one to understand—in respect of transfer to safe countries it provided for individual certification in respect of specific persons, whereas the present Bill is general in its application. But the principle of the affirmative resolution has been conceded; it is in legislation. So by all means have a debate about necessity but let us not have a debate about the principle, because that has been conceded.

The express parliamentary sanction for this policy is what Amendment F2 proposes—nothing more, nothing less. Before that consent will be given, the Government will have to satisfy Parliament that the criteria in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of new subsection (2B) contained in Schedule 3 are complied with.

The position of the Government as set out on the Order Paper is that it is not necessary to make the designation of a safe state by order dependent upon a statement as to costs. That was the position in the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham but it is not the position today, because the requirement for an assessment of costs has been removed from Amendment F2, which stands in my name.

In my view, it comes down to this: decisions of this kind, which affect the future and liberty of subjects of other countries but who have come here, is a matter that should be resolved by a vote of Parliament, not by the sole decision of the Executive. It is in furtherance of that view that I hope your Lordships, if circumstances allow, will support Amendment F2 in a Division.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I shall speak to Motion C1, which takes us back to the refugee convention. The House may well think that, after the learned crescendo from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, there is nothing left to say on the subject—but I will try. The fact is that the biggest and most blatant breach of the convention in this Bill is in Clause 11; this brings in the two-class system, with the underclass not allowed convention rights or access to public funds because they did not come directly from the country where they feared persecution.

I have to say to the Minister that the safeguard of Clause 36 is insufficient. You cannot come directly from Asmara, Sana’a, Kabul or Kyiv—and in any case, of course, the convention does not allow for such segregation. When we signed up to it, we agreed that the only check made would be whether the asylum seeker’s fear of persecution was real and well founded. That is what we have always done. Among those asylum seekers arriving by irregular routes—I note that, in every one of the last 10 years, there have been asylum seekers coming from Rwanda—75% of those coming by irregular routes have been found by the courts to be genuine asylum seekers and have been granted asylum. Their fears were well founded, but this Bill would put all of them in the underclass, with no convention rights.

This House has twice, by large majorities, thought that wrong, and that we should continue to honour the convention deal. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, reminded us, noble and learned Lords have repeatedly challenged the Government to explain why they see no incompatibility between the Bill and the convention. The Government’s silence has been eloquent. In the other place, on 20 April, a junior Minister took two sentences to dismiss our views. Our principled objections to Clause 11 were not refuted, explained, or even mentioned.

My amendment today concedes the differentiation that the Government want, but diffuses it. They can have their two classes, provided that the distinction takes account of the fact that you cannot come directly from a warzone, and provided that those in the underclass are not made destitute, losing all their convention rights. Although the Government say that it is, this is not about small boats in the channel. Illegal, inhumane differentiation would have no deterrent effect because these are desperate people. The way to defeat the traffickers is to open safe routes and not to close the family reunion route as this Bill seeks to do.

I am no lawyer, as is probably obvious, but I have served my country for long enough to see how international reputations are built over time and destroyed overnight. Britain’s reputation on humanitarian issues is a national asset, which should not be lightly thrown away. And for what? As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, keeps reminding us, asylum seekers represent 4%, or sometimes 5%, of the annual immigration flow.

Finally, I have to say to the Minister that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not permit a free-for-all of conflicting national interpretations, and it is misleading to imply that it does. In this House, we tend to insist that the rules-based system and international law matter. On the internal market Bill, we insisted, and our insistence carried the day. I think we must again insist that the other place finally address the big issue—better late than never—and think again about Clause 11. So, I am afraid, it is once more unto the breach, dear friends.