In full: Rwanda Bill passes as Tory rebellion fizzles out

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
friend agree that the union is now stronger than ever particularly with the decline of the SNP and that its vital importance can be seen not only in Northern Ireland but also in Border constituencies like minor fluid South particularly in shared services across the border with neighboring North shopshire such as the gabo TX line the A5 a483 and the cherk St Martin's GP partnership thank you Mr Speaker as you can see all politics is local and I congratulate my honorable friend in the success of uh shared crossb services in his constituency um and he's absolutely right I know he's a great uh champion of connectivity across the United Kingdom and I'm sure his constituents appreciate his efforts on these matters sh Wilson speaker every devious deceitful and dishonest tactic is being used to try and bribe bully and beat unionists into accepting the Windor framework and the Northern Iron protocol despite the impact it has on our citizenship and on the union it seems that the latest recruit is the chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs committee who only this week has told BBC that Union should get back into storment because constitutional issues are the responsibility of the EU and that the Irish government in any settlement would have a say in the future of Northern can the the Secretary of State confirm that this conservative unionist government has not handed constitutional control of Northern Ireland to the EU and that the chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs committee has either become an overzealous um advocate of the Scar Tactics or his talking through his H see you're as brief as ever well Bas uh based on on that chair the select committee chair has a lot of work to do to increase his popularity in this house um I think um as ever The Honorable gentleman um asks a question in in his characteristic shrinking violet uh way um and I have to say I completely disagree with what he says about my right honorable friend um but we need to get a deal done now the people of Northern Ireland want uh to get a deal done it is time for a deal to be done let's get the executive back St and running before we come to prime minister's questions I'm pleased to inform the house that since last week we've been providing British sign language coverage on all question statements as a matter of course this is available directly on Parliament live.tv and is also available to broadcasters media Outlets who may be interested in taking up the live feed I'm delighted that house service has been able to deliver the significant Improvement to accessibility of our proceedings we now start with questions prime minister Jason McCartney question one please Mr Speaker prime minister Mr Speaker this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others in addition to my duties in this house I shall have further such meetings later today Jason mcarty thank you Mr Speaker according to the Alzheimer's Society nearly 5,000 people are currently living with dementia in my col Valley constituency of whom 3,153 have had a formal diagnosis that figure went up by one this week with my dad's diagnosis my dad is my constituent will my right honorable friend pledge to make dementia a priority by driving up diagnosis rates bolstering dementia research investing in Social care and improving access to the most Innovative diagnostic methods and improving access to new lifechanging treatments minister well can I send my warmest wishes to my honorable friend and his father and family and I recognize that a dementia diagnosis can bring worry both for the person uh who is diagnosed but also their wider family and my honorable friend is absolutely right about the timely diagnosis of dementia it's vital to make sure that those Ved can access the care and support they need NHS England is actually carrying out a pilot to make sure that we can improve dementia diagnosis in Care Homes our major condition strategy ALS Al includes a focus on dementia but crucially as my honorable friend said we are now doubling the funding for demena research so we can help everyone including his father we now come to the leader of the opposition K can I said my best wishes to The Honorable member and his father also and all those suffering in this way Mr Speaker I can't let today pass without saying how saddened I was by the tragic death of Bronson Battersby aged just two who died in heartbreaking circumstances in skes I know that this house will join me in sending our deepest sympathies to his family Mr Speaker the government has been forced to admit that it has lost contact with 85% of the 5,000 people earmarked for removal to Rwanda has he found them yet Prim Minister M Mr Speaker what I can tell the honorable gentleman is that in spite of him blocking every in spite of him blocking every single attempt that we have taken we have managed now because of our actions to reduce the number of people coming here by over a third last year remove over 20,000 people from this country back to their home countries carried out 70% more illegal enforcement raids arrested hundreds of people closed down thousands of bank accounts and processed over 100,000 cases the biggest number in over 20 years Mr Speaker that's because on this side of the house we want to stop the boats we have a plan it's working and with him we would just go back to square one Mr my my first thought is how do you actually lose 4,250 people then you remember that this is the government that scrapped hs2 but the costs are still Rising by billions this is the government that spent £400 million of taxpayers money on a Rwanda scheme yet can't Deport a single person and this is the government that waged a week-long war on the Greek Prime Minister for reasons known only to themselves and suddenly a reminded that of course this farce of a government could lose the people it was planning to remove but he didn't answer the question so I'll ask him again where are the 4,250 people that the government has lost where are they Mr Mr Speaker Mr Speaker as I said we've actually identified and removed over 20,000 people from this country back to where they belong but but he talks he asks these questions about the Rwanda scheme Mr Speaker that it is important that we get this up and running because it's important as the National Crime agency say that we have a working deterence to resolve this issue that's indeed how Australia solved this problem and that's how Albania has worked for us but we know he asked these questions Mr Speaker about the detail of these things but we all know he doesn't he doesn't actually care about solving this problem and we know this because when when the BBC asked him when the BBC asked him about the Rwanda plan they quiz they said if the numbers crossing the channel on small boats decline I.E so it's working would you still reverse it the labor leader said yes it's Crystal Clear he doesn't have a plan and it will be back to square one m m Mr Speaker spending 400 million on a plan not to get anybody to Rwanda whilst losing 4,000 people it's not a plan it's a fast o only this only this government could waste hundreds of millions of pounds on a removals policy that doesn't remove anyone only this government could claim that it's going to get flights off the ground only to discover they couldn't find a plane only only this government could sign a removal deal with Rwanda only to end up taking people from Rwanda to here but it but he still hasn't answered the question so I'll try again what progress has he made in locating the 4,000 250 people his government is apparently lost he's dodged it three times where are they Mr Speaker it's the same thing again and again here we are talking about what we are doing but I'm H I'm happy to go over it Mr Speaker what are we doing we've increased the number of illegal enforcement rates by 70% leading to thousands of arrests using powers Mr Speaker that he blocked in this house we have closed down thousands of bank accounts of illegal workers again using powers that he blocked Mr Speaker Mr Trum do you want that early cup of tea are you going to a little bit more silent Minister and Mr Speaker as I said we have worked through a record number of cases and returned a record number of people back to where they've come all of that is a plan that is working and we can see that is working because the numbers of people coming to this country are down by over a third Mr Speaker but again it is a bit Rich to hear him in here pretending that he cares about how we actually stop the boats when he's been Crystal Clear he's been crystal clear and said that even if the plan is working to reduce the numbers he would still scrap it Mr Speaker it's because he has no values no conviction and no plan in is back to square [Applause] one go no no no he hasn't got a clue where they are has he I could tell I can tell you one place they are and that's Rwanda because the only people who sent to Rwanda is cabinet ministers and for all the word the ridiculous thing is we know the Prime Minister himself doesn't even believe in this Rwanda gimick he had to be talked out of scrapping the whole thing he didn't want to fund it he didn't think it would work when he sees his party tearing itself apart hundreds of bald men scrapping over a single broken comb doesn't he wish he had the courage to stick to his guns well Mr Mr speaker now I have absolute conviction that the plan we put in place will work absolute conviction because I believe it's important that we grip this problem now he spends a lot of his time in this house talking about his time as a lawyer Mr Speaker and I would urge him to listen to them because Lord wolson has said that our bill severely limits the REM four eminent KC's has said that it is undoubtedly the most robust piece of immigration legislation this Parliament has seen and and Mr Speaker a former Supreme Court I want to hear what the prime minister's got to say because it matters to my constituents those who feels it doesn't matter to those please leave prime minister as said Mr Speaker four eminent Casey said this is undoubtedly the most robust legislation passed and a former Supreme Court justice has been clear that the bill would work but I know Mr Speaker he's always been more interested in what Lefty lawyers have to say Mr Speaker I've even got here I've even got here the textbook that he authored for that and it's called and I quote European human rights law by Kier starma so prime minister prime minister when I stand up please sit down can I just say we don't use props in this house and I will certainly ensure that if you do need reminding I certainly will K it's such utterly pathetic nonsense he he's been brutally exposed by his own MPS yet again he's got one party chair who says she hopes the Lords will rip his Rwanda deal to Pieces he's got two more who had to quit because they don't think it'll work all of them appointed by him all now in open revolt against his policy each other and reality is is there any wonder they all think this gimmick is doomed to failure when the Prime Minister himself doesn't believe in it Mr Mr Speaker Mr Speaker it is Rich to hear from The Honorable gentleman about belief in something because and it will be news to him it is actually the case that you can believe in something and stick to that position on this side of the house I mean I will say to this side wello somebody's Ching in from over can I just say it's very important it's an important day people want to know what's going on so I want my constituents just like yours to hear what the bries has got to say prime minister just this week Mr Speaker we had another example of The Honorable gentleman doing one thing saying another because it it this this week he backed the Home Secretary in Banning the terrorist group his but teria despite him personally using the Court of human rights to try and stop them being banned and don't take my word for it Mr Speaker the extremist own press release said and I quote the hisb but teria legal team led by KIA starma now I know I know he doesn't like talking about them because they've been a client but when I see a group chanting Jihad on our streets I ban them he invoices then [Applause] because there's eight questions that I think some of the you may want well I'll tell you what the SS already gone off the list who wanted them K you start Mr Speaker if he stuck to his position he'd be voting with us he'd be voting with us his former Home Secretary says the plan won't work his current Home Secretary calls it batshit his former immigration min doesn't back his plan even the Prime Minister himself doesn't believe in it and last week another of his MPS said the tourist should admit that things have got worse since they came to office that after 14 years they've left Britain less United the country is a sadder place if the Prime Minister can't even persuade his own MPS that it's worth supporting him if he himself doesn't even believe in his own policies why on Earth should anyone else think differently Mr Speaker another week when it's Crystal Clear The Honorable gentleman doesn't believe in anything and he doesn't have a plan now while he talks the country down let me update him on what's actually been happening in the past week inflation more than half from 11% to 4% real wages Rising real wages Rising for the fifth month in a row last week rate started falling and millions of people benefited from a tax cut worth £450 so while he takes us back to square one with a 28 billion pound tax grab let's stick with a plan that's delivering a brighter future for Britain Mr Speaker it's against the law to silence victims of crime but that's exactly what the post office did through the use of non-disclosure agreements and this is just the most recent case of ndas covering up mismanagement misconduct and even crimes at work will my right honorable friend the Prime Minister consider Banning their use in all Severance agreements once and for all Minister my ronal friend is right to raise an important point and the ability to speak out about things is key to unlocking Justice and while ndas can have a place my honorable friend is right to say that they shouldn't be used to stop victims of crime in particular getting the justice that they deserve uh I can tell her that the ministry of Justice are carefully considering how to best address this issue including legislation and I know that my right friend the Justice secretary will keep the house updated on further progress lead of the SNP steam FL yeah Mr Speaker when people woke up today in homes that they can't afford to heat with mortgages that they're struggling to pay to news that inflation is once again on the rise they have looked to Westminster for answers and instead they find the UK government which is tearing itself apart over how quickly it can send vulnerable people on a plane to Rwanda surely the Prime Minister must understand that the anger that some of his own backbenchers have towards him is no comparison to the anger that the public have towards his party Minister Mi Mr Speaker if the honorable gentleman did care about supporting Working Families to pay their bills to pay their mortgage why on Earth is the S&P making Scotland the highest tax part of the United Kingdom where the average Mr Speaker not the wealthiest where the average worker in Scotland is now paying more tax than they do in England St Flyn of course Mr Speaker when it comes to the the Rwanda Bill the reality is that if you want to stop The Smuggler gangs you should introduce safe and legal Roots but instead the Prime Minister seeking to weaponize some of the most vulnerable people in in society it is straight out of the cruel and callous right-wing extremist play group his time in office is fast approaching its conclusion does he seriously want this to be his legacy well Mr Speaker as I said it is important that we stop the bootes because illegal migration is simply not fair Mr Speaker it's not right that some people jump the queue that they take away our resources to help those who are the most compassionate that need our most help and by the way Mr Speaker are exploited by gangs and many of them lose their lives making these dangerous Crossing so I completely disagree with the honorable gentleman the fair and the compassionate thing to do is to break these criminal gangs and that's why we're going to stop the boat Russell thank you Mr Speaker unexpectedly 5 months ago I had a heart attack and thanks to the Swift action of the NHS Emergency Services it was caught early so one stent operation later I was on a swift path to Rehabilitation and recovery and stand here today uh fighting fit and a bit lighter too um so along with encouraging everyone to visit the British Heart Foundation website to understand the early warning signs and get fantastic resources uh to help them with the Prime Minister also join me in personally thanking everyone who helped save my life and help me recover including the east of England Ambulance Service the teams at Watford General and hairfield Hospital the cardiac Rehabilitation teams and everyone who supported me especially my family and my team some of whom are in the gallery today who helped ensure that I continue to deliver for the great people of [Applause] Watford I thank my honorable friend for sharing his story and I know the whole house will be delighted to hear that he's made a swift recovery we all wish him good health for the future as he resumes his excellent campaigning on behalf of his constitu Insurance in Watford and I also join him in thanking our fantastic NHS staff for the life-saving work that they do up and down the country we're backing them with record resources from our doctors to our Ambulance Service we are all in this house truly grateful for what they do Caroline Lucas thank you very much Mr Speaker until the UK government calls for an immediate ceasefire it is complicit in the horrors in Gaza not my words but those of the head of oxam who like every single agency trying to operate on the ground is clear that Aid can't be effectively delivered while fighting continues more UK Aid is of course welcome but even when it does get through it can result in what one Palestinian Aid worker calls bombing us on full stomachs 24,000 people have already been killed so can he tell us what will it take for him to back Aon permanent bilateral ceasefire Mr Speaker of course we want to see a peaceful resolution to this conflict as soon as possible a sustainable permanent ceasefire with an end to the destruction fighting and loss of Life release of hostages and no resumption of hostilities would of course be the best way forward but in order to achieve that a number of things need to happen Hamas would have to agree to release the all the hostages Hamas would no longer have to be in charge of Gaza and the threat of more rocket attacks from Hamas into Israel would have to end and the Palestinian Authority boosted with assistance would need to return to Gaza in order to provide governance and Aid that is a sustainable ceasefire that we will work very hard to bring about Nick Fletcher thank you Mr Speaker Mr Speaker today I was unsure whether to raise a national issue such as the desperate need for a minister for men or a local issue such as donc Caster's need for a new hospital or edlington for a new Leisure Center but I thought the best thing I could do is ask the prime minister to come and have a tour of donc cter and while I'm showing him around my hometown I can press the need for a minister for men I can show him the site for a new hospital and I can introduce him to the people of edlington so he can discuss their new Leisure Center so will the Prime Minister accept my invitatione Minister well thanks uh thanks to my honorable friends fantastic campaigning on behalf of his constituents Doncaster city council has received I think more than 80 million and ling up funding to support its regeneration products and most recently donc cter has been awarded 20 million in our long-term plan for Towns over the next 10 years which I know he is working very hard to make sure it's prioritized uh for local people I would be delighted to discuss those projects and his other ideas when I come and visit him as soon as my di allows J OT thank you Mr Speaker 71% of requests for funding from the community ownership fund aimed at saving libraries pubs and Village Halls have been rejected since 2021 it pits communities against each other and does nothing to address the underlying causes that have led to the loss of these much loved assets when will the government offer more than a simple sticking plaster throughout towns High streets and communities prime minister well Mr Mr Speaker actually I set up the community ownership fund when I was Chancellor and it is doing fantastic work funding hundreds of projects across the country including I believe one in the honorable lady's own constituency the back on the map scheme it is there to support local communities to take over assets whether it's pubs uh Village halls or other community assets and it's doing a fantastic job it's right that there's a competitive process because we want to make sure that that money is deployed in the areas where it can make the most difference Greg Smith thank you Mr Speaker overcrowding On Chilton Railways has become a daily misery for commuters from stations like hadam and tame Parkway and Prin BRB in my constituency the root cause of which is an aging Fleet constantly breaking down and shorter trains having to be run there are proposals on the table for both short-term additional capacity and long-term Fleet renewals so will my rable friend the Prime Minister instruct the Department of Transport to Fast Track those proposals so we can end overcrowding on jilt Minister and I agree with my honorable friend that the performance on Chilton hasn't been good enough in recent times uh I know that Chilton have recently begun engaging with the Rolling Stock leasing Market which will help reduce overcrowding but also together with DFT they're looking at providing additional capacity at peak times so I know my honorable friend the rail Minister will ensure that these plans continue to progress and keep my honorable friend updated Patrick ready thank you Mr Speaker what exactly is it about the prospect of deportation to Rwanda that makes the government think it will be such a deterrent to Asylum Seekers does it think that life in Rwanda is somehow less comfortable less secure less safe than it is here in the United Kingdom what does the government think is wrong with Rwanda that means Asylum Seekers won't want to live there speaker it's it's it's it's nothing there's anything wrong with it it's just that it's not the United Kingdom Mr Speaker and I have to point out to The Honorable gentleman deterrence works we know that it works because our scheme with Albania has ensured a 90% reduction in arrivals from that country coffee speaker know my right humble friend the Prime Minister has committed to energy security and the development of Renewables as am I and that's why Sewell C started a dco this week however there are plenty of other developments which are happening on Greenfield sites where cpos are planned to be used by National Grid to plow up farming Fields used for food but also tree production as well when there are Brownfield sites already available connected to the network National Grid is refusing to publish its study of Bradwell and why they deem it would not be suitable for this connection of offshore wind farms and interconnectors will he meet with me to discuss this and other East anglian MPS and also to use the powers of his office to get that study published as my rable friend will know that planning applications for new infrastructure are managed independently so I can't comment on specific CES but I do agree with her that it's important to listen to the views of local communities like those that she represents across suffk and East Angela I know marable friend for abeda West was visiting her area recently to Mark the commencement of the project that Sewell see and I can assure her that relevant ministers will continue to pay close attention to her concerns Stevens thank you Mr Speaker the leader of the house last week correctly described the contaminated blood Scandal as on another level compared to other scandals now that sir Brian langstaff has announced today the publication of the final report of the infected blood in in quiry he reminds us Mr Speaker that his principal recommendation remains that a compensation scheme should be sh set up with urgency and that no one should be in any doubt about the serious nature of the failings over more than six decades that led to catastrophic loss of life and compounded suffering prime minister over 100 parliamentarians wrote to you this week so can you tell us now when those affected will be paid compensation for their loss Mr Seer I'm cutely aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and indeed the suffering of all of those impacted by this Dreadful Scandal I gave evidence to the inquiry last year and as I said then I recognize the suffering that thousands have experienced over decades uh he will know that the minister for the cabinet office updated Parliament on this towards the end of last year he'll know it's a highly complex issue interim payments have been made in some cases and we are committed absolutely committed to responding to the final report as quickly as possible following its publication Robert Neil thank you Mr Speaker last week conservative controlled Bromley council's children services were rated outstanding by off in all four area of areas of inspection only the third time that has happened under the current framework will he join me in congratulating the officers and members of Bromley Council and perhaps even visit Brumley and see our new cost saving Civic Center well uh perhaps not not quite uh on my way to onter but I'll bear it in uh I'll bear it in mind but can I join my honorable friend in paying tribute to Bromley Council and all the officers involved in providing what is an incredibly important service in their local community and looking after some of the most vulnerable children in our society they all deserve our thanks and our praise for their brilliant efforts Dr ruper thank you Mr Speaker hs2 promised to transform into City travel and my seat where old o common will be one day but after leads and manchest were ditched its London ends now in doubt could the pm today commit to ensuring it at least reaches Houston or is he intent on stopping All Transport forms except private jets maybe prime minister I think I think her her leader might have something to say about the forms of transportation Mr Speaker and perhaps on hs2 as well because I still haven't actually heard from him his position on the whole subject but we have Mr Speaker I would say although common is Destin to be one of the foremost stations in the country because of the station and the extra connectivity that it will have across London as the initial terminal for hs2 trains and as we said at the announcement we are working with the private sector as we have done in other developments in London to raise private money save the taxpayer money and deliver the connection to Houston as planned thank you Mr Speaker I just got back from the inaugural Women's Health Summit during the summit it was announced that the specialist maternal mental Health Services will now be available to women in every part of England by March this is particularly pertinent for me after one of my constituents Jessica cronshaw passed away whil pregnant with her baby Elsa after suffering with severe pregnan sickness hyper mesis gravidarum so can I thank the government for following through with this important reform and push him to keep going with the spirit of this reform so our NHS is fit for women in the future Prime Minister well can I thank my honorable friend for raising this matter and I know the whole house will want to convey our sympathies to Jessica's Family uh but I'm pleased that the reforms that we are making will make a difference to women across the country in the future we're committed to our Women's Health strategy and I'm grateful that that for her support and again her advice and ideas so we can sure it delivers the care that we want it to across the country andreww the Conservative candidate for the Welling bro byelection yesterday revealed that the conservative party had offered her a deal to be the candidate If the previous member her partner stood down without a fuss the Prime Minister said just last week that candidate selection is all done locally within his party so would he now like to deny that this secret deal was [Music] offered M speaker as I said last week in our Party candidate election is done locally uh Mr Speaker would my right on the Prime Minister agree with me that a remote rural hotel is just the wrong place to house Asylum Seekers and refugees from their from their point of view and will you therefore join me in thanking the Home Secretary for announcing yesterday that the Wilshire Hotel outside rwin Basset is in fact to be returned to its proper Pur purpose uh in April well thank I thank my uh honorable friend for the question he's absolutely right the use of hotels is unfair and also it's unfair on local communities and also cost taxpayers 8 million a day and that's why our plans to reduce the number of people coming has meant that we could close the first 50 hotels across the country with more to follow and I thank the Home Secretary and his team for their efforts but fundamentally the only way to resolve this once and for all is to implement our Randa scheme so we can have a working deterrent and that's how we will stop the boats Charlotte n thank you Mr Speaker I've been contacted by desperate constituents who have rung every single Pharmacy within a 50m radius of Warrington and still haven't been able to access their medication for ADHD this has been going on for months and isn't just a Warrington issue pharmacists are calling it the worst shortage ever seen with only 11% of people able to access their full dose this month and ADHD UK have called the government's response pathetic they're right aren't they yeah so I'm very sorry to hear about the situation in The Honorable lady's constituency for the health secretary obviously heard what she said and is in touch with the Rel drug bodies to make sure we can have the provision of ADHD medicine to all of those who need it speaker for around a decade over 200 of my constituents in the mill uh complex in iwit have been and caught in the crul EST form of limbo um there's deep structural problems with the building and cladding problems a few years ago they got about 50 million pound out of court settlement to make a contribution towards a clading cost the Freeholder Nama the Irish Financial entity set up after the Irish banking crisis ran away with that money putting my residents and my constituents back in square one with little to no hope will a prime minister talk to the IRS shock to raise this immoral case and also meet with me to discuss a way forward for my constituents who I meet with every week prime minister well I'm very sorry to hear about my honorable friends uh case but I'll ensure that the government looks into the details and gets back to him in short dis order about how we can support him and his constituents M close question speaker Mr Speaker I have repeatedly expressed my commitment to Joint working with the first minister of Scotland to deliver for the people across the country Dr to I'm grateful for that um answer Mr Speaker well there's rightfully been much attention paid to the post office Horizon Scandal there is another shocking example of government and private sector collusion that began under the last Labor Administration and continued under the Tories Mr Speaker almost 200,000 mortgage prisoners who borrowed with High Street lenders such as Northern Rock have become trapped after the portfolio was sold off to foreign entities like topas finance and heliodor who have been creaming off extortionate revisionary standard variable rates essentially since 2008 leaving even those who kept up with payments in danger of having their home repossessed 200,000 aspirant homeowners have had their dream taken away from so can the Prime Minister instead of playing catch up with like he is doing with the post office Scandal meet with me and campaigners to discuss what more can be done for mortgage prisoners Mr Speaker I am familiar uh with the situation for mortgage prisoners and something I worked on as Chancellor and I know the treasury and the current Chancellor have been engaging with campaign groups and others to find ways to resolve it it's not an easy situation to fix overnight but there are things that are being looked at as we speak Ross Mr Speaker yesterday the Scotch whiskey Association published a report looking at the economic impact of the sector not just in Scotland but across the whole of the UK some of the highlights included that in 2022 they contrib generated 7.1 billion in Gross value added 2.1 billion has been invested in capital projects between 2018 and 2022 and 41,000 jobs are supported by the sector in Scot Scotland including one in nine in my muray constituency does the Prime Minister agree that supporting the Scotch whiskey industry in the forthcoming spring budget and Beyond is a correct priority for this government oh my honorable friend is a superb Ambassador for Mar and for Scotch whiskey and he's right it's a hugely successful export industry that supports tens of thousands of skilled jobs across Scotland I won't obviously tread on the Chancellor's toes about future budgets but I am proud of this government's track record in supporting the industry having removed us tariffs on Scotch whiskey reduced tariffs and deals with countries like Morocco and Argentina and also supporting the sector interest in our ftas with Australia New Zealand and most recently with cptpp petza do Mr Speaker the Prime Minister has been very keen to take credit for falling inflation in previous months will he now take responsibility for today's rise yeah [Applause] M Mr Speaker Mr Speaker inflation was over 11% when I got this job inflation today is 4% Mr Speaker in common with the US France Germany all countries have seen a mild tick up in December all countries have but the crucial thing is that inflation has been more than halfed delivered ahead of schedule and that is having an enormous benefit to families up and down the country benefit that would be reversed by his party's plan to saddle them with 28 billion P of tax [Applause] Rises Mr Speaker I'm a keen Parker that in wsel but I'm also part of the core team of volunteers that recently B park run to Tamworth so in the 20th anniversary year of park run will the Prime Minister join me and encouraging other towns that don't yet have a park run to get one Prim min well it's great uh to hear that my honorable friend is an avid Park Runner and thank I thank him for actually volunteering so that the people of Tamworth can enjoy one two I completely agree with him uh when I had more time I was a regular at the North Allon park run and the junior park run as well which I recommend for those with children run it is a fantastic and accessible way to get people moving and I join him in encouraging everyone to get involved in his local area and Beyond Daisy Cooper thank you Mr Speaker at the last general election residents question at the last general election residents in West Harford were promised a new hospital but we are still waiting for the green light and having to put up with broken lifts and overly crowded treatment Wards in other parts of the country there are entire Hospital buildings that have had to be closed down like the one in stepping Hill in Stockport because they are structurally unsafe from broken promises on new hospitals to the backlog of repairs people are sick and tired of waiting so can the Prime Minister tell me by the time of the next general election how many of the broken hospitals will be fixed and will my residents be able to point to a single Spade in the ground yeah well Mr Speaker we're investing record sums to not just deliver 40 new hospitals across the country but 90 different hospital upgrades and she'll be familiar with the plans I hope at West hartfordshire trust to develop a new emergency and Specialty Care Facility at Watford General including Women's and Children's Services it will make an enormous difference to Residents in the area leave it thank you Mr Speaker a recent BBC News article raised fears that blly could become a ghost town as we see our shopping center closed to be replaced by a new higher education facility residents are right to be concerned and I have personally seen Decades of Labor neglect and decline in our town and I have I really have but this conservative government has invested hundreds of millions of pounds to level up my constituency with SP in the ground as I speak here in the House of Commons can my right honorable friend assure me that the rebirth of our towns will continue as a key focus of this conservative government well my honorable friend is absolutely right and I commend him for being such a strong advocate for blly and I nearly half of the recent towns fund has been distributed to Northern regions in England to level up constituencies like his own and that is the difference as he said after years if not Decades of neglect under the party opposite it's this government that is leveling up across our country final question here man I'm very grateful Mr Speaker in June 2022 to some Fanfare the government announced the approval of £41 million for a package of works for the restoration of the T Bridge which is the root of the a167 the old A1 and it connects Gad with Newcastle City Center and it's instantly recognizable around the world as an emblem of Tain Sade however the funding is stillwaiting s off within the Department of Transport and work cannot progress so given the scale and the complexity of the work that's required and the significant additional cost applications of funding doesn't come forward can we actually have the money please to get on with the work so that the bridge will be ready for its centinary celebrations in 2028 well Mr Speaker I'll ensure that the relevant Minister gets back to him with an update on the project and I'm pleased not just investing in that project in his area but also following on from the last question I know his area has received leveling up funding worth2 million to help transform the visitor economy in Gates head yet more example of this government investing to level up across the North and across the country that completes prime minister's questions [Music] point of order Dan Diana Johnson Mr Speaker uh further to the question asked by The Honorable member for Glasgow Southwest and the announcement this morning by S Brian lar about the report on the um infected blood inquiry now being uh scheduled for publication in May uh The Honorable member also raised that s Brian said very clearly in his um comments this morning my principal recommendation remains that a compensation scheme should be set up with urgency and he made that recommendation in April 2023 the Prime Minister did not respond to what s Brian has said this morning and I wondered whether Mr Speaker you'd had any indication there'll be a statement from the cabinet office to set out what they are going to do about complying with the recommend commendations made by S Brian can just first of all said this is a very important issue and I do know that the honorable lady has certainly campaigned all the way through to ensure that people are recognize the suffering they've had and the and the tragedies within those families what I would say is I'm not responsible for the prime minister's answer and I would say is I've been give no notice that the statement is coming but what I do know and I can be rest assured that The Honorable lady will not stop at the question she's just asked but she will pursue it through other avenues to ensure that the question she asked is answered somewhere right we now come to presentation of bills Tim farum thank you outdoor education Bill second reading what day Friday 21st of June sir Friday the 21st of June okay thank right we come to the the 10-minute rule motion I call Caroline Lucas thank you very much Mr Speaker I beg to move that leaf be given to bring in a bill to establish the right to breathe clean air to require the Secretary of State to achieve and maintain clean air in England to involve the UK Health Security Agency in setting and reviewing pollutants and their limits to enhance the powers duties and functions of various agencies and authorities in relation to air pollution to establish these citizens commission for clean air with powers to Institute or intervene in legal proceedings and to require the Secretary of State and the relevant National authorities to apply environmental principles in carrying out their duties under this act and the Clean Air enactments and for connected purposes Madame Deputy speaker in 2013 the life of 9-year-old Ella Roberta aduc casy Deborah was tragically cut short when she suffered a fatal asthma attack Ella lived close to the heavily Ed South circular in leam and following an inquest in 2020 she became the first person to have air pollution listed on her death certificate with the coroner Philip barow concluding that and I quote Ella died of asthma contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution next week would have been Ella's 20th birthday and I know that all of our thoughts would be with her family at this time I'd also like to pay tribute to Ella's mom rosand who's in the public Gallery today for her incredible campaigning on air pollution and to express my personal thanks to her for allowing this bill to be called Ella's law in memory of her daughter it's an honor to be able to present it in the house today Madame Deputy speaker this bill is needed because simply put the state of our filthy air is a public health emergency air pollution is associated with conditions like asthma heart disease and cancer and has been shown to impact our mental health too leading to an increased risk of schizophrenia depression and anxiety its impacts aren't equally felt however with those on low incomes and from black and ethnic minority backgrounds far more likely to live in polluted areas and it's Children's Health that's affected most of all with a study published just last week by the University of Dandee revealing an increase in under 16s admitted to hospital for respiratory problems following periods of high air pollution a 2019 study by King's College London also showed that living within 50 m of a busy road can stunt children's lung growth by up to 14% And for context it's estimated that in London onethird of the population around 3 million people live near to a busy road it is therefore profoundly shocking but perhaps not entirely surprising that the UK has one of the highest rates of asthmatic children across Europe with one in 11 young people living with asthma it's been calculated that cleaner air could prevent up to 43,000 avoidable deaths in the UK each year and it could save the public purse billions as well estimates of the public cost of air pollution total as much as 20 billion pounds each year including the impact on social care and on our crumbling NHS so it could not be more urgent that the government takes action to clean up our air and protects lives both now and in the future yet despite their current approach being vastly insufficient ministers remain bullish in defending their efforts indeed last year the Prime Minister himself told me and I quote we are confident that the measures we're putting in place are not only legally binding but World leading in tackling air quality and he went on to say that the environment act provides and I quote again the capability accountability and ambition needed to make all the effective interventions to drive down air pollution and yet the reality is that the environment act did very little to help deliver clean air and it is is certainly not World leading and the environment Target that did get made under it to reduce levels of PM 2.5 to 10 micrograms per cubic meter falls short of the new who guidelines for 5 micrograms per cubic meter and it could certainly be achieved far earlier than the government's Target date of 2040 indeed when Professor Frank Kelly from Imperial College London an adviser to the World Health Organization on health and pollution recently gave evidence to the Environmental audit committee he said very clearly that and I quote our studies show that 99.8% of the UK could achieve a figure of 10 microgram per cubic meter by 2030 and the 2% that could not was certain hot spots in London which again if you took extra measures you could probably eliminate as well Professor s Steven Holgate from the University of Southampton and special adviser on air quality to the Royal College of Physicians subsequently wrote to the committee to confirm that this change would result in around 20 fewer infant deaths each year 20 fewer lives lost 20 families saved from unimaginable heartache and so with the mayor of London having already committed to delivering on this more ambitious Target and with such significant benefits it is incumbent on Min to ex to explain why the current legal limit remains so unambitious and they must urge ently set out how they're going to meet the new who guidelines which have hared the limit for PM 2.5 to 5 micrograms per cubic meter in response to the marked increase in evidence showing how air pollution affects current different aspects of our health in the words of the chief medical officer Professor Chris witty we can and should go further and it is technically possible to do so so the Clean Air Human Rights bill or Ellis Law would set out an entirely new approach to delivering clean air in Eng land first it would enshrine the human right to clean air precisely and explicitly in English law thereby transforming decision-making by public authorities by requiring them to consider clean air alongside other rights under the Human Rights Act it will be a step towards incorporating the 2022 resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly which recognizes the human right to a clean healthy and sustainable environment it follows a oneair approach that encompasses the health and environmental impacts of air pollution and greenhouse gases and it would set standards based on advice from the climate change committee and on the who's new air quality guidelines and require the Secretary of State to achieve clean air within 5 years with the possibility of postponement for up to a further 5 years per pollutant subject to strict conditions now the environment agency and the climate change committee would be required to review the pollutants and the limits annually and advise the Secretary of State if they need tightening the bill also covers air pollution both outdoors and indoors in public spaces and where health and safety standards apply the tragic death of 2-year-old aab isek brought on by extensive mold in his family's flat Shone a spotlight on the significance of indoor air pollution and whilst I welcome The Prompt action which was taken by the Secretary of State for leveling up in bringing forward awb's law a law which should now frankly also be applied to the private rented sector through the rental Reform Bill it is very clear that legislation to address Indoor Airport pollution must extend beyond the home too especially since on average we spend around 80% of our lives indoors whether for work or study or Leisure and finally in order to ensure independent scrutiny and continuous Improvement this bill would establish a Citizens commission for clean air which would review annually the Secretary of State's compliance with the provisions of the bill and advise the Secretary of State where Improvement is needed now this is a bill which has already undergone significant scrutiny in the other place after my Noble friend and green party peer baroness Jones of molam topped the private members Bill ballot in the previous parliamentary session it has already been extensively debated amended and improved and it received cross-party support including from Lord Randall of Oxbridge former environment advisor to the right honorable member for maidenhead when she was prime minister and he said and I quote we have waited too long for proper clean air legislation I urge the minister to back this and and say that it is a golden opportunity to do something really wonderful the government could take pride in being part of a world beating Bill well Madam Deputy speaker I think he was absolutely right by taking up Ella's law the government has a real opportunity to genuinely lead the world in tackling this pressing Public Health Emergency and I urge them to take it yeah here the question is that the honorable member have leave to bring in the bill as many as are of that opinion say I I the contary no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it who will prepare and bring in the bill Barry Sherman Lila Moran Ian burn Dan Carden mun Milson and myself Madame Deputy speaker Caroline Lucas clean air Human Rights bill second reading what day Friday the 14th of June Friday the 14th of June thank you the Clark will now proceed to read the orders of the day safety of Rwanda Asylum and immigration Bill committee now order sergeant order safety of Rwanda Asylum and immigration bill I remind members that in committee members should not address the chair as Deputy speaker please use our names when addressing the chair Madame chair chair Madame chairman or Mr chairman are also acceptable we begin with Amendment 11 to clause three with which it will be convenient to consider other amendments to clause three clause three stand part amendments to Clause five Clause five stand part Clause six stand part amendments to Clause seven Clause seven stand part amendment to Clause eight Clause 8 stand part amendments to Clause nine Clause nine stand part Clause 10 10 stand part all remaining new Clauses amendments to Clause one and Clause one stand part as set out in the selection paper I call Robert jri to move Amendment 11 well thank you Dame Rosie and I know that my right on friend said he didn't watch box sets but here we are once again for the next episode of this drama it's also the most important one of all because this is likely to be the final opportunity for this house to consider this bill does it work will we be able to stop the votes can we secure our borders as members on all sides of this house know I feel passionately that illegal migration is doing Untold damage to our country and we have to make sure that this bill actually does the job I want to speak to two amendments but one in particular and that is the one with respect to rule 39 and let me say at the outset of this debate that I don't believe that our membership of the European convention on human rights is sustainable I think that will become clearer and clearer to the British public in the months and the years ahead but that's not the purpose of my Amendment today it's not the subject of this debate that's a discussion for another day what we're discussing here I I'll give way a moment but what we're discussing here is whether or not we believe believe it is appropriate for a foreign judge in an international Court to impose a late night judgment often without the United Kingdom being able to give its own arguments or to hear the reasons for that judgment whether we think that really Accords with the rule of law and in particular relationship to this policy whether we are willing to see the same thing happen again that did in the summer of 201 22 whereby a judge did just that grounded the flight prevented the policy led to months indeed years of legal action and tens of thousands of illegal migrants breaking into our country costing our taxpayers billions of pounds imperiling lives in the channel and perpetuating this challenge for years to come I'll give way to my right friend I'm happy to support my right friends Amendment tonight as I did last night I'm on the Council of Europe so I take quite a lot of interest in this and there is established legal principle that in fact the judge was acting outra vires in 2022 that it was not in his powers to do it and there's also established legal opinion that our government could actually have ignored it so how does this relate to his Amendment now well I'll come on to the exactly the points uh that he's making they're they're fair and important ones I think as night follows day if we don't make changes in this respect we'll find ourselves in a few months time in exactly the same position that my right on friend the member for witam as Home Secretary was in the summer of 2022 whereby the Strasburg Court will issue one potentially many rule 39 interim measures the decision will fall to a minister perhaps my Ral friend the minister for illegal migration and other colleagues within government about what to do the courts will be involved and we'll find ourselves in a very difficult indeed intract situation it is as I've said before a bit like pulling the pin out of a grenade but not being prepared to throw it setting this scheme in train without knowing what you would do when this happens it's entirely foreseeable let's find a way through this challenge I'll give away in a moment now to to answer my right on friend's question and to think about the legitimate challenge that's made to to those like me who make this argument or raise this issue you have to go back to the foundation of the court and many of my colleagues say well it was great conservative and British jurists who were the authors of the European convention on human rights why would you want to alter what they created well with respect that's a misunderstanding of what was done when the convention was founded and the treaty signed no one signed up to the court being able to make binding injunctions in fact quite the opposite this was considered at the time and was rejected the UK like all other signatures to the European convention expressly declined to give the court the power to make binding interim measures this was something that was created by activist judges in 2005 in in response to a particular case which was the mat uh mamat kulov asov versus Turkey case in 2005 whereby the court conferred upon itself a power which was not given in the treaty and I think it is a mistake that the United Kingdom has by convention gone along with this uh this in this approach that the court has given itself for many years and don't take my word for it take the word of many other eminent jurists and lawyers when this very point was considered in the other place during the passage of the illegal migration act a point not dissimilar to the one that I'm making but I won't put words into their lordship's mouths was made by the noble Lord Sandhurst the noble Lord fuks the noble Lord wolf and in a forward to an important piece uh related to this the noble uh and learned Lord sumption has made a similar and very important point in fact the the professor of international law at the University of Oxford Professor Richard ekins that many of us uh respect highly has said that to change this approach is not to breach the rule of law it's to defend the rule of law because we as signatures of the European convention expressly objected to this approach and this has been conferred by activist judges outside of the rule of law and we shouldn't be following through this I'll give way to The Honorable because he was first in the queue I'm very grateful to The Honorable gentleman and uh I will say uh at least he has the strength in being vocal about what he actually believes which is a lot more than many on that side and he's made it clear that in his view he could not care less about what European conventions and human rights say will he go further and actually openly say that there is one purpose of this vile dangerous inhumane bill which is to flout into National Law and that that side couldn't care less about human rights of the most vulnerable individuals T how can't say I'm surprised that the honorable gentleman sinks to those debts and doesn't present a proper legal argument in response because if you'd been listening to me I didn't say anything of the sort the case that I'm advancing is far from undermining the European convention on human rights and there are many who might wish to leave it we're defending the original intent of the European convention on human rights and the rule of law because I don't think that it is sustainable for activist judges in Strasburg to bend and change the original intent of the signatures of that convention in ways that they would never have accepted and invent new powers I want us to defend the rule of law and in this case that is best defended by saying that interim measures from the European Court are not binding on the UK either on the domestic plane or Upon Our ministers and it is better that we return simply to the position that we were in as a country before 2005 in fact I think most of that was under a labor government I'll give way to uh The Honorable member the foreign minister for giving we I just wonder is this British exceptionalism is the case that he's making that the EHR should only no longer apply to the UK or is he saying that it's not fit for purpose across the board and should be scrapped entirely as if we're having a bit of a dialogue over the de here because that's not what I said at all I said that the debate about the European convention is for another day but what he is saying think he is saying that the decision of the Strasburg Court in 2005 to confer upon itself without seeking the consent of any of the signatures of the convention that it should be able to impose interim measures injunctions upon other countries which are binding is the right way forwards and indeed that those injunctions should be able to be made at the 11th Hour in the middle of the night without giving reasons with us without asking uh for our own arguments without even naming which judge was behind that I think that poses very serious rule of law questions and is a reason why conventions such as the European convention are increasingly out of Step I'll give way to my right home friend my right home friend of course is right and that contradicts customer practice over a very long time indeed was the accepted basis for the rule of La of this country he cites Lord suion uh and Lord wolf but he might have cited AB dicey who established uh long ago as a constitutionalist supported by Lord Denning and many others after that the relationship between the rule of law and this place is that a PO makes laws because it has the legitimacy to do so conferred on it by the people and it can change laws and that frankly means that this house is supreme that doesn't in any way underestimate the significance of international agreements and treaties but it does affirm the significance and sovereignty of this house I I entirely agree with my my right honorable friend and let's let's move forwards and see what well I'll give way to The Honorable lady but then I'll I'll continue my argument forgiving way because as somebody who served on the the Council of Europe and was proud to do so because of the United Kingdom's history in setting it up to protect citizens from overbearing governments I think it is worth to look at the actual data on interim measures so for the three years that we know about in 2019 there were 82 requests made the stasbor court for interim measures against this government zero were granted in 2020 47 made two granted in 2021 51 applications against this government five granted so that's just seven out of 180 is he really suggesting that this government gets things right all the time that there should be no capacity to legally challenge them even when irrevocable harm is on the agenda that's point I'm making and once again The Honorable ad isn't isn't listening the point I'm making the point I'm making is not about the virtues or otherwise of our membership of the European convention on human rights I've said that that is a matter for another day the discussion on this amendment is simply whether or not we believe it is right that the St Court should confer upon itself without our consent the ability to impose binding injunctions there's a separate question not unrelated as to how those injunctions are made and I think most of us I'd like to believe would agree that doing them late at night with an unnamed judge without giving reasons raises serious rule of law questions perhaps The Honorable lady disagrees with that but the purpose of this amendment is to enable us to returned to a position yes of course the honorable lady has her clip for social media now so the rest of the debate is is largely irrelevant but I'll give way to the the I'll give way to The Honorable lady I want to address the point of law about the the court in Strasburg the difficulty with the argument he's making is this is it not that under the scheme of the convention the court is the body that determines the meaning of the convention and not just in the case the 2005 case but consider consistently thereafter the court has held that failing to comply with interim measures amounts to a breach of article 34 of the convention now that's the legal difficulty with his argument is it not no it may be a good faith disagreement between the honorable lady and I but I don't believe that International bodies and courts should be able to grow organically as a result of the decisions of activist judges I think this is a matter of the rule of law and of parliamentary sovereignty and we in the United Kingdom chose to be signatures of the European convention on human rights I don't think it's correct that the court gave itself this power in 2005 now let me return more directly to this how this relates to this policy so firstly let's cast our mind back to the summer of 2022 an interim measure came uh via rule 39 interim measure was uh imposed by the court this grounded the flight and prevented us from proceeding with the policy do we think that anything has changed in the months and years that have passed my conjecture is no we will be in exactly the same position in a few months time unless we take action in the illegal migration act we included a provision which merely restated the Orthodox constitutional and legal position that in theory it is at the discretion of a minister as to whether or not to comply with a rule 39 interim measure Belling that was the government's legal advice that in its opinion which I believe to be erroneous for the reasons I've just described it would be in breach of international law to do so the attorney general and the government legal service therefore as far as I'm aware continue to advise ministers and civil servants that a decision not to uh support a rule 39 inter measure would be illegal and would be in breach of the ministerial code in fact my best recollection of that was that no Minister should give any indication that they would ignore a rule 39 interim measure the Attorney General's position as I understand it is that there is a very small number of cases in which it is conceivable that one could do so but that's a vanishingly slim number of cases and situations so were that situation to continue as night follows day we'll find ourselves in exactly the same situation we were in in the summer of 2022 I don't want to be in that position and I think I think it would be a huge breach of trust to the British public if we knew something was likely if we've watched this train speeding down the tracks but moving slowly towards us we've had ample opportunity to resolve this issue and we've chosen to do absolutely nothing we've kicked the can down the road there's no more Road at the end of the road there's a precipice we're moving forward with a scheme but we don't know how to implement it we're pulling the pin out of the grenade but we haven't got the guts to throw it what we need to do is resolve this and the way to resolve it seems to me to be quite simple the government could accept the amendment in my name and that of many many others to do so is not to say that we're leaving the European convention on human rights there are respectable international law arguments behind the amendment I would wager that the government would have no difficulty finding senior KC's and former judges in The Other Place who would support my position and its position if it chooses to adopt it it could change some of the minor documentation that accompanies this like the civil service code and the ministerial code but I wouldn't I wouldn't place too much emphasis on those at the end of the day this isn't about civil servants this is about ministers and it's about the law I think a good Captain doesn't blame his Sailors it's on us we have the power to fix this and we have the responsibility so let's use the opportunity we have today with the amendment that we've brought forward to resolve this or else we will be here in two two months time the Strasburg Court will impose a rule 39 the government will be scrambling around how to resolve this and the government will have no one else to blame I'm here to help the government to ensure this policy works because I like everyone at least on this side of the house believes passionately that we have to make this policy work and to stop the votes so I strongly encourage my right humal friend and indeed the prime minister to support the amendment in my name and that of many others and encourage everyone else on all sides of this house who share my determination to fix this problem to do exactly the same the question is that Amendment 11 be made Shadow Minister Steven kinck thank you very much indeed uh Madame chair it's a pleasure to serve under your chairship again uh today so here we go again day two of committee stage of the third Asylum bill in less than two years and day 643 perhaps of the Rwanda Psycho Drama that the conservative party continues to inflict on our weary and baffled nation and let's not forget that this whole Saga started off as operations save big dog Madame chair that desperate and thankfully d doomed attempt to save the skin of Boris Johnson but then for some bizarre reason known only to the bench's opposite it didn't fade away once Mr Johnson exited stage right no quite the opposite took place instead it took a life of its own it evolved into an article of faith for the conservative party a purity test that has come to define whether you not whether or not you're a True Believer and so vast quantities of political capital and untold amounts of government time resources and energy have been squandered on a policy that at most might possibly one day enable the transfer of a few hundred Asylum Seekers to Rwanda it truly is an extraordinary State of Affairs Madam chair and meanwhile out there in the real world food bills are spiraling mortgages are going through the roof there are 7.8 million people on NHS waiting list raw sewage is being pumped into our River and at least 30,000 people risked life and limb to cross the channel on small boats and nothing in this bill will address any of the challenges that I've just outlined not even that last one as I said yesterday the Rwanda plan is extortionately expensive with £400 million on its way or committed to the government of Rwanda without a single Asylum Seeker ever being sent there and in addition to that vast sum it will cost at least £69,000 to send send each individual Asylum Seeker to Rwanda probably far higher than that but the government is refusing to come clean on that point it's also unworkable because there is no evidence that sending just a few hundred Asylum Seekers will deter the tens of thousands who are crossing the channel each year desperate people who have risked life and limb Crossing continents to escape from violence and persecution and not going to be deterred by a less than 1% chance of being sent to Rwanda and of course we know the scheme in addition to being unaffordable and unworkable is unlawful as found by the Supreme Court due to Rwanda not being as it stands a safe country and yet here we are again being forced to indulge the fantasies fixations and psycho dramas of the benches opposite I will that's the narrow legal Point does he think that it was right for for a Strasburg judge to impose an injunction in the night on his own without giving the British government the chance to make their case does he think that was right yeah well what we are seeing is a complete shambolic incompetence in the Asylum system and if uh cases are not made clearly and are open to Legal appeal legal appeals will come and in some cases those legal appeals will succeed on the broader point the reality is that the uh United Kingdom is party to a number of international agreements and conventions and that uh reality is extremely important to our national interest and in many cases strengthens our sovereignty and not weak weakens it so uh we on these benches are absolutely clear that politics is about choices and uh when you look at the bigger picture in terms of our country's place in the world it is absolutely clear that our sovereignty and our national interest is strengthened not weakened by being party to these International agreements and conventions but Madam Madame chair I I'll just make a little bit of progress and I'll come back what is also deeply troubling is that every day seems to bring a new example of the tail wagging the dog because we now hear the prime minister is assembling 150 judges and 1,000 staff to Fast Track Rwanda cases through our courts sorry what does the Prime Minister know that under his leadership and on his watch the Crown Court backlog in this country is at a record high of 65,000 victims of serious crime regularly waiting more than two years for their day in court so they can seek Justice against their perpetrator completely and utterly broken system due to 14 years of Tory incompetence and indifference and yet the Prime Minister clicks his fingers and is glibly apparently able to Magic up 150 judges and a th000 staff where on earth have these 150 judges been hiding all this time Madame chair are they going to be new recruits or are they currently working and if the latter are they going to be told to drop everything and transfer themselves to dealing with Asylum cases I trust that the minister will be able to answer these questions today Madame chair but I'm not holding my breath but regardless of the operational issues just imagine the impact the prime minister's Li announcement yesterday would have on you if you were the victim of rape who has been languishing for years in our broken Judicial System just imagine the anger and the disgust you would feel at the spectacle of a conservative prime minister sacrificing your fight for justice on the altar of his desperate attempt to cling to Power by appeasing his back benches what an utterly shameful and shabby way for the prime minister of our country to behave Madame chair and I will give way to The Honorable gentlemen I'm very grateful to this Shadow Minister for giving way and particularly on the point that he raised about choices and political choices in this he is valiantly opposing this bill and he voted against it at second reading just as I did but does he recognize that given that this is the last session of this Parliament that the parliament act cannot be engaged and there's plenty that will take place in the other place the only way the safety of Rwanda bill becomes law is if labor make the political choice to say that fighting it and frustrating it any longer is not in your interest but uh well I I I I Thank The Honorable uh member for his comments but we have made absolutely clear that this bill is unaffordable unworkable and unlawful and we on these benches will never support any piece of legislation that is guilty of those three sins uh so it is as clear as Crystal to us that we will with pride we voted against it at second reading with pride we voted against the amend amendments that would just make it even worse and with pride we will be voting against this bill at third reading I will give way I'm very grateful uh to my honorable friend and he absolutely uh makes the right point with regards to the issue around the purpose of this bill and let's not forget that there is only one purpose of this bill and would he agree with me that this is one of the most flagrant attempts we've seen are directly flouting international human rights law and that's the only purpose of the bill before us today I thank my honorable friend for that uh powerful intervention it is a bit difficult to determine what the true purpose of the bill is these days because uh it it has become I think uh embroiled in various Tory uh internal Wars and fights in terms of the factions it's become EMB boiled in certain people's leadership Ambitions I think so it's not that easy to uh discern what the true purpose of of the bill is but one thing we do know is it will not stop the Tory small boats chaos uh that is the chaos that has to be stopped uh the uh people Smuggler gangs are trading in human misery they must be stopped but we need practical sensible pragmatic measures rather than the headline chasing gimmicks uh that we have seen from from this government uh over the last years and months but of course the the irony I will give away one second the the the irony of the announcement yesterday about the judges uh was by definition it's an admission of failure because it is a recognition of the fact that the bill before us today will fail to prevent the legal challenges and appeals uh that the judges are going to be working on so the prime minister's announcement yesterday was also further evidence of the profoundly troubling way in which this government is to prepared to disregard and disrespect our Judiciary and I would urge members on all benches to take careful note of what Sue car the lady chief justice told parliament's Justice committee yesterday and I quote I'm afraid that this headline draws matters of judicial responsibility into the political Arena matters of deployment of Judges the allocation of work for judges and the use of courtrooms is exclusively a matter for the Judiciary and more specifically a matter for myself and the senior president president of the tribunals it's really important that people understand that clear division there speaks a true Democrat Madame chair Minister for giving way but Shadow Minister will know that it is our view on this side that this problem cannot be comprehensively tackled without a deterrent I can't think of any examples around the world where it's been tackled without a deterrent I know the shadow Minister has spoken before about safe and legal roots and I've asked him questions before about whether he thinks the numers associated be safe and legal Roots should be capped or whether should be uncapped has a shadow Minister had thought about what the cap level would be what would be the number well I I Thank The Honorable gentleman for his intervention it's clear that the in order to stop the Tory small boats chaos we have to smash the criminal Smuggler gangs that will be done through enhanced cooperation with European partners and allies a crucial part of that is of course the shadow Home Secretary and the leader of the opposition visited europol recently uh hugely important that we get better data sharing cooperation with European authorities europol frontex uh in order to be able to smash the criminal gangs Upstream as I will go on to say in my uh in my remarks uh the more you jeopardize cooperation with our European partners and allies by threatening to leave the European conventions the more difficult you make it to have that European cooperation and therefore you undermine your own ability to deter the criminal Smuggler gangs if you were looking for a definition of counterproductive legislation and policies this would be the one that you would go for I'll give way to the gentlemen a very good point about cooperation and he's right the only way you can tackle this problem is by a suite of measures uh under an umbrella policy but in important part of that as my honorable friend just described is deterent because the criminal gangs he descri cribed their brand their marketing message is you'll get to Britain and never leave and sadly that's been twen the case has it not well I I Thank The Honorable gentleman and and as I said yesterday there are pragmatic sensible things the government has been doing that we support um the Albania deal for example um fully supported by ourselves on these benches and and the the fact that removals to Albania are facilitated by that deal has acted as a deterrent it's led to a clear decrease in the number of albanians trying to come over why doesn't the government do more of that do the pragmatic sensible stuff rather than being sucked into endless uh bunf fights about this Rwanda deal which is unaffordable unworkable and unlawful it's a question of priorities as I would that's what IID point out to The Honorable gentleman when a government has limited time resources and energy focus it on the stuff that works rather than on the headline chasing gimmicks the the the Mantra has been clear for many months from the benches opposite including himself um about the need for safe and legal Roots so can we have some indication of what the level of saf and illegal Roots would be to address the problem and I put it to him as soon as that cap is reached the rest will come by boat unless there is a deterrent well in terms of safe and legal Roots uh what I would look at is uh as a priority things like the Afghan scheme which is completely and utterly broken um we've seen arap collapsed we've seen acrs never really working which is the nationality that is always in the top three or four nationalities crossing the channel it's the Afghans so I think what we need to do is make sure we get uh the schemes that are currently in place working properly and then we need to look at International cooperation working with our European partners and allies and creating a dynamic whereby uh the United Kingdom does its bit as part of ensuring that uh those who are trying to cross the channel on small boats uh do not do so so okay drawing him back to the actual amendments and to the interim measures of the Strasburg Court to build on the question from my right honorable friend am I right in in uh understanding the labor party's position is that it does not want to see reform of rule 39 interim measures because I find that very surprising given that the UK is working in concert with many perhaps all signatures of the European convention on human rights to do just that because most of our friends and allies in Europe consider there to be serious rule of law issues arising from the so-called paj D injunctions and we want to see them like them reformed would the labor party abandon that piece of work everything that uh we do when as I hope uh we we enter government will be based on the test is it affordable is it workable and is it legal the legal piece has to be based on compliance with our International legal obligations however if you cherish something you also have to be prepared to be open to changing it to improving it and it is clear that a global conversation is required about the immigration uh position in which we find ourselves a European conversation is required and absolutely if we in concert with our International partners and allies can find ways of improving the system then of course we on these benches would be looking to do that it's unfortunately not uh a deal that we can negotiate from opposition uh it's something that we will certainly be looking to prioritize uh as in when we uh come into government if you don't mind I'll if the honorable gentleman I'll make a little bit more progress and I'll come back to him order just to say is convention that um if a speaker is to be intervened on the interven that's the word um would be there from the beginning of the speech and I know the right honorable gentleman came in a little later than when the uh uh when Steven kinnick started his speech Stephen kinnick uh thank you uh Madam chair um so it's against the backdrop of chaos confusion and party before country that we consider the Amendments that are before us today Madam chair and I'd like to start by commenting on the amendments in the name of the former immigration Minister the right honorable member for nework Madame chair this this bill is riddled with shamefully anti-democratic Clauses that undermine the rule of law and seek to undermine the conventions and values uh that we on these benches hold dear but perhaps the most egregious example of this is the admission on the face of the bill that its Provisions may not comply with the United Kingdom's obligations under international law and indeed Clause 3 explicitly disapplied 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 and he was absolutely right on both points our liberal Democratic nation is founded on the rule of law and on 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 these principles including indeed Winston Churchill himself actually helping to establish uh Britain as a founder of the 1951 convention I made the point yesterday I'll make it again that it's not for politicians to interfere with court judgments and it's not for the government to respond in a knee-jerk manner to court rulings that it dislikes that is the behavior of an autocracy not of 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 commitments within this new treaty if we're not practicing what we preach and then there is the real and present danger that this bill represents in terms of the international agreements that Britain is party to all of which are Central to our national interest I thank gentlemen for giving away 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 Court of human rights that says explicitly the high undertaking parties agree to abide by the decision of the court in any case to which they are parties from the start it was intended that there was a chick and Court I I listened to the gentleman opposite I hope he will Accord the same respect and courtesy to me um does the member agree with me that from the start it was envisaged it was an important check and balance to involve the courts in decision making well um my honorable friend makes a a very good point and and I think as we've also seen in the letter that natal wazo has sent to to her uh about the uh potential risks that there are to the trade and cooperation agreement and a range of other commitments um it is absolutely clear that it is in our national interest to uh pool our sovereignty with other nations through these conventions in order to strengthen our own National sovereignty and I agree absolutely with her on that point but firstly looking at some of these agreements The Good Friday agreement the European convention on human rights is woven integrally into different many different parts of the GFA the political settlement in Northern Ireland should not be taken for granted so disapply the ECR in British legislation would be playing with fire in that regard Madame chair and of course 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 GFA I'm sure that the Prime Minister wouldn't want to accidentally set fire to his own carefully crafted uh negotiations then there is the EU UK trade and cooperation agreement which includes Clauses on important Mutual Security cooperation 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 three of the TCA so not so introducing not with standing Clauses into this bill would mean that the government would also be dicing with the risk of jeopardizing ing security cooperation with our European partners and allies and the irony here is that this very security cooperation and data sharing is of pivotal importance when it comes to smashing the criminal gangs that are behind the small boats Crossings so this bill that is designed to stop the the to stop the the potential of uh which is designed to potentially deal with the issue of the Small Boat Crossings and the criminal gangs could potentially undermine the very cooperation which is supposed to be smashing those very gangs you literally could not make it up Madame chair so I do not believe that legislative belligerence is in the interests or the traditions of the party opposite and I certainly don't believe it's in the interests or traditions of our own proud nation and the Amendments that have been tabled by the former immigration Minister I'm afraid would simply increase all the risks that I've described and so we on these benches will be opposing them Madame X I Madam chair I turn now to the labor party's amendments again I stress that we reject this 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 around the way in which the government is handling the entire Rwanda Saga from the point of view of transparency from everything from the costs to 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 new Clause 7 and new Clause 8 are all a 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 that the government 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 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 as with the monitoring committee every 90 days 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 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 debatable Motion in Parliament so that MPS could consider whether in 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 C conservative government would 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 and new Clause five 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 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 would be suspended 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 not and that Minister only to decide whether or not to comply with any interim measures issued by the ECR for the purposes of blocking a person's removal to Rwanda Amendment 38 stipulates that in making such a decision the ministering question must consult with the attorney general Madame chair the conservative psychodrama of the past 24 hours only goes to serve the old political adage if a prime minister is incapable of managing managing his own own party he must be utterly incapable of running the country and 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 now you know what they say losing one Deputy chair could be down to Misfortune losing two in one night is share carelessness but at least we might get to see a bit more of the two of them on G on their GB news show discussing days of your while spoon feeding each other with cold baked beans which was my personal television highlight of 2023 and also explains quite a lot about the amount of hot air emanating from the bench's opposite I certainly hope to see and hear more of them in this election year but in all seriousness what on Earth is going on the country is looking on baffled that the Prime Minister can pay the Rwandan government 400 million for nothing yet places such focus on strengthening our security cooperation with Europe to stop the boats in the first place and has so spent so very little time in terms of improving our broken public services or helping our struggling households during a cost of living crisis they're perplexed that the conservatives spend so many hours on a piece of legislation that isn't really even supposed to stop the boats it's about the Prime Minister getting a single plane in the air with a handful of Asylum Seekers on it so he can say look I did it I delivered the Rwanda plan and removed a few refugees he thinks that the British people will deliver something to him on that basis we are perplexed because this is not the behavior 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 this is not what the British public voted for indeed nobody not even the public not the his own party voted for him at all Madame chair this plan is a con this bill is a sham I urge all members to get behind Labor's amendments in order to limit the damage and I urge them to vote against the bill at third reading it is unworkable unaffordable and unlawful if we are to stop the Tory small boats chaos and end the expensive Asylum use if the H of the hotels which are costing 8 million a day then this conservative Psycho Drama needs to end we need Labor's fivepoint plan to end this chaos star him with going after the criminal gangs Upstream in a new security partnership with europol we need a government that puts country before party and we need a general election this spring yeah uh it may be um helpful if I just clarify a few things um first of all as well as um if if colleagues intend to make interventions it's important that they have been there at the start of the speech it's also important that they remain to the end of the spee to the end of the speech if they have um if they have intervened and and I will don't worry um I also intend to call uh give priority to those who have got amendments down I will come to others um is in addition to the uh fact that we are discussing amendments I should explain that because there is clause stand part the debate can range slightly wider than would be normal but it is not a third meeting debate there will be a third reading there is an hour put aside for that just in case colleagues prefer to speak at that stage but I know sir Jeremy Wright has an amendment so call thank thank you very much D Bry and as you say I do in fact two and I want to focus my remarks on them they're amendments 54 and 55 um Dame Rosie of course we all understand the purpose of this bill is to allow this Parliament to designate Rwanda as a safe country so that people can be returned lawfully to it but of course to achieve that you require a definition of what a safe country is and the bill does that in Clause one subclause five and particularly 15a which describes the safe country is a country to which persons may be removed from the UK so far so good Dame Rosie it seems to me that's an essential part of the Bill's inherent purpose but the part of the sub Clause that concerns me and on which my amendment is focused is what it then goes on to say so that in fact what 5A says is that a safe country is a country to which persons may be removed from the UK and this is the bit that worries me in compliance with all of the United Kingdom's obligations under international law that are relevant to the treatment in that country of persons who are removed there in other words it seems to me the bill is saying that the United Kingdom can by means of this legislation by saying that Rwanda is a safe country also deem itself to be in compliance with a set of its international law responsibilities and I don't Dame Rosie think that can be correct now there are few in this house I suspect as familiar as I am with the vagaries and complexities of international law but surely if international law means anything it must mean that it does not lie in the hands of any individual nation state even this one to determine its own compliance with international law and if it were otherwise international law wouldn't really be International and would it certainly would no serve no purpose in containing bad behavior as we sometimes ask it to do I give what specific John I'm uh I'm very well aware I work very close to marable friend in a number of uh ways as he knows I'm very well aware my is a former Attorney General and if he were right that it's not for the government or this house to determine whether measures are compliant why on Earth would they seek and get the Attorney General's advice on just that my right honorable friend knows that the Attorney General is consulted on a variety of different legal questions both domestic and international he wouldn't 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 the attorney general and I don't think the government expects to be the ultimate Arbiter of that question the advice is given as to whether or not it is likely that this action would be in compliance with the law and I'm come in a moment to what I think the bill and the government can properly do in relation to international law responsibilities but it does seem to me that what it can't properly do is to set itself up as judging its own cause on questions of international law and this house would be wrong to pass a bill that suggested that it could that's really where my amendments are focused and as I say there's a good practical reason why we should be nervous about this because we do sometimes rely on international law in order to discharge our own policy intents and purposes and not more than 48 hours ago in this place we were doing exactly that we were saying that it's important to criticize the actions of the houthis in the redc because they contravene principles of international law and we were saying too that we just ify 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 houthi unilateral declaration that they were in compliance with international law when they did what they did nor should we have and we wouldn't of course accept a Russian legislative act to say that the invasion of the ukra of UK Ukraine by Russia was in compliance with Russia's international law responsibilities now I make it clear D Ros you I'm not of course suggesting that what the government has in mind here is in any way comparable to those two examples but it does seem to me that the point here is that to arrogate to yourself the right to declare your own compliance with international law runs the risk first of all of other states finding comfort in our example and secondly of undermining our own messages in other situations and that if I I will in just a moment that in my view makes this not just bad law but also bad foreign policy I give way thank you and gentlemen for giving we and I'm very pleased to hear what he has to say and the question of international La does he therefore share with me and I I I am not as legally qualified as him I would fully accept that a concern that the government's own legal advice states that by stating that the bill is incompatible it makes it compatible is that not worthy of the Mad March hair when it comes to consistency and standing up for the rule of law I suspect what the lady's referring to is the statement of incompatibility at the beginning of the bill with the convention on human rights and with the Human Rights Act and of course that provision is there for a reason it's to allow the government if it so chooses to act in defiance of those responsibilities that is perfectly proper and I'm going to on to explain why I think that is something The Government Can properly do what I'm concerned about is something little different which is instead of saying we don't think this is in compliance with international law we're going to do it anyway instead of that saying we think this is in compliance with international law it's down to us to decide that and we have so decided that feels to me as though that is something that we could not and should not do now Dame Rosie would be concerning enough in my judgment if this bill only tried to de de the UK's compliance with international law but it also seems to say that we can deem rwanda's compliance with international law and that is set out of course in clause 15b 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 again so far so good That's essential it seems to me to do what the bill seeks to achieve but it goes on to say in contravention of any international law and again it cannot it seems to me lie in the hands of this Parliament to decide whether or not a country may be removed to another country in contravention of any international law and it goes on in B2 to say that again a country would be a safe country in which any person who's seeking Asylum or who's had an asylum determination will both have their claims determined and be treated in accordance with that country's obligations under international law so what it seems to me the bill is seeking to do is to say if we deem it so not just is the UK in compliance with its international law responsibilities but Rwanda is going to be as well and that feels to me uh not valid and somewhat over ambitious I'm happy to give what my right honorable friend uh who has great experiences for attorney general would agree with me that actually the deeming provisions under the withdrawal act creates another rather similar situation because we deemed EU law to be UK law and therefore on the analogies he's just given that would he would argue I imagine though I think he might even have been attorney general at that time uh actually did exactly the same sort of thing although I am listening with great interest to the very more precise point he's making about the this relationship with International obligations on which I will speak later what very grateful toor friend for for his intervention and I know Dame razy you would not want me to abuse the privilege that you've given us to range slightly more widely to range quite that widely so I won't but he's right that I'm making a fairly precise point about what this language appears to me to say and and I stress I don't think in order to achieve the objectives the government has set in this legislation um with which I have some sympathy though their methods make me nervous and I make no bones about that um I do not think it is necessary to include this language and I think worse than unnecessary it presents some dangers which I don't think we need to present in order to achieve as I say the government's objectives but look I I completely understand and I I suspect uh my right honorable and leared friend the minister will tell me in a few moments or hours time that I don't need to worry about any of this and he may say that that is for two reasons the first of those is he may say well the bill doesn't mean what I think it means well you'll forgive me for saying this Dame Rosie but I I'm getting increasingly troubled in this place that we answer Point such as mine by saying yeah but it doesn't really mean that and we don't really mean that by it I think we have to be concerned as legislators with what the language we are passing into law actually says not what we meant it to say and I am concerned that what this language says is not I'm sure in accordance with what my right horable friend wants to do or the government wants to do but it might nonetheless have that effect or be partaken by others to mean the things that I am concerned about and so when it says what it thinks a safe country is this bill it seems to me it's potentially confusing two different things one of them is deeming your own compliance with international law which I don't think any country should be able to do and the other is saying that Parliament resolves to do something even if it contravenes the UK's international law obligations which going back to the previous intervention I do think the British Parliament can do and we as a legislature can resolve to do if we so choose we have to decide of course whether that is a wise and sensible thing to do with all the ramifications it might bring but as a matter of law it seems to me that the UK Parliament can if it wishes pass a law to say despite or irrespective of our international law responsibilities this is nonetheless what we want to do that is not the same as deeming your own compliance with international law which I worry this language almost certainly seems to do and the point I make about the UK Parliament being able to do things even when they contravene its international law responsibilities is of course already in the bill already reflected in the language of clause 14b which points out I quote that the validity of an act is unaffected by international law well quite right so we can if we so choose deem a country as a safe country for the purposes of domestic decision making if we want to but what I don't think we can or should do is to legislate to say we comply with our International responsibilities when we do and crucially as I say to achieve the objective of this bill we do not need to so the second reason Dame Rosie why the minister may say I do not need to worry myself about all of this is because he may say that domestic and international law exists on different planes and this legislation is only targeted in event at domestic authorities so the bill couldn't even if it chose to try deem our compliance with international law in actual fact anyway and I would agree with that it is perfectly true that domestic law and international law operate on different ples and it isn't likely this bill to determine any question of international law before any International tribunal but if that is so why include the language if it doesn't have any meaningful legal effect it doesn't serve any purpose but what it may do I fear is send a damaging political signal to other states so Dame Ry it seems to me that the language I am concerned about and which amendments 54 and 55 would remove is either offensive or it's oos and in either respect the bill will be better without it uh Joanna Cherry Dame Rosie it's a pleasure to follow the honorable learned gentleman and I I found myself in agreement with much of what he said and I think he made his points very forcibly um I Rise uh Madam chair to speak to amendments 32 33 34 and new Clause 4 in my name and to amendments four and five in the name of my honorable friend the member for Glasgow North and also to support those amendments in the name of my honorable friend the member for Glasgow Central I also want to make some comments about the Clause pans the clause stand part in relation to Clauses three and five of the bill and the Amendments that have been put forward particularly by The Honorable member right honorable member for New York particularly in my capacity as chair of the joint committee on human rights but first of all I want to turn to my amendments which are about the impact of this bill in Scotland and in which respect I'm speaking in a personal capacity my amendments and those of my honorable friend for Glasgow North go to the extent of the bill it's extent it's extension to Scotland and also to the date of its commencement in Scotland both of us seek to prevent this bill extending to Scotland and in the event that we are not successful in doing that my amendments seek to ensure that the bill will not extend to Scotland without the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament and that nothing in it will interfere with the supervisory jurisdiction of the court of session or its Noel nobil aicum and I'll explain what that means a bit later Madam chair we mustn't forget that the regime this bill seeks to impose together with the illegal migration Act is imposed an asylum Seekers across the United Kingdom not just those who arrive in small boats on the Kent Coast the UK government haven't forgotten that and that's why they want this bill with its far-reaching and unprecedented ouer Clauses to extend to Scotland accordingly Asylum seekers in Scotland looking to our Courts for protection will find that the courts and Scotland have been emasculated in the same way as this bill emasculates the courts of England and Wales now as well as having their jurisdiction Ed on certain matters of fact as was debated yesterday the Scottish courts will also find themselves unable to apply the Human Rights Act and unable to respect the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights and other International treaties and I believe this constitutes a very serious intrusion on the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts an unprecedented intrusion on the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts and a very serious interference with the separation of powers between legislature executive and Judiciary and I don't think this Parliament should be rubber stamping it this bill at all but particularly not in relation to Scotland what this bill seeks to do in emasculating the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts in relation to Asylum Seekers is an to the Scottish constitutional tradition people in Scotland don't want it they didn't vote for it in fact actually nobody in the UK voted for this because the policy wasn't in the government's Manifesto but you won't find it in contrast to England and Wales Madam chair you won't find any opinion polls carried out in Scotland which support this bill now as the great Scottish judge Lord president Cooper noted in the famous case of McCormick against the Lord advocate in 1953 and I quote the principle of the limited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law in Scotland Madam chair it is the people who are sovereign and that does make a difference to our view of how constitutionalism works and our views in on the separation of powers and it is of the essence of the Scottish constitutional tradition that executive power should not be unchecked this goes back in our history as far as the Declaration of our growth in 1320 when Scottish Nobles asserting the sovereignty of the people of Scotland in a letter to the pope told his Holiness that if the King of Scotland should ever seek to make Scots subject to the king of England again they would kick him out and seek another king to defend him so in Scotland the sovereignty of the people is our guiding principle not the sovereignty of the Monarch or indeed our own or indeed this Parliament so neither our Parliament nor this Parliament is sovereign it's the people who are sovereign now just turning to the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts this Parliament this Union Parliament exists because of the Treaty of Union Scotland has always had a separate legal system and Article 19 of the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England protects that secret that separate legal system including its inherent supervisory jurisdiction and including the noil aium of the court of session which is a power that the court of session in Scotland has to give remedies for otherwise there would be no remedy and since the modern Advent of devolution by virtue of the Scotland act the Civil jurisdiction of the Scottish courts including judicial review has been a devolved matter and therefore won properly for Scotland's Parliament so I believe that this bill is a grave intrusion on the Civil jurisdiction of the Scottish courts and that's the reason for my amendments the Scottish government is considering a legislative consent motion and my Amendment 34 would ensure that this act this bill when it becomes an act would not come into force in Scotland without a legislative consent motion and new Clause four which I'm putting forward would ensure that notwithstanding I like that a nice notwithstanding Clause I hope um honorable members on the other side who've been so excited about notwithstanding Clauses will support my Scottish notwithstanding Clause a new Clause 4 says that not withstanding anything in this bill if it were to become an Act the supervisory jurisdiction and The Noy aiing of the court of session would be preserved and in that way I hope to ensure that Asylum seekers in Scotland will still have the protection of the courts in accordance with our constitutional tradition just to explain the noble aicum of the court session is a noble office or Duty which Scotland's highest court has it's a sort of extraordinary Equitable jurisdiction by virtue of which the court May within limits mitigate the strictness of the law and provide a legal remedy to people where otherwise none would exist I will giveway yes without prejudice to the content of what she's saying otherwise could I just simply say in relation to the word not withstanding I'm extremely glad that the Scottish eagle has landed certainly won't be supporting the uh other notwithstanding Clauses in the bill but um I I felt it was perhaps time we had a notwithstanding Clause that benefited Scotland for a change um so my amendments Madam chair they're designed to protect Scotland's courts and and the Scottish constitutional tradition um and they're there to ensure that Asylum seekers in Scotland might still enjoy the pro protection of the courts from the infringement of their fundamental rights and that's what people in Scotland want and that's been expressed repeatedly through H the Scottish Parliament so I am of course a Scottish MP and and a member of the Scottish bar and I'm here to do what I can to protect Scotland and the Scotland's legal system for the extraordinary attack which this bill constitutes on human rights and the rule of law but Madam chair I'm not a Scottish exceptionalist and I recognize as reflected in the house of House of Commons library's excellent legal briefing on the bill and indeed in the speech that preceded mine that concerns about the impact of this rule of this bill on the rule of law and the Constitution are shared by many in England and indeed by many lawyers in England and for for every lawyer that has been cited by honorable members on the other side in in favor of this bill and in favor of a of the Draconian amendments to this bill you will find two lawyers who who just to disagree and and um the library briefing and it really is an excellent summary of different legal views on this bill the library briefing concludes and I quote tension between the sovereignty of parliament to legislate and the role of the courts in enforcing the rule of law principle that executive bodies must exercise their powers within their statutory limits may be tempered by restrain on both sides if either the courts or Parliament cease to exercise such restraint significant constitutional uncertainty could result close quotes and I believe that if we pass this bill this Parliament will have ceased to exercise the restraint referred to there it would be a major departure from such restraint and I do believe Madam chair that if this bill passes I believe and I predict that we will see what might be an unprecedented constitutional challenge to an act of the British Parliament I will give way the checks and balances which prevent arbitrary power and she's right that in our constitutional settlement uh that is uh Central this is not the exercise of arbitrary power because the bill and the amendments to it quite specific about the uh their Provisions so for example uh our uh separation from the international obligations that I know she holds so dear is very specific in the Amendments that are Ted by specific to this particular measure this legislation this is not arbitrary anything but what it does what what it does do this bill is it seeks to carve out a group of people coming to our country or within our country from the protections that the rest of us enjoy and I think that history shows us that that sort of legislation can put a state on a pretty slippery slope and that brings me to the arguments I want to make in relation to Clause Stan part for clause three and five of this bill now the joint committee on human rights has not yet had the chance to complete a legislative scrutiny of this bill given the speed with which it passed through the house so we have not as a committee reached a concluded view on the bill but before Christmas and before the second reading a chair's briefing paper referring to the legal advice the committee had received was published and it's extensively referred to in the ex excellent legal commentary on the bill published by the House of Commons library and it says this inter Alia that the the dis the disapplication of the Human Rights Act in clause three of this bill is is really very significant because as I indicated a moment ago in my answer to the right honorable gentleman human rights are meant to offer a fundamental level of protection for every person on the base of their Humanity alone and as our committee has noted in a previous report if those protections are disapplied when they cause problems for a policy goal they lose their fundamental and Universal Character and that means that they they lose the fundamental and Universal Character that characterizes them and this is arguably particularly the case when they are disapplied in respect of a particular group and in this case fundamental human rights are being disapplied in respect of migrants who come to the United Kingdom without prior permission now bills that disapply parts of the human rights act are not unprecedented under this current government I'm sad to say both the illegal migration Act and the victims and prisoners Bill sought to disapply section three of the Human Rights Act in respect of certain legislation however this bill seeks to disapply section six of the Human Rights Act and that's the obligation on public authorities to act compatibly with human rights and that's never before been attempted even by this government and it represents a significant INR into human rights protections if we pass the bill with that Clause there it means effectively this Parliament is authorizing public authorities to breach human rights now that's an awful long way from what this Parliament intended uh when it passed the Human Rights Act and what the United Kingdom intended when it signed up to to the convention now as we heard um at some length yesterday as a result of parliamentary sovereignty breaching human rights if we pass this bill would be in accordance with our domestic law but it would still violate the UK's obligations under the convention because we cannot unilaterally change what the convention says and also as the Bingham center for the rule of LA law have noticed in their briefing on the bill if we disapply the Human Rights Act in the manner proposed we're also breaching Article 13 of the convention which entitles people to an effective remedy now I'm afraid to say that the amendments in the name of the right honorable member for Newark who's no longer in his place his amendments to clause three would make the situation even worse and his amendments 11 to 12 appear to extend the disapplication of the Human Rights Act to anything done under the illegal migration act that relates to the removal of a person to Rwanda and that could potentially mean that the Detention of people awaiting um being removed to remanda and and their and their treatment prior to their removal would not be protected under the Human Rights Act is that what we really is that what this Parliament really wants to legislate for and in additionally by as the right on member for New York seeks to do he wants to um extend the Clause to disapply section four of the human rights act as well now the Clause as it presently stands does not disapply section four of the Human Rights Act and that means that it would if it remains as it is be open for a court in future to declare that this bill when it becomes law is not compatible with this convention now with the convention now that would be by by way of a declaration only it wouldn't affect the ongoing function of the bill it wouldn't mean that removals to Rwanda could be prevented or delayed but it would mean that this Parliament and government would have to decide whether any changes to the law should be made and if we amend the bill to disapply section four of the Human Rights Act again that's something that has never been done before and something that would further OU the jurisdiction of our courts from saying to the government and the public what their view on the laws compatibility with human rights is and finally turning to Clause five stand part I also believe that this bill shouldn't stand part of the bill but we've heard a lot today about honorable members on the other side of the house is concern about interim measures issued uh by um the uh European Court of Human Rights and uh the reality is this no matter what this legislation ends up saying it can only affect domestic law in respect of the ECR in particular particular the UK will remain Bound by the Convention as a matter of international law and indeed even if this government God forbid were to exercise the nuclear option to withdraw us from the convention thereby putting us into bed with Russia and Belarus even if they were to do that we would remain Bound for a further 6 months after withdrawal takes place and I hope I hope they'll bear that in mind so Claus 5 at the moment says that only a minister can decide whether to comply with interim measures and and the domestic courts should ignore them it remains to be seen what a minister would do but we all know that the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he wouldn't let a foreign Court to use his words prevent flights taking off which indicates that interim measures may be ignored now as I said in my intervention earlier on the right honorable member for New York interim measures are made under part of the Court's rules of procedure 39 they don't form part of the text of the convention ratified by the UK okay but when we ratified that convention we signed up to the idea that the court the European Court of Human Rights is the body that determines the meaning of the convention and it's held consistently since the case he mentioned in 2005 that failing to comply with interim measures amounts to a breach of article 34 ma Madam chair interim measures are fundamental to any Court they are issued to protect the position of an individual while their legal rights are determined all this fuss about PE people in their pajamas in the middle of the night is just very silly judges in the United Kingdom both in the English jurisdiction and the Scottish jurisdiction are regularly got out of their beds in the middle of the night to uh issue injunctions Inland interim injunctions in England and interim interdicts in Scotland it's a standard part of any legal system and many of the concerns that the other side have expressed about these interim measures have now been addressed by the court and reforms which they um are proposing but any decision of a minister not to comply with the inter inter measure would therefore be inconsistent with our obligations under the echr this means that Clause five if we let it stand part of the bill will expressly authorize British government ministers to act in breach of international law that is the reality and I note that according to the Times newspaper this is the advice reported to have been given to the government by the attorney general and the minister The Honorable member from mid Dorset in North Pool when he was solicitor general that doesn't surprise me at all it shouldn't surprise anyone cuz any legal underg graduate would be able to tell you that so in so far as amendments 23 to 25 state that interim measures are not binding that is inaccurate as a matter of Law and we must understand that we' be putting the UK directly in conflict with um our International legal obligations so Madam chair I realized I've taken up a little bit more time than I'd intended but I hope the Amendments I've spoken to and the Clause stand part would go some way to ameliorating this bill but certainly even if they were to be pass I would be voting against it than chair of the Justice select committee Sir Robert Neil thank you very much Dame Rosie it's a pleasure to follow the honorable and leered Lady the member for edra Southwest and my right honorable and leered friend the member for Kenn sou um although I I I won't be supporting the uh honorable ladies amendments I great respect for the intellectual riger which she brought to to to to Scots law uh and its application here and I say the same in relation to the point made by my right honorable and learned friend in relation to uh his amendments 45 54 and 55 and I do hope that the minister will think seriously about how we deal with that issue and I'm sure I'm sure he he will but they are serious points we are raise because in a nutshell I too would agree with the proposition that V of course Parliament can legislate to do whatever it likes in domestic law simple fact is you cannot legislate away international law obligations or or treaty obligations and it will be misleading to try and pretend otherwise can I then uh uh turn uh to uh the Amendments move by by right honorable friend the member for Newark and I'm sorry he's not in his place because I have to say with every respect uh that I profoundly differ uh from his characterization of pajama injunctions by a foreign Court uh which I respectfully would argue is both inaccurate and that rather unworthy because as was observed by The Honorable and leery lady for Edinburgh Southwest is perfectly normal for interim injunctions to be done uh at difficult hours when the test for them is met so we shouldn't say uh uh that as being unusual um there are arguments about the way the rule 39 procedure uh in the uh Strasburg Court works that can be legitimately made but let's make it on the basis of a of an accurate construction of what it's about rather than otherwise secondly it it is I would let you just F yes I will actually and then I'll get on I I great respect for the argument he makes and I do defer to his experience and knowledge on this I'm I'm interested genuinely in his view that he's he's aiding a judge in the UK issuing an injunction late at night in the event of what would be in normal circumstances an individual situation does he really think that it's comparable to discuss to describe in that's in the same terms the act of a court which is genuinely in a uh in another country a judge who is unknown Anonymous uh who does not publish the rationale for their opinion and in doing so calls a halt with the support of the government it must be said to the policy of the British government enacting a law passed in Parliament surely there's a a difference uh both of degree and of nature uh between the two cases I think the friend needs to bear in mind in fact the application that was made to Strasburg was an was an IND an application about the circumstances of an individual case as well so that's no different there is a legitimate criticism one that I voiced in the past about the uh procedure adopted in Strasburg for these for these applications in two two matters firstly the anonymity of the judge and secondly the failure uh to state reasons that wouldn't be acceptable from our point of view but the answer is not then to throw out the whole of the judicial uh baby and treat baby with the bath water in that regard it is as is possible thanks to the Brighton declaration that was signed by my my my Noble uh learning friend Lord Clark of Nottingham is possible to actually make reforms following dialogue between member states the uh uh Council of ministers and uh the Judiciary of the court and I'm pleased to say that after pressure from the United Kingdom perfectly properly the uh court has itself indicated it is going to consult on reforms to the procedure and that can only be a good thing so that's where I think the balance position is as far as that's concerned secondly of course in fact further than that there are already proposed reforms that are going to come into place this year to the inter procedure that crucially will remove the anonymity provisions and also allow uh Contracting parties like the UK to make the argument that as I believe in this case this is not an imminent risk of reparable damage we can fly people back from Rwanda and that was the argument that we need to keep making my right honorable Lear friends is entirely correct and he and I probably would have very happily argued the UK case in Strasburg on those grounds yes so let's be realistic then about what we're fighting against been AR Sally with respect set up here because actually things are already being uh steps already being taken to deal with the objectionable uh matters of rule 39's uh but the principle of them is not of itself objectionable and secondly the characterization as a of a foreign court is with respect not helpful in these circumstances because it implies something alien um that's not the case in relation either to international law as a concept or to the court itself either fact it happens to meet in a different place in the UK is inevitable because it's got to meet somewhere but it's just bear in mind Not only was the UK one of the driving uh uh uh powers behind the creation of the convention in the first place behind the court itself and behind much of the jurist Prudence of the Court the UK does actually have a a shared ownership of the Court along with all the other member states and that's demonstrated not just in the cheaty but in practical ways too for example uh the uh members of the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe members of this house and the other place have a role in the appointment of the judges of the Court my right honorable friend M for Gainer and I served at one time on the subcommittee of the assembly that dealt with that process and I like think we did so diligently so there is a an involvement in that process a British judge always sits on the court is a member of the court judge Tim Mike the current judge is a very distinguished International lawyer as well we're very lucky to have him two of the recent registar of the Court who run the administration of the Court have been British lawyers uh British lawyers appear regularly in cases before the court this is not an alien body it's a court of which we have joint ownership it's it's our court along with that of all the other member states of the convention and it's wrong to mischaracterize it as being that there something which is therefore alien certainly in all International matters as my writer on early friend said it operates on a different plane but the sort of the the the the uh tone of a sort of alienness is respect both inaccurate and uh uh somewhat offensive and also unnecessary for the purposes of of this bill anyway because that's the other point that I want to to come to in relation to rule 39 the Amendments moved by my right honorable friend for member for new are oos they're unnecessary um and frankly they make what is a difficult situation worth because as a matter of law an interim measure under rule 39 is an indication that is made to the government of the member state it is not made to the courts of the member State it's conveyed to uh the me the government of the member State concerned and therefore it is for the members of the government of the member State I.E the ministers to decide what to do about it I personally take the view that you should be very Loy indeed to ignore uh the U find the findings of the court on an injury matter and it does run the risk as right on an honorable Lear lady rightly says of planing you in breach of your international law obligation in that regard but the truth is it is a political decision which the ministers can take so what the current let me just finish this point what the current form bill in its current formulation States is actually no more than a statement of the law as it stands and you probably don't need that clause in the bill um I'm not going to um die on the die in the ditch over that because it's simply stating what is the law already but equally there's absolutely no need for the uh right on Amendment for New York's Amendment if you like to put bells and whistles on osis if I can put it that way I'll give way to the right on way I I'm loathed to interrupt him as he's he's describing not so much the separation of power as the desiccation of power but but but on a specific point that he made about his reticence or reluctance not to abide by the advice from the court and he said ministers could do that but he wouldn't would he on that basis not have done what the noble Lord Lord Cameron did as prime minister and resist the overtures from the court to give prisoners votes in in fact um two points I make around that I supported the overlord Lord Cameron in that regard because it was a political decision there and it's worth just looking in terms of the Practical politics although we were for a a period of time at variance with the court in that regard no harm was done done to the to to to the polity of the United Kingdom in that regard no harm was done to the interests of the United Kingdom no terrible International consequence flowed against us from it um I think the court got it wrong on that occasion and one of the problems is that there isn't an appeal system within the Strasburg court so you have to wait until some future decision may go in a different way and I think many of us take the view that that in reality um the court is currently constituted in Strasburg um perhaps less activist if I might say than its predecessors might well have found differently in the prison of voting case anyway but the fact was UK ministers took a decision and they did what was right in the UK was supported on all sides of the house and no harm was done so the idea that there is some terrible consequence will flow to the UK uh because of the existence of the ability to seek uh rule 39 ining measures is just misplaced yeah I will doesn't my long friend reflect upon the fact that uh on this particular question of prison of voting which I did discuss with the noble Lord Lord Cameron when he was prime minister at the time um that actually it was regarded by the right horal Noble Lord the Lord Clark of Nottingham I think it is that um it was as he put it that it was a particular political policy I think those are the words he used how would you describe the issue of illegal migration would you not regard that if I may say my honoral friend uh as also a particular but very important political policy and that's why as it happens I will not vote against to this bill because I although I have some misgivings there is a legitimate concern that needs to be dealt with in relation to Illegal Bates but the simple fact is that is not a reason for the blanket derogation the the the blanket um uh removal of echr protections uh that are proposed in the series of amendments that's the difference in Ira one that sometimes there's a mixture of Politics as well as law that arise in these matters and I don't but the point I make is that frankly if the if any government wants to take the political risk of uh ignoring an in measure it can under our law as it stands it happen happens it actually did um effectively in relation to prisoner voting so it could now if it wanted to I'm not going to revise on that because I think one's going to be very wary uh not to come to views that aren't very often going to be fact specific when individual decisions are made that's why give way yeah I'm very grateful to IR friend for giving away and I don't want to prolong the discussion about prisoner voting but rather like our rle with friend the stone I remember having conversations about this subject inside government I think it would be fairer would it not to describe the situation that the UK didn't at any point refuse to comply with the Judgment it is perhaps a more a austinian approach to compliance that we've adopted we just haven't quite got around to it yet I think that's right as I call it the the UK the UK government put a motion before this house which the house rejected so you could had a perfect legal argument that we had taken steps to comply in Parliament as it was entitled to had done otherwise and that's why the whole of this argument uh uh with my right on friends for New York's amendments is that Aunt Sally is really complete red hering to to the real issues that we are concerned with and why these amendments had nothing uh to the bill and I urge honorable members on both sides of the house to reject them the final thing uh that I I just wanted to deal with Dame Rosie if I may uh was this uh I had misgivings about this bill I mentioned that I spoke about that at second reading I said that it stayed acceptable just and I will continue to maintain that position my right on friend member for quoted the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst very distinguished uh lawyer in the other place a personal friend of mine I should say I would say Lord Santos Lord Santos is chair of the research Committee of the Society of conservative lawyers I happen to chair the executive committee of the society L sandur and Harry gillow a fellow member of the society published a very useful pamphlet around the impact of this bill and they updated it in the light of the Amendments and their conclusion with respect was this the bill goes as far as is reasonably possible without risking collapse of the Randa scheme as a whole I end quotes they go on to say and I quote the bill as drafted represents the best chance of success for the migration and economic development partnership with Randa scheme End quotes So they actually are on the same side of the argument I am that the Amendments proposed by the right honorable member for nework take it over the line of being able to deliver the economic uh migration the the migration Economic Development partnership scheme they RIS collapsing the whole St it was ironic that um my right honorable friend the m talked about blowing up um uh the bill the truth is his amendments will blow up the deal with Rwanda because Rwanda has made it abundantly clear that anything that clearly breaches international law will be unacceptable to them and they would withdraw from the amendment so not only are the amendments propos legally unsound and oos that actually ridiculously bad politics with respect as well because they would actually defeat the object of those who do want to see uh uh uh people being moved aroundand to deter the votes so on both legal and political grounds I urge the house to reject these amendments and leave things as they stand yeah yeah uh Gavin Robinson ruy thank you very much indeed uh for calling me in this committee stage and it is a pleasure to follow the honorable Nur gentleman the chair of the Justice committee and he did say that at times you will see a collision between or an interface with politics and the law uh and I hope what arises from my contribution is that there's a third element to that as well and that's principle and throughout the passage of this bill and indeed some of the precursors to it um we have advanced a number of principal positions one of which challenges the basis of the legal aspiration contained within the bill another will rightly challenge that it doesn't matter how hard you suggest this is the most robust piece of legislation if it doesn't do what's intended to do it isn't going to work and that is an unprincipled place to be with the British electorate to suggest that all these steps are in Earnest and have some virtue knowing that they are inconsistent and will not work I made those points during the nationality and borders bill and the ministerial bench at that time told me I was entirely wrong and that there was no need to strengthen the provisions and that the bill would do what they said it would do and now I hear through stages of this bill this committee stage the very same people who occupied the front bench adopting the same arguments that we deployed to the nationality and borders bill I still find it thoroughly inconsistent that our government have reached a position that they have an agreement with Rwanda that involves our country accepting refugees from Rwanda a country capable of producing refugees and yet we are considering that in the context of the safety of Rwanda bill it is in Congress to me how a country deemed safe by this Parliament is capable of producing refugees from that very same country and I haven't heard a robust argument to the country as to how that is not an inconsistent position of course I'm very grateful to the hon gentleman for me for giving me a chance to put him right because the example is for example the in uh the transit mechanism that is in place where Rwanda is already um hosting refugees from Libya for example uh Rwanda in its generosity and safety um hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees that's how and if the minister is prepared to say that the only refugees that can come to the United Kingdom from Rwanda are those that have been produced as refugees from other countries that is an absolutely Fair Point to make but I don't think that's the point he's making I don't think it is and I'm very happy to let him interv it again but I just genuinely don't think that is the point he's making and the point I am making that is entirely inconsistent one hand to say we we accept refugees from a country and in the other deem that country as safe but accept our right to do it and I don't quibble with the government's aspiration that Rwanda is a safe country I don't quibble with it I just say there's a complete ju toos between on one hand saying it's safe and on the other accepting refugees from that very same country and I make the point D Ros and I recognize the nature of this committee stage but I do make the point again to the shadow Minister it's not about his Valiant opposition at committee stage or third reading or what passed at second it's about the labor party's opposition which will fold I have no doubt fold on this bill in the other place the political choice will be the labor parties there is no second session or additional session of this Parliament there will be no Parliament act available to pass the Rwanda bill and it's going to be tortured in other place the bill will be tortured in other place and the only reason or the only way it will emerge or emanate from this Parliament is if a political calculation is made by the labor party that there's too much political cost in opposition to the bill and they draw stumps and allow it to pass and I reiterate that point I'm saying it very clearly now and I suspect in a number of months time this point that is being ignored today will become quite acute within our political discourse I Thank The Honorable gentleman uh for giving way and and I apologize and I perhaps hadn't fully understood his point in the in his question to me when I was making my remarks it was specifically about the other place what I would say to him is that uh labor members of the other place will give this bill the scrutiny that it deserves will hold the government to account and if you take for example the illegal migration bill which ended up going through got royal Ascent in spite of very severe and serious reservations but we of course in The Other Place recognize uh that uh we have uh the duty to scrutinize but also we are responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of parliament across the board so I would say to him that I don't think this bill will be treated in any way differently to any other piece of legislation that would go to the other place at least from the point of view of my colleagues there J I'm very grateful to um accept that intervention and the shadow Minister has made his point and I have made my point but I suspect that that point um you will find as much safety in in the point that has just been made as those that stand bullishly and say this is the strongest Mis robust piece of legislation ever irrespective of whether it works I just make that put it on the record Adam Deputy speaker as you will be aware from second reading considerations um we do have concerns about the operability of this bill in light of the UK's with withdrawal from the European Union and the legislative framework that surrounds that relationship and that's why you'll see in new clause three to speak directly to our Amendment you will see a notwithstanding clause and I know they've had some humor around not withstanding Clauses from The Honorable lady from Eden South um or Eden Southwest um but that notwithstanding Clause is there because we are concerned in contradiction of government's position that the claims that have been made in this house and the position that the government have deployed is not sustainable legally and this amendment proposed by us the not withstanding section 7A of the uh withdrawal agreement the European Union withdrawal agreement uh 2018 amended 2020 is important from a principal perspective as a unionist 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 and the concern is that government is blindly ignoring our concerns and allowing a situation to develop that will cause a fracture in the immigration policy which up until this point has applied equally across the United Kingdom now I have engaged with the minister on this and I'm very grateful not only for um him making the time available but the courtesy with which he always approaches these issues um colleagues will recall that we raised this issue in second reading and the minister gave a commitment and fundamentally the commitment that the minister gave uh comes in two parts one that that government has never accepted that the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement engages immigration policy and furthermore 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 and that argument that the government is putting forward is predicated on article two of the withdrawal agreement that there be no demun of Rights um for the people of Northern Ireland whenever the United Kingdom leaves the European Union and as a consequence given the rights chapter they say does not apply to immigration there is no demition of Rights so this is not captured by article two now we engage with the government and I'm not going to take an advention at this stage because there's a few elements to this that I want to get out clearly and cleanly and then I'm happy to take an intervention once I have done so but the minister uh put forward his point we exchanged positions at second reading about the potential of an updated uh legal note and I have to say that in all cander the minister has been forthcoming government have been forthcoming with addressing this point to us more formally on article two of the European Union withdrawal act alone not article 7 of the European Union withdrawal act and D Rosy let's just be clear about this we as a national parliament are considering on a national basis our national immigration policy and our amendment is intended to elicit the government Eyes Wide Open choose to ignore us at this point choose to dismiss the concerns that have been raised and ultimately leave it to the courts to decide and for the Judiciary to determine if there's a cause for concern or not or or take the very simple step on immigration grounds alone to disapply article 7A section 7A of the W withdrawal agreement that's the choice I shared with the minister yesterday and I share with the house today that there was a high court case in Belfast it was a judicial review in the matter of an application for am and just some and it's interesting reading and I share it with um the house at committee States this afternoon paragraph 94 of that judgment says very clearly the combined effect of section 7A of the EU withdrawal act 2018 and article two of the protocol limits the effects of section 54 and five of the European Union withdrawal act schedule one and paragraph three of the same act which restrict the use to which the charter of fundamental rights and the EU general principles may be relied upon after the eu's exit this means that the charter of the fundamental rights remains enforceable in Northern Ireland and Falls within the Ambit of article 21 of the protocol and contained within the chart of fundamental rights is article 18 the right to Asylum so everything was seen from 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 19 4 of this Belfast high court judgment which has a completely separate legal construction as to how the government's ambition around this Rwanda bill will not apply to Northern Ireland the minister said clearly on the floor of the house 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 three is our attempt on the first stage for the government to accept it and and rule out the concerns that have been raised and if they should not do so then articulate at least their intention their position what they believe to be the case why they believe this interpretation and the Judgment from Belfast is wrong and I raise these issues on a number of levels Madam Deputy speaker as a parliamentary spokesperson on home Affairs and somebody who's engaged on these immigration issues for for a while as somebody has voted against previous attempts because I don't believe that they are the right approach somebody who has voted against this bill at second reading because I still don't believe it is the rights approach but a representative for Belfast which believe it or not and I say this with no alarm or no theatrics but as a matter of record that the House of Commons Library figures in September pointed that Belfast has the second highest number of Asylum Seekers housed within our city across the entire United Kingdom 78 for every 10,000 uh within the City's population and so I'm not being alarmist about that I'm not going to over egg it I'm just making the point that these are important issues that the unity of our immigration system is an important issue the protection of our borders is an important issue on immigration terms and Heaven Knows Heavens knows we've had enough difficulty around the creation of a trade Border in the RSC that we are having to deal with that we cannot we cannot casually or mistakenly or through misplacement hope walk ourselves into the creation of an immigration seab Border in the RC because government fails to accept the strength of failing on this issue the cause for concerns surrounding it the legal and judicial uh opinion that has been given that leans into it this is our opportunity to put it right and I think it is an opportunity that we should take now de Ros I'm about to sit down but I did In fairness indicate to The Honorable lady that I would allow her and I mean no discy so I shall I than you gentlemen and and I appreciate the case that he's making my concern is that my reading of the aneson judgment and I went and looked at after after he and I had talked about it it says that both the applicant and the respondent agree that the rights safeguards and equality of opportunity in strin in strand three of the Good Friday agreement do not exclude Asylum Seekers so the home office that brought the case accepts that the Good Friday agreement extends to refugees in Northern Ireland and yet with this piece of legislation they are seeking to exempt them from those rights and therefore undermine the Good Friday agreement I just wants to clarify my reading of the ruling that he mentioned look she's entirely right in the uh in the quote that she has shared DM Rosy um it is fair to say that the government won that case therefore we didn't see uh or nor indeed did the government really have any rationale for taking forward an appeal to defend some of the points that they may well have chosen to defend but she highlights a FR day in that position if the home office were accepting of a position that they have defended in other cases that the rights chapter is not engaged that is a fry of the government's position and that is why In fairness The Honorable lady has her own Amendment down which isn't as fatal as ours and the not withstanding Provisions but at least is asking government not to proceed with this bill until they are in a firm position to publish a position and this house has agreed that that is the basis upon which we proceed I've been in this place now for 8 and a half almost 9 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 principal's decisions so it's not an amendment that I take comfort from but I look very much forward to hearing what the minister has to say given the day that this is and the potential for third reading this evening de Rosie thank you uh Sir Robert Buck thank you Madame wut speaker I spoke yesterday to the amendment that stood in my name that are potentially subject to division later so I won't trouble the house on that the amendment today that stands in my name relates to an amendment to uh Clause 9 which preserves uh a small element of clause one namely the definition of safe country I listen very carefully to the reasoned arguments of my uh right honorable friend the member for Kenworth and sou who um uh I think is is is in a similar position to me except he he is taking exception to parts of clause one that I want to retain uh I'd rather get rid of the rest of clause one because I think it's bad lawmaking but I'll come back to that in a moment um and I think I might have an answer for his um sensible um uh questioning of why it is that in uh that definition of safe country we see in uh sub Clause uh 5b2 a reference to um the that country's obligation under international law otherwise the other country's obligation I think it's simple it it has to flow because I like the understanding of many people about this scheme this is not um the offshoring of UK processing this is the wholesale handing to another country of the determination of applications and that's why I think it's in there and that's the answer I think that hopefully gives him some satisfaction which is why consideration of my amendment I decided to retain the entirety of clause five uh in my uh Amendment which would put it into the interpretive Clauses towards the back end of uh the bill um now that was the only part of clause one that I could see had any function whatsoever I'll give I'll give extremely grateful to him for giving away and and I understand the argument he's making and and I'm not going to be dogmatic about the approach that I set out earlier but isn't there a danger if we retain the language he's referring to we open up another channel of legal challenge which is exactly what the government's seeking to avoid because if the question becomes is Rwanda in compliance with its international law responsibilities that's something else that someone may choose to argue if they wish to resist their transfer to Rwanda well my right honorable friend is absolutely right I think I've said outside this chamber that the principle less is more when it comes to uh the passage of Statute is not something that is fundamentally conservative but it's also fundamental to good lawmaking and although this bill doesn't weigh in at a at a very heavy number of clauses I think it's a mere 10 uh I do think that as parliamentarians have a continuing Duty uh Dame Rosie to uh demonstrate economy and I think any uh clause in this case Clause one that is subtitled introduction should give us all pause for thought if not breaking out into a cold sweat uh because it seems to me that the language in all those Clauses up to Clause five and then Clause six um is really the place it's it's better belongs in a white paper or in an accompanying policy document we know what the purpose of the bill is we've read the treaty we've read the policy document uh most of us would have read the policy document that accompanied the publication of this bill that's where this language belongs D Rosie not on the face of a bill not just because I have a tidy and ordered mind well I try to have a tidy and ordered mind but the very point that my right honorable Lear friend makes the more words you put into legislation the more opportunity you give for their litigation and their justiciability and the arguments that will then go before the court about fundamental issues at a high level that really should not be in my view the province of litigation you know it's for it's for the Contracting parties of a treaty to sign uh the document to agree its terms and then for the treaty to take place to to to to to to come into force uh either directly as in the case of Rwanda or in our dualist system via the Constitutional reform and governments uh act the CAG procedure that is Ono which will bring the treaty into Force so so I've got to say to my uh uh right honorable I great esteem for why is our journey really necessary to use one of my favorite wartime attitudes in my uh view Clause one I think needs to go uh save for the retention of clause 5 which is why although it will be a stand part um vote anyway I tabled a particular Amendment just to to uh to to emphasize my my extreme distaste for Clause one uh and also a distaste based upon the fear that this somehow becomes the norm that we start to see legislation uh of this nature proliferate start with Clause two that's what the Bill's all about the safety of the Republic of Rwanda that's where it should begin Dame Rosy it's very clear what Clause 2 says and I spoke to it yesterday now clause three huh now that's uh that's a that throws up a series of interesting questions I'm not a particular fan may I say Dame Rosie of section three of the Human Rights Act never like the read down Provisions I think it draws uh the justices and the Supreme Court and the court of appeal Supreme Court in particular into a province where they are almost acting as a constitutional Court we've seen it happen the read down Provisions where judges in effect pass and reinterpret the will of parliament is a is a is a very sticky and dangerous place for the court to go down I like it and had I had the opportunity had we done what we said we were going to do in the manifesto which I help right we would have updated the Human Rights Act by now and who knows we could have got rid of section three and we wouldn't need to be referring to it in this ad hoc way in this bill I it it was a horrible echo of that Bill of Rights uh Dane Rosie which Happily Never Saw The Light and we didn't have a second reading of that thank goodness uh and perhaps some of what I'm saying now in the context of these amendments and the St part debates uh are an echo of my uh deep distaste for aspects of that failed legislation so why we got uh clause three in the bill well I can see what the government wants to do they want to avoid uh arguments relating to the Human Rights Act but I'm afraid they can't get out of it to go to jail because what will happen is that as people have an individual right of petition to Strasburg anyway where in effect sending the arguments uh to that so-called foreign Court I entirely agree with my honorable uh friend the member of bronley and chiselhurst Court which we help set up and have a direct uh ownership of uh we send the arguments directly to there and of course the danger of allowing uh uh petitions to go to Strasburg without any airing of these arguments in domestic courts is that we really not giving uh uh that evidence that margin of appreciation evidence that is so crucial uh for the Strasburg court because you know again uh Dame Rosie I do get frustrated by um inelegant and inaccurate comparisons between the Luxembourg Court the the court of justice of the European Union and the Strasburg Court the Strasburg court is a very different place we have a much wider margin of appreciation a much bigger discretion a much uh much more room in which to make arguments of interpretation and context and indeed political context as well about the way in which we do things in this country and perhaps it's no coincidence that the number of times the United Kingdom is found in breach of the convention is vanishingly small and we've heard about prisoner rights uh you know more cases anybody U abuat you might remember that this is abuad case is the one that's on all fours with what we're dealing with here we solve the problem by making sure that Jordan actually had a fair trial system and I think if I'm right I think AB katada was tried he was acquitted in Jordan but you know the point was made and I think this is the point on all fours with this bill that if you're going to rely on the for on the processes of another country then getting them right in order to be compliant seems to be the Best Way Forward which is why the government treaty approach I think is to be commended so look clause three um no I don't see the need for it get rid of it um you're going to end up with these arguments whether you like it or not now Clause five well again another another Clause that that in the words of my uh honorable friends is just unnecessary uh I do not see how interim measures uh first of all equate in any way to uh The Binding nature of final judgments which article 46 of the convention of course uh draws us to uh and indeed anything different from the approach that we take to domestic injunctions interim injunctions in domestic cases that High Court judges Jes County Court judges judges of all shapes and sizes uh will be enjoined to uh uh uh um uh create or refuse on expart or interart uh applications and it is important I think in this context about the debate of interm measures to pray and Aid the work that has been done in uh the plenary uh sessions of the uh Court of of the of the European Court of uh of Human Rights last year where already uh the rules will be changed and these rules are going to come into effect in 2024 may I ask my uh right honorable new friend to uh work with colleagues in the Law Officers Department his former department and indeed the law chancell to make sure that the Council of Europe and indeed rather the plenary uh um sessions of the Court actually get on with implementing these changes because it seems to me that the changes to interim measures are really important first of all the limiting of the granting of of measures to exceptional circumstances those are not the words at the moment that exist in the definition of rule 39 that at a stroke uh uh changes the ball game in my view and secondly the end to anonymity for judges which is uh a proposal that will be enacted and finally importantly the opportunity for parties to the proceedings to request the court to reconsider its decision so we will the United Kingdom will have an opportunity to say no there's no imminent risk of irreparable damage here we can fly people back from Rwanda if there's a problem and in any event because of the measures we we're taking in this act we're not going to be sending people who are vulnerable or at risk uh because they might be terminally ill or pregnant or whatever it might be or some serious condition to Rwanda in the first place we've got the arguments damee Ros to deal with uh uh rule 39 in my view and we should have the confidence the self-confidence uh and the ability to make our case and these reforms to rule 39 I think will be significant I'm delighted to have followed the honorable gentleman M Fest Bell fast uh who I think made a very thoughtful contribution he and I have had some differences of opinion about um things in recent days but uh he always caches his arguments and respectful way for that I thank him and to I'll give way before I develop the the P yes I will give it's grateful to my my right honorable friend um two things first of all just quickly uh does he understand that there are those who argue that these 30 rule 39 indications are actually or the way in which they're being used by the Strasburg Court are are not binding has he heard that argument and does he agree with it or not uh and then the second thing is with regard to the question of how uh people react to the manner in which it's being done does he think that the way in which it is being done uh given the reforms that are being proposed does he speak with authority not he hasn't got his own authority but does he can he quote to us any specific document or demonstration which shows that actually the whole thing is now more or less sewn up well I'm very grateful to uh my uh uh honorable uh friend I I do have sources uh which um I was looking at in terms of research for the speech today I will send him the links that I have to the web pages in the European Court which deal with several meetings that were held I think in the summer and in November of last year where these proposals were agreed and that now the question is implementation in 20124 I think the uh they they have not been specific as to precisely when these reforms are going to be brought in I think therefore now is our opportunity not just as a parliament but as a government together with other member states to say look this is welcome can you please bring them in and hopefully bring them in in a way that dovetails with you the eventual coming into force of these Provisions so that's an important point that I think he makes well I will certainly send that information to him with regard to the question of binding nature I think that it's tempting uh first of all I made the point point that this is not these are not final judgments so they're not binding in the sense that article 46 bites and therefore we have a prisoner voting scenario however procedurally I do think they have to be abided by bearing in mind the fact that as a matter of procedure in our own domestic courts if an injunction is passed then it would be uh potentially contempt of that court for any of that party any party to those proceedings to do something that would in effect defeat the injunction and he'll know exactly for example an injunction uh perhaps freezing an assd or the injunction preventing the removal of a particular asset from the jurisdiction you know clearly you know doing that would frustrate the whole purpose of litigation and would would to court so I think he gets he gets the point uh and that's why I think that um it is not necessary to add Clause five I think we all know the arguments and and if we do add Clause five we start getting ourselves into the uh unfortunate uh consequences of then having to consider the ministerial code the civil service code I agree with my honorable friend Stone by the way you I took the view at the time of the United Kingdom internal markets act that the drafting of legislation part three which never of course became law was not a breach of the ministerial code wasn't a breach of the civil service code it was entirely uh in order and we were able to do that and that's where I parted company with my good friend sir Jonathan Jones the former treasury sister I didn't agree with him about that um having said that and I I know he would approve of that but having said that I would say this about part three of yukim and there are other parts of part three that we need to bring forward by the way in terms of legislation to help uh uh colleagues like my honorable friend for Belfast East who nods uh sagely from from a sary position you need to do that we brought forward that legislation and indeed the the protocol act as a way of leveraging the negotiations and we were successful we managed to sort out through the Joint Committee between it was then Michael go who my my honorable friend right on from the member for sur Heath and indeed marovich who came to a conclusion The Joint Committee uh before on the protocol and then of course of the protocol act itself we have the Winds of framework now you we can people different views about that but the point point is that that legislation was not necessary and that's why I say in all cander to my right honorable and friend you know now we are using this legislation not as a way to leverage negotiation but as a direct enactment of policy and that's why you know we have to be very careful about this and to come to the points made by my honorable The Honorable gentleman for Belfast East and in then the intervention by The Honorable lady for waln stone we can't ignore the northern Island dim menion on this we just can't and I think we've seen you know two very good and nuanced arguments first of all about the interaction between the charter of fundamental rights uh of the EU uh and the law of Northern Ireland and then the position of the European convention itself and the centrality of that uh uh convention to the good fast belf Good Friday Belfast uh agreement which I think we all agree is a fact uh however we we whatever our views might be about that to come back to the point about the EU Dimension the Supreme Court was very clear in its judgment about the the uh Rwanda applications relating to cases uh uh before it that there was no role for retained EU law that was very clear uh that's what the court said the the Act was was very clear that retained EU law no longer applied to the procedures directive which was the particular directive that we were talking about however I think my The Honorable gentleman is right to sound the alarm bells to make sure that inadvertently we do not end up in a position where our immigration law is divided or Complicated by the fact the EU law factor which undeniably uh is an issue with regard to the law of nor line and I'll give way to it um for for the contribution that he's making uh D Ros but he would accept of course that the arguments around the particularities Northern Ireland or student application come from Northern Ireland they weren't considered by the Supreme Court in detail and that is precisely why I'm not saying I'm right but for as long as we have an undetermined position and we have a ju opposed position between the government in one hand and and and some advocates in Northern Ireland on the other we need to get it settled and we need to be sure about the position that's my my point and and I think he makes a very powerful point I hope in the other place that is taken up as well and I would certainly my RO as chair of the committee want to discuss that further with him and indeed with uh ministers um uh either in the home office or indeed by the northern isand probably directly to the home office I think would be the best way forward um and actually that that opens up the the point made by The Honorable lady member of Edinburgh Southwest about the interaction of Scots law with uh all of this now she's not wrong when she says and reminds us of the fact that Scots law does look at parliamentary s in a different way from the law of England and Wales that that I'm afraid is something we cannot get around however I would qualify her remarks in this way by saying that I think that is overcome by the fact that we have a United Kingdom Supreme Court which of course within its uh body will have and does at the moment in the form of the President and Vice President two very very distinguished Scots lawyers who uh understand these principles deeply and at any any time in the composition of that Court will have senior Scots lawyers present and it is the very existence of that Court indeed a senior judge from Northern Ireland as well um Lord Stevens um that is the whole function of the Supreme Court where it can bring together uh the slightly differing concepts of constitutional law that undoubtedly exist in our jurisdictions and strike the right balance a balance that is based upon restraint we come back to that word again I'm not going to labor the point that I made yesterday uh Dame Rosie but my honorable friend knows that he is walking a tight Trope here when it comes to getting this legislation right and that anything that smacks of a lack of restraint and I'm afraid the Amendments you know Ted by my honorable friends and I've said I think obliging things yesterday and I will repeat them today do not do not follow that sense of restraint do not follow that sense of balance and it's not just the risk of an imbalance between the courts of England and Wales and this Parliament but an imbalance between the different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and that should cause us all pause for Thought particularly those of us who are deeply committed to our Union and who believe in this United Kingdom and I'm not saying my honorable friends are uh trying to do something to deliberately undermine that of course I'm not but I'm just sounding a word of warning here that in treading too Heaven down this path of exceptionalism in going too far in normalizing what were the exceptional circumstances of withdrawal from the EU and I should know that because I sat on that front bench making the case for many of the provisions uh within the EU withdrawal act that uh are cited by my honorable friend Memphis Stone and others those are exceptional times this I know is an exceptional Global challenge but in before I conclude my remarks I'll simply say this we need to Trad carefully if we don't then what we do is in trying to deal with an external problem we create internal constitutional and legal problems of our own that I don't think any self-respecting conservative government would want to do and any self-respecting Parliament would want to follow and for those reasons I I would urge honorable and right honorable members to uh reject many of the Amendments that uh I think complicate this bill and to follow the maxim that less is more Stella grey thank you Madame chair um it's a pleasure to follow the honorable gentleman from swinden and indeed many of the colleagues that have sat next to him who have brought an immense level of legal expertise to their concerns about this legislation let me try to offer something different than as somebody who is not legally qualified a lay person's view or perspective about what this legislation is doing and in particular why I have tabled and speak to Amendment nine but obviously I support the amendments in the name of my front French colleagues this is actually not for me about the r of refugees or even the r of Rwanda it's about the r of Rights and the rights that we enjoy that protect those freedoms and Liberties to which so many of us fight for are passionate about and believe are intrinsic to a good life this piece of legislation that the government has stated itself uh is a clear statement of the parliament's view that Rwanda is safe not withstanding all specified domestic legislation and the common law and any alternative interpretation of international law including customary international law now for those of us who are not qualified the word not standing there is doing an awful lot of work to justify the dimunation of Rights for people in our country and the concept that somehow international law does not protect us and so much of the anger that we have heard the concept the idea of a foreign court has come from being about the European Court of human rights that it is an affront to our democracy that this organization is part of protecting those rights those Liberties those 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 in which we protected those rights as he said in the center 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 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 of this again how how terrible those things must sound to those of us who are not legally qualified who cannot see the rub there let me try and think through a real world example perhaps Madam chair of why those rights might be upheld by a third party one could think of somebody say a member of this house who didn't 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 the rules did not apply to him that the treatment of other people was not something that mattered who perhaps was far too busy worrying about his social media account rightly so Madam Sher would want to hold him to account goodness many of us would think he might need legal representation for what could happen next he would want his day in court oh he might not want to be in the chamber when we were talking about those very issues he might certainly 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 the court of human rights 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 that even if Madame chair wants to take somebody to task they might at least be intitled for not following the rules in this place they might at least be entitled to a fair hearing a fair trial for what they had done yet what this legislation 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 in government ministers judge and jury which doesn't even appli with their own data on how many people they were actually granting Asylum to when their cases were heard but nevertheless the point about the ECR is a point that Churchill understood and I believe many of us in this chamber understood is that we withdraw the opportunity for that freedom to be heard and that freedom for a fair trial and for somebody else to hear your case against an overbearing State at our Peril Article 13 of the European Court of of Human Rights Convention sets out the right to an effective remedy and it dares to impose on state parties on countries that are signed up to this court that everyone whose rights and freedoms are set forth in this convention are violated she have an effective remedy before a National Authority not withstanding that word again that the violation has been been committed by persons acting in an official capacity in Lay person's term when you think the government has done you wrong who do you turn to to protect you now rightly you might want to turn to our courts but if the government is setting the laws it makes sense to many of us who value freedom and liberty that there is a third party that you can adhere to and frankly it's a sign I'm getting old that I look at the conservative party now and I wonder where those Libertarians are those people who recognize rightly the concern that a government might be overbearing and repressive Freedom loving indeed but not enough for their own freedoms it seems from the way in which this piece of legislation starts that inevitable process of removing that right to a remedy because we all know right-wing governments might start with refugees but they never end with their rights when it comes to removing them now removing the rights to an Article 13 remedy which is what this legislation does doesn't just have consequences for refugees and many of us have debated that issue that concept that each person should be able to have their day in court a concept that lay persons across the world understand for it is not just written into the European Court of Human Rights into our Human Rights Act it's written into the United States convention I don't think it really is some terrible communist socialist Marxist idea that people might have a remedy that idea of due process it's part of being some a state that plays by the rules that treats people fairly and if we start to unpick that in this legislation it does not just have a consequence for our immigration system it has a consequences far beyond the remit I think that anybody has really thought about because for so long it has been a byword for British Liberty and freedom that we've been prepared to stand up for the rule of law and play by the rules and yes be part of making them through being part of the Council of Europe and I declare an interest to somebody who did take part in one of those elections to vote for one of those terrible pajama wearing judges who then has to uphold the legislation that we have helped create where does it have an impact well the member um on my side whose constituency I've just forgotten because I am getting old I'm sorry I do apologize um talks about the Good Friday agreement and the member from Swindon recognize that too let us Sound the Alarm here if the government will not deal with it now that it must be dealt with in the other place because peace is precious and the peace in Northern Ireland was built on the Bedrock of the Good Friday agreement and the Good Friday agreement agement is built on the Bedrock of the European Court of Human Rights it's baked into the Northern Ireland peace process the Good Friday agreement placed a direct Duty on the UK government and all of us in this place to incorporate the European Court of Human Rights and its work into Northern Irish law so that people in Northern Ireland could challenge an injustice in the courts if their rights were breached that's not my interpretation The Good Friday agreement explicitly says full incorporation into Northern law of the echr and States explicitly that the parties I.E us and the Irish government affirm their commitment to the mutual respect the Civil Rights and the religious Liberties of everyone in the community when we start removing those rights which what this bill does by denying the right of a refugee to go to court under Article 13 then we start undermining The Good Friday agreement because it does affect people in Northern Ireland it's a principle established in law through Section 7A of the withdrawal agreement now the government actually acknowledged this when we debated this on the 12th of December the Home Secretary himself acknowledged that the bill makes differential treatment in different parts of the United Kingdom and that somehow the bill would address these practical implications but we've not seen any practical addressing of the implications and the consequences that that might mean for our commitment to upholding the good Friday agreement an agreement that I think we would all concur 25 years on still matters and therefore is worth fighting for and it matters because refugees are people too I don't know why we have to state that in this place but it does increasingly feel like we must do and the member is right when he talks about the Anderson ruling but the Anderson ruling shows that the government recognize that just a few months ago because the government in the court said that they applied to refugees section 108 explains explicitly that the applicant and the respondent both agreed that the rights and safeguards and equality underpinned by the good of Fran agement are not excluded from Asylum Seekers and that the concept of who everyone in that Community was that is written into the Good Friday agreement included those outside the background of communal conflict so we could be in a position where it's a frying pan and a fire because if the government proceed with this piece of legislation we undermine the Good Friday agreement but yes if they exempt Northern Ireland from this so that those rights are upheld they create the loophole that I'm sure members on the other side of the benches not sure which part of the the the mafia contingent that refers to these days will recognize creates a loophole in this legislation and just reflects the further chaos and confusion the government's Rwanda legislation causes I have tabled Amendment nine therefore to address this issue headon it asked the government to do a very simple thing which is set out how we are upholding The Good Friday agreement through this legislation surely that is not a controversial question to ask but it seems very controversial to get an answer it's not just the Good Friday agreement that messing around with Article 13 unpicks it's also part of our trade and cooperation agreement because again when we're doing International treaties evidence that we play by the rules and therefore we're good to do business with is part of why other countries want to work with us and that matters post brexit because our reputation is everything and time and time again this government has sought to undermine it by suggesting that somehow the rules shouldn't apply to us and that therefore people shouldn't expect the United Kingdom to stand up for those values and abide by upholding them all together article 524 of the trade and cooperation agreement says the cooperation provided for in this part is based on the parties and member states long-standing respect for democracy the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals including as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the European convention on human rights and on the importance of giving effect to those rights and freedoms in that convention domestically giving effect is the crucial thing here again as a lay person it makes simple sense to me there's no point in having rights if you can't actually use them if there is no court if there is no possibility of being able to see seek a remedy and yet that's exactly what this piece of legislation starts to unpick it's not a surprise to me therefore that the chair of the committee in the European Parliament Natalie oo who is charged with overseeing the trade and cooperation agreement recognizes this legislation unamended for what it is which is a direct threat to that and the worry that many of us have is not about Brussels telling the UK what to do it's the fact that we are heading into the months and years before the trade and cooperation agreement ment is going to be renegotiated and next time somebody in your constituency comes to you with all the paperwork that Tory har brexit has created and that that TCA underpins and asks you what you're going to do to deal with it when they come to you about the Border attx that's going to come in at the end of January and all the paperwork they're going to have to pay for at the end of April that opportunity to reduce that and remove that and bring back that trade we desperately need will depend on those negotiations walking into them showing that you can't trust a word that we say as a country because we might say we're going to follow the echr but actually if we think it doesn't suit us we won't and what are you going to do about it is not the way to get a good deal for British business so there are consequences to the way in which this legislation has been drafted that we haven't even begun to unpick in this house but today is our last day to do anything about it we must not look like a country that you don't want to do business with or is hypocritical and yet that is frankly EX exactly what we are and for those of us who have fought for and defended the rights of people we disagree with that hypocrisy stinks loudly from this home office because the same home office that wants to use the European Court of human rights to deny the implementation of the buffer zones that this Parliament voted for on the basis that there would be an article 9 contention of the ECR is the same home office that is seeking to rip up the rights of refugees to use the ECR when it feels like it source for the goose source for the gander in layman's terms everybody can see what is going on here picking and choosing to suit your own ends and the consequences for people be damned this bill is contrary to the rule of law because it amounts to a legislative usurpation of the judicial function it's an assault on our constitution it is not standing up for Liberty and freedom it's denying it by removing those basic rights and the government is doing that in its own legal assess assessment now I earlier raised this with the the member opposite um I mean again I'm not legally qualified so I read this and I think it reads like something out of Alice in Wonderland it says that article 13 in the echr is engaged but will not be infringed I mean that feels a bit like present but not involved as a way of thinking about legislation it seems to be saying that because we can say that Aranda is safe and will always be safe there can never be any concerns raised about safety it's a torty it doesn't make any sense not least with the evidence that we have that Rwanda does have concerns about safety or indeed the possibility that things might change in future even if you don't accept the evidence of extrajudicial killings deaths and custodies enforced disappearance and torture and the persecution of those from the lgbtq plus Community it's not just that it says that it then goes on to what I believe is a bit more like the Mad March hair it's from the government's own legal position it says that the government considers a declaration of incapacity compatibility is sufficient to provide an Article 13 effective remedy for challenges to decisions under the presumption of safety in Clause to to treat Rwanda as safe for those of us who are not legally qualified saying something is incompatible to make it compatible because basically what you are saying is that means somebody can bring a court case well that just means that this piece of legislation is a lawyer's Charter now the government keeps telling us they don't like lawyers but they seem to want to encourage them to make a lot of money out of badly drawn pieces of legislation that will encourage court cases but that's exactly what the government's own legal ruling does this house can and should do better this amendment before us is about resolving these challenges showing that we have thought about them if nothing else it would give sucker to the court that we had as we did with prisoners voting considered the matter which is often what the court is asking us to do to not leave people's rights locked away unable to be accessible but actually to look at how they are being used church WIll said that they would welcome any country where the people own the governments and not the government the people to the courts I think a very Noble provision I'm sorry that members opposite are increasingly advocating removal from the European Court of Human Rights because they can't live up to those terrible ideals of a protection of a right to family life or a protection of privacy or goodness knows a protection of freedom of thought oh go on then uh me um by constantly and sarcastically evoking Winston Churchill and obviously he did sign up to the ethr and he sent lawyers to the drafting process of that but does she acknowledge that firstly he didn't initially think that the United Kingdom would join us in the first place uh secondly when he uh did sign us up to it there was no right of individual claim to the European Court it was properly on the plane of international law which is between states which is the appropriate place for this sort of Law and nor would he accept surely nor to any of us what the CHR has become under the jurisdiction of the stasbor court and I'm afraid to say our own lawyers and all the Articles she mentions including the right to family life have been so extended expanded by the courts ever since that it's become absolutely inappropriate for us to belong to the court in this way I really not think that Winston churcher would have supported what Strasburg has become does she doesn't either surely I I'm sorry that the honorable gentleman wasn't here earlier to be part of the conversation again I'm sure he would want his own right of remedy to explain why he couldn't be bothered to be here at the start he would have heard the debate that we had about what the original uh intention of the Court was let me quote back to him the original document that says High undertaking parties agreed to abide by the decisions of the court in any case to which they are parties from the start and Churchill himself advocated from the start for the court Court as a back stop against overbearing governments that felt that it could speak for its people and prosecute people in ways that were being talked about post the second world war without any challenge I don't quote Churchill sarcastically I recognize what he saw at the time the danger of authoritarianism and the member opposite would do well to go back and reflect and perhaps reread some of those challenges as well as the rules about taking part in a parliamentary debate when Church you talked about welcoming any country where people own the governments it was about democracy and our courts are an integral part of our democracy because they do keep governments honest even if they're 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 we tried to prevent them coming back and Greece left in 1967 under a military regime and then rejoined once democracy was restored we should be proud and confident of our capacity to speak up for human rights and to recognize that a right to an effective remedy is an integral part of that that it's no point having a right if you can't then exercise it and that means having a separate body to be able to oversee them to be fair to all parties more pragmatically we should be worried about messing up our trade deals and undermining peace in Northern Ireland as this piece of legislation does let me say honestly to the member opposite it's not woke to be libertarian to not trust governments and think that we need to protect us it's whacked to think that because your government is in charge it's okay because it won't abuse that power all governments try to do that at some point and it's right that all governments face a process of challenge this legislation won't stop the votes what you really want to do is stop the vote and you can't do that as a government there will be an election but not before we have done potentially irreparable damage now the Irish government has yet to say what it thinks about this legislation but the UK government in that ruling in October was clear that it felt that refugees were covered by The Good Friday agreement so in tbling this piece of legislation this government is undermining its own logic about its obligations under the Good Friday agreement so even if members opposite do not care about the trade and cooperation agreement let us at least care about the peace process let us ensure that these issues about compatibility are not something out of Alice and Wonderland but speak to the best of this place and those obligations because I promise we shall all regret it if we do not speak up for freedom and liberty in this way suel braan chairman I Rise to speak in support of amendment 11 tabled by my right honorable friend member for Newark uh commanding the support of over 50 60 of my colleagues and I note uh the comments made by The Honorable member for walson stone I would like to respond to some of them that she's made in the course of my comments now we are here to fix the problem the problem that we're all seized by that is stopping the boats and this is our third attempt to fix this problem we pass a nationality and borders act in 2021 we then passed the illegal migration act in 2023 and we are here again third time round with the safety of Rwanda bill 2024 and the British people are fed up they have run out of patience they have run out of time and this is our last chance to get it right now the amendment on the table here seeks to remedy a fatal flaw in the bill that being that this bill as currently drafted will lead us directly to a rerun of the scenario that we all saw on the 14th of June 2022 when the then home office and administration had identified a cohort of illegal migrants filled a plane ready to take off to Rwanda but at the 11th hour pursuant to an opaque process a decision was made by an unidentified still unidentified judge in a foreign court that had the effect of blocking the flight sorry do you have something to say why don't you I'm not sure why we have to be frightened of foreign courts what exactly is wrong with a foreign Court well well I'll tell you what we have where we have a problem with a foreign Court when actually in that scenario English courts had actually refused injunction s by uh the migrants to get off the flight the foreign Court overrode English judges overrode the will of the government overrode the will of the British people to control our borders and stop the boat that's a problem with the foreign Court absolutely and that's the problem that we are trying to fix and so H when that flight was grounded in June 2022 it was because of these rule 39 interim injunctions now these orders are not contained in the European convention on human rights they are not uh a a product or content of the original documents of the convention itself they are a creation of the Strasburg court and the Strasburg judges they have evolved over time pursuant to the living instrument doctrine that is espoused by the Strasburg court and that has inflated and expanded its remit over decades beyond anything conceived by the original drafters Beyond any intention uh intention set out in the original versions of the European convention now no one here I believe disagrees with the aspirations and the content of the Europe European convention on human rights I don't disagree with anything set out in that document it contains Noble and vital rights fundamental rights human rights that we are all proud to defend fervently and fiercely against oppressive regimes against authoritarianism against genocide against mass killings against some of the worst atrocities that history has seen that's that's what has was the creation that's what the context was for the the Genesis of the European convention the problem the problem that we're dealing with here and this is where I want to respond to the honorable member The Honorable lady's comments about the issue is the court it's the court that has become politicized it's the court that has become interventionist it's the court which doesn't follow the traditional rules of Precedence that our common law system here in the English Court subscribes to it's the court and the judges in the exur court in the European Court of human rights that has distorted it has distorted the original European convention on human rights into something that bears no reflection as I said to what it was originally intended and it's been exacerbated by labors Human Rights Act and over previous recent decades we have seen the rights culture the litigiousness around immigration and Asylum and many many other areas of uh public sector decision- making become styed and thwarted and undermined by a heavily resourced and activist legal industry undermining government decision- making stying policymaking undermining law enforcement and Public Safety to take but a few examples take the case of a Nigerian National cases o sentenced in 2016 to four years in prison for offenses including possessing crack cocaine and heroin with the intention to supply pleaded guilty in 2017 to battery and assault serious offenses in 2020 the first tier tribunal allowed his appeal against deportation on grounds that he had very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria and they outweighed the public interest in his deportation despite the serious nature of his offending despite the risk that he posed to the public no his article 8 wrs interpreted in a vastly elastic way a distorted illogical way operated to stop that man being deported or the case of um D versus the UK where article three article three we can all agree with it prohibits torture and inhumane treatment degrading treatment but in in this case in D versus the UK a case of a non-national who was convicted for dealing drugs the Strasburg Court held that the effect of discontinuing his medical treatment available in the UK but not available in his destination country amounted to inhumane or degrading treatment under article Tre three why should a convicted drug dealer be entitled to Public Services here and not be deported I'm grateful to my friend and surely on that basis almost any deportation could be blocked for there are few countries in the world that can match the standard of our NHS and once that precedent has been set every person will claim they require treatment for the most minor of [Music] ailment I'm I'm afraid my right friend is absolutely right to highlight that point and it's article three its stretched interpretation originating in the jurist Prudence from the Strasburg Court by politicized judges who have a political agenda that they are pursuing which has led to a perception that here in the UK we have an international Health Service not a National Health Service or lastly am Zimbabwe a case from 2022 where it is now a law thanks to that case that states who want to remove someone have to prove that medical facilities available to the Deport in their home country would remove any real risk that their lifespan would be shortened by the removal from NHS facilities exactly the point that my rore friends has made it is now a duty on the UK government to establish that foreign Health Services are are sufficient before we Deport people who may well pose a risk to Public Safety uh and National Security in some cases in this country so those are the overall problems with the court not the convention but with the court and Rule 39 is another symptom of the problem that we have with the court and with the judges and that's why this amendment is absolutely vital because this amendment that has been tabled will make it clear that rule 39 orders are not binding and that it will be for the UK government to make the decision on deportation not for a foreign Court an identified judge somewhere far away who does not have the same ambition or our aspiration as this UK government to stop the boats and that's why I will support this amendment enthusiastically today just to conclude my comments Madam chairman this is our last chance to fix this problem we have stretched the patience of the British people but this comes down to a very simple but profound question ultimately of who governs Britain is it us the democratically elected representatives who have been directly sent here on behalf of the British people on a clear mandate and a clear instruction on what to do and whose laws are passed by a clear and transparent majority to which we can all be held to account at The Ballot Box or is it an opaque Forum many miles away in a different country distant outsourced foreign which does not share our values which does not no no I won't because I which does not share our values which has made decisions time and time again which are at odds with what the British people have indicated that they want and which has operated to undermine our Public Safety our national security and our good governments the operation of the Strasburg Court call it Strasburg Court call it foreign Court you you can you can argue about semantics it's the European Court of human rights that we are concerned with here and it is that court that is currently controlling this country's ability to stop the boats it is that court and its jurist Prudence that is stopping this government for from delivering for the British people we made a vow to the British people that we would stop the boates that was a solemn vow that I took incredibly seriously it is what people voted for in 2016 in the brexit referendum by a majority I know most people on that side of the on the chamber don't want to believe the majority still live in denial and don't want to uh accept the facts it's what people voted for by a huge majority in 2019 to control our borders and to stop the boat we made a promise we [Music] made lady for giving away and I know she feels this passionately I just wonder if she could clarify because she's got a concern there about a foreign Court what do does she think NATO is doesn't NATO is not a court I'm I'm slightly embarrassed that I have to make that clear to The Honorable lady that's really Elementary uh politics um we are being governed by a foreign court and judges who do not have our interests at heart the decisions coming from that Court are stopping us from controlling our borders the amendment tabled here will prevent that foreign Court from stopping us and that's why we need to support this amendment it will fix this bill this bill needs to work it is our last chance if we get it wrong the British people will not forgive us and they would be right to do so order order I have now to announce the results of today's deferred divisions on the draft Immigration Act 2014 residential accommodation maximal maximum penalty order 2023 the eyes were 331 the nose were 51 so the eyes have it on the draft immigration employment of adults subject to immigration control maximum penalty Amendment or order 2023 the eyes were 331 the nose were 51 so the eyes have it Patrick grayy muty speaker what our privilege to for the former Home Secretary and uh it's it's really lit up you know there was comparisons earlier on that this was uh the next episode in a in a box set I think we've actually just seen the First Act of the uh the next round of the next conservative leadership contest and um no out the the the the sketch writers and everyone else paying attention of suddenly woken up I mean she she made some incredibly interesting comment she spoke about vows that were made to British people after referendums and elections I remember a vow being made in 2014 about how the Scottish Parliament was going to become the greatest most powerful we devolved parliament in the entire world and look how that one turned out and she's right the the government will be H held to account that the and and Parliament will exercise H its it's its uh its opportunity to to have a say on these issues and that's why the Amendments from her and our honorable friends were voted down last night and that's why they'll be voted down again this evening I'm incredibly confident and then come the election a majority of members of parliament and that includes a majority of members of Scottish national party MPS in Scotland will be returned to this house who will vote to repeal this bill assuming that the bill ever makes it on to the statute book in the first place Madam Deputy speaker because in reality um this was supposed to be uh what is playing out is not a debate specifically about this legislation but about the future of the conservative party um and not just the future of the conservative party in fact some of the past of the conservative party as well it's been a real privilege in some ways to debate against the the M rebels of old um and having the opportunity during my time in this house um to debate against people who were on the television when I was studying for my modern studies standard grade 30 years ago and they still can't get that determination to rebel against the government out of their system it doesn't really matter what the government's proposing you know that the member for stone and the member for Gainesboro and the member for w all the rest of it are just going to be against it because they love that sweet taste of rebellion but the rest of us have better things to do with our time we need to get on and and demonstrate what our constituents actually think um about this bill we heard a great line from uh the member from Stone yesterday about the wonderful concept of parliamentary sovereignty even though the Clause that explicitly recognizes parliamentary sovereignty is actually in today's grouping uh of debate and that's H the Clause that my H Amendment 31 would remove and the reason for that um is because the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty in a bill like this is actually a bit of an innovation I'd be quite interested if the minister was able to respond to this point uh a little bit later on this I of including in a bill the language that Parliament is Sovereign is in fact as I say a little bit of an innovation with the help of the House of Commons Library the only other instance that I've been able to find is in the EU withdrawal act 2020 now there are other examples of legislation which imply parliamentary sovereignty imply uh the ability of this house ultimately to override uh courts and make its own decisions some of that is in some of the founding legislation that took us in into the European Union in the first place some of it's in the acts that established Devolution settlement but this line asserting that Parliament is Sovereign is something of a legislative Innovation and given how uh lyrical the member for stone wax yesterday about The Wonder of an Unwritten Constitution it slightly strikes me that this is a form of codifying the concept of parliamentary sovereignty it strikes me as this is perhaps actually writing down aspects of the UK Constitution and this seems to me a random piece of migration legislation which as we say may or may not ever actually make it onto the statute but it seems a very interesting way to go about codifying the UK Constitution the other reason for my Amendment though is the one quoted both by the member for Codi C be yesterday during his ten R bill and my honorable friend honorable learned friend for edor Southwest earlier on when she quoted the Constitutional expression the I think oh no when she quoted the Constitutional tradition expressed by L Cooper in the case of McCormick versus the Lord advocate in 1953 that the principle of unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law and my honorable and learned friend spoke with far greater experience than I can about what the significance of that ruling means and indeed The Wider significance of Scotland's historically independent legal system to this debate and to this um and to this legislation and that perhaps explains my amendments four and five which remove Scotland from the extent Clause of the bill because despite H what they member for faam seems to think about the opinions of the the British public and the the the the British voters voters in Glasgow North want no part of this and I know that because I speak to them on a very regular basis and a significant number of them frankly are Asylum Seekers who come to my surgery on a regular basis and I hear the horror stories not just of what they've experienced in their countries of origin but of their experience of trying to deal with the home office and frankly perhaps if more Asylum Seekers knew that that was what they were on at the receiving end of maybe it would have the kind of deterent effect that the home office is so desperate um to try to achieve but in reality Scotland always has been a country that welcomes refugees Asylum Seekers those who want to make their home and contribute something to our society just as so many countries did around the world who welcomed Scots when they were cleared off their land to make way for sheep or when their crops were fell victim to blight or in the modern world who want to H study uh around the world or practice their professions um overseas and that's why I also support the Amendments from honorable friend the member for Southwest edor Southwest that the Scottish Parliament should be asked to give its consent to this bill before before it took uh part before it took before it takes effect north of the Border because in reality the Scottish Parliament will not H give its consent to this motion because it is not what uh the people in Scotland want to see or how we think a Humane system of Asylum should take a part the bill talks about the safety of Rwanda and ask the Prime Minister about this earlier today I asked him if Rwanda is a safe country if it's a comt place and asked the minister this yesterday as well if Rwanda is a safe country if Rwanda is a a comfortable place in which people can live out their lives having been granted Asylum why would the principle of being a why would the potential of being deported there be a deterrent it doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense and The Minister's answer and the prime minister's answer was the same it's well because Rwanda isn't the UK so the fact the fact that that not being the UK is itself in a deterr by the same logic if the government came to an agreement with Disneyland and threatened to deport Asylum Seekers to Disneyland if they arve to you buy a regular means that too would be a deterrent because it is not the United Kingdom sadly there is not yet a Disneyland in the United Kingdom La I suspect sometimes people look at this place and wonder um exactly where the fantasy in all of this is so by the government's own Logic the bill fails under the weight and its contradictions and that's the the point of the definition of the safety of Rwanda which is in clause one uh Madam Deputy Madam chair so the bill fails under the weight of its own contradictions and you could see that in the contradictory amendments that have been H proposed by the two or five or however many opposing factions there are on the conservative benches so the former Home Secretary was right the public will have their say on this bill and after the next election H the government that is returned I'm confident and that will include members from the Scottish national party who will be prepared to support any legislation that comes forward to repeal this bill assuming as I say it makes all to the statute GR in the first place yeah yeah order order uh I will now announce the results of the ballot held today for the election of the chair of the defense committee 476 votes were cast four of which were invalid Jeremy Quinn was elected chair with 371 votes he will take up his post immediately and I congratulate him on his election the results of the counts under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the vote office and published on the internet order Tim laon thank you very much D Rosy can I be slightly unfashionable and talk to the amendment rather than regurgitate some second reading uh speeches that we've uh had and I do so with some trepidation because we've had a trio of former Lord chancellors attorney generals and chairmans of the Justice committee sitting to my right who who speak with much greater legal gravitus and much more expensively is the only upside perhaps of uh of that so my advice and my talking to this uh Amendment comes for free but I am shocking but in contributing to this debate I am largely SP speaking to this side of the house because in all the speeches we had yesterday when the opposition could not fill the full allotted time for this uh debate having complained about the lack of scrutiny uh and I'm guessing they may not be able to fill the full time given to it uh today we heard speech after speech emulating their front bench that told us what they don't like what they're not supporting what they're not voting for and at absolutely no point did they come up with a practical solution for the very real everyday problems we are aiming to deal with here so whilst we have disagreements on our side as to the methods what we want to achieve is in common and that goal is something that needs to be tackled and we are having an honest debate about it on this side and at last the official position is playing absolutely no part in that um debate the my old friend the M for new who um I think has left his um Place started the uh debate talking to Amendment uh 23 uh in particular and he described the problem as like pulling the pin out of a grenade but then not throwing it I don't think that was helpful uh language and he then quitted the chamber having thrown the grenade behind his own lines um because what we need here is cool calm consensus to come up with practical workable acceptable and legal um Solutions so the Randa scheme is not perfect I think all of us will um agree with that but frankly it is the only real show in in town at the moment to answer this essential question which I raised last week in the opposition uh debate which again the opposition struggled to fill with their own uh speakers how do you deal with people who have come to this country mostly by small boats having paid criminal gangs with no credible Prospect of being able to Lodge an acceptable Asylum claim and who come from countries for to to which it is virtually if not completely impossible to return them so they know that once they have made it across the Midway of the channel and they are in British territorial Waters they are effectively in the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future that that is absolutely the question that is at the heart of this whole bill and this debate today and yesterday I'll give way to theable Lady Point I've heard him make this this point before about people who come and then can't be sent back to whatever country because of the situation there and it's a case that has occurred within my own casework so at the moment what the home office appears to do is Grant people temporarily leave for perhaps a year at a time which gives absolutely no certainty to the person um who's affected by this but it does give the home office I suppose that discretion to reconsider it rather than giving them permanent status so there is already this already happens it's not something that he should really be so concerned about I would say given it's something that happens already I know it happens already which is what I've been saying and she's at least credi with being uh consistent but we have three problems with the immigration system at the moment in this country one how we can prevent people from leaving those mostly French beaches uh in the first place to make that most inappropriate and most dangerous um uh journey and we can have a different argument about the safe and legal Roots which you knows I support as to whether that would reduce the numbers trying uh to do it or whether we can come to some Accord with the French that they would actually intercept those boats and return the passengers back to French RS that is the first uh question the second question uh is we absolutely need to speed up the whole processing the government has to give it its credit of those people who are in uh limbo and those who came before the illegal Immigration Act who are able to have the Asylum application still hel heard in this uh in the country we need to get through that backlog uh as swiftly as possible we then have a problem with those in limbo post the illegal migration act who have effectively committed a crime under the terms of those uh that act but then the third point to solve the migration crisis is then removing those people who have not been able to make a credible claim to stay in the United Kingdom and that is why the alternative of them facing a lottery as to whether they will end up in a hotel in Kent on a plane to Randa and have their claim instead uh assessed there is an important part of the deterrent Factor it is just one part it's not an overriding part as some people have tried to caricature it but it's an important part to deal specifically with that group of people who it is really really difficult to remove in time we need to have um more returns agreements we've successfully done that with a number of countries Albania has been cited many many times but there are countries with whom a returns agreement of which Iran will be one uh is is frankly impossible and we shouldn't delude ourselves otherwise so s to suggest we can solve this problem just by having a further agreement with the the French paying them more money we've paid the French jeary and police force £480 million already and yet the proportion of successful uh intercepts has actually fallen in the last uh 12 months we already have joint operations with them we already have a unit within the NCA dealing with this so the opposition's claims that this can be so d uh by getting better at cracking down on the people Smugglers cooperating with the the French all of that is already um happening we need to speed up the applications as I've just said but that still does not deal with the problem of what you do with people that you can't then um return so that's why I absolutely agree with the spirit of what the honorable member for newor and other honorable uh friends are trying to do uh with Amendment uh 2 uh3 but I don't agree with the method which is why I will oppose this amendment let's just remind ourselves the reason this bill has become necessary is in response to that supreme court judgment which found the Rwanda uh scheme to have various specific shortcomings the reement um threat the fact that it was a one-way Street which has now been uh resolved and so that's why a number of measures have been brought in with the Randa treaty and within this bill uh as well this bill is is um about allaying fears about not fulfilling the obligations under international law and the implications that may have for the northern irland agreement is that has already been mentioned and for negotiating trade treaties and other International agreements in the uh in the future but the rander agreement as it currently stands before the reform St it fell foul of our own courts not just the ECR or the refugee convention or whatever it was our own courts that ruled uh against the the government and it needs to be seen to be lawful not just by Rwanda but potentially also by other countries who have signified an interest in operating a Rwanda type scheme themselves both as hosts and other European countries who actually are interested in getting part of the action if we are able to get the Randa scheme into operation and ultimately my aim would be able to see a corporation of European uh and other uh Nations have a joint Rwanda type scheme and it's not just limited to uh Rwanda that could act as a very effective deterrent so that we can make sure that far fewer people come across the channel uh and we can really clamp down on those who still use that route because absolutely they have very little credible claim to have asylum in this country and for that we need to have the safe and legal Roots operating properly as well as I've said many times before so there is a problem specifically with article 39 pajama uh injunctions uh or uh indications now I'm not a a lawyer but on the face base of on the basis of the thresholds for which other things uh can come to court this is a very very opaque um process we've heard about the anonymous judges they don't issue a full uh judgment that the government cannot make a case uh at all where else is there a legal system whereby the person who is effectively being prosecuted cannot make their own case uh in front of a judge and there's no appeal facility uh in this whole operation uh as well but um uh Mr Gail sir Roger um these article 39 indications were never part of the European convention it was never included in the Constitution there were attempts to include it in the Constitution which were never supported and these Powers as other orable friends have said just seem to have been absorbed into the Strasburg uh Court uh at its own um Fiat to whom is this court accountable why is the European Council not doing um more in terms of uh governments of how these powers have been surreptitiously um Extended now last year the Strasburg court itself admitted that it needs to change its ways it admitted that the operation of article 39 indications uh is not satisfactory and they said that in future they would only be used in extremists we don't know how they Define that that they will be operated by named um judges and that the government in this case would have an opportunity to present its evidence and be listened to and there will be more transparent um judgments so the court itself knows that there is a problem with these article 39 uh indications and we are not the only country concerned about the way they have been operating too often it seems we are pillared uh as if as if the United Kingdom governments are serial offenders against echr judgments and uh European uh convention um dict TS well other countries seem routinely to get around article 39 indications and we have one of the best records in complying with e CHR judgments if one looks over the the last 10 years uh or so there have been um no fewer than I think 400 ECR rulings which have not been enforced or complied with in the case of Spain 61% of rulings against them have not been complied with Italy 58% Germany 37% in the case of the uh United Kingdom we are one of the best compliers with echr judgments and the sorts of things we've not complied with are votes for prisoners which we've heard about where we had a vote in this house largely to indulge the liberal Democrats as part of the coalition government I seem to uh recall this house very forcefully robustly voted against it uh and we decided not to go forward with it I think that was the absolutely the right um judgment and it stays in um uh in limbo so we do need to reform the ECR and the last year I think there have only been four judgments uh against the UK uh on uh HC ECR uh convention um matters so um Roger yet again the UK has fallen foul of abiding by the rules that too many others um ignore so I support the case for not being bound by article 39 uh rulings and as I say we need urgently to seek to work with our partners through the Council of Europe and others uh to reform them it's a very opaque governance system but I do not believe sir Roger that not being bound by these confected article 39 directions undermines our overall compliance with international law or our International responsibilities and undertakings but the bill already says that in a reasonable and balanced way the minister has discretion to make the decision not to comply with those article 39 uh indications so we have given the minister and the government the power to say actually we don't think that is right and therefore for good reason we are not going to allow that article 39 uh indication to apply to that case that I think is a sensible way of proceeding it's not a mainstream routine dis blanket disregard which could for file of our own courts and have international implications for the Integrity of British legislation and governments so I support the spirit of what honorable members are trying to put forward with this um Amendment 23 but I don't support the method we all know that this is a very difficult complex and sensitive issue to get this around of legislation uh through we have to strike a very fine balance between not trampling on international law but at the same time enabling our government to get on with the measures which it was elected uh to do I think the government have got the balance right in this bill and it was not an easy task to do that and that's why I want this bill to go through unamended uh I think we all have something to gain from that happening I will certainly be voting for the full bill at third reading if that happens uh this evening but my H friends just need to stop and consider before they pull the pin out of another grenade if this bill does not go through there is no plan B for dealing with those people for whom we cannot transport them back to the country from which they came there will be no Randa Bill no Randa scheme no deterrent policy and no obvious end to the small boats so I hope The Honorable member for knew it having made a very strong case but I think with the wrong ultimate conclusion of the method will consider the implications of pursuing this and pursuing it all the way to voting in the wrong Lobby when it comes to the third reading as well to withdraw his Amendment and let the government get on with the job with seeing whether we can get the trand scheme to work get the planes off the ground offer a real deterrent and get this problem sorted out once and for all J faren Roger pleasure to serve under your guidance this um afternoon and indeed to take part in a a debate which has been you know broadly thoughtful um despite very clear differences of opinion uh a pleasure to have um sat through and enjoyed the speech of the right honorable member the for faram Who is the very definition of an activist lawyer and um so we're grateful to have her with us and I and I speak in solidarity with the other minority of people here today who are not uh legally trained who are not lawyers and uh and our it's right that our voices are are heard too um I would say this I I I I Rise to speak in particular on and in favor of amendments in the name of my rightly honorable friend the member Forney in Shetland who is indeed uh a lawyer six and seven but I want to say something I think which is ought to be not even remotely controversial and that is the evil trade of uh shipping people across the English Channel in rickety boat is it is evil it needs to be stopped and those people uh who are carried across the channel in by those means are taking huge risks and we've seen massive loss of life or significant loss of life over the years including in recent times um but I think this bill and the two amendments that I'm speaking to uh seek to challenge uh the fundamentals of the bill I believe this bill will not do what it says it will not stop the boats it will not uh tackle um the issues of deterrent and so on and even if it did what the rander provisions would achieve is to tackle roughly 1% of the number of people who seek asylum in this country and at the heart of this bill are a series of uh of Errors really as well as um leading to poor policy because it is a bill based on a series of false premises there are three basic false premises and number one is the belief that whilst this is a global problem and a European problem that the UK's position is especially awful that we are and I've heard inury language in this place and outside of it uh relating to us being overrun swamped people swarming across the channel and all that kind of thing the reality is that 85% of those who declare themselves to be refugees remain in the region from which they have fled normally in the next door country so very small minority um end up in this continent um that Germany takes four times more Asylum Seekers than the UK France two and a half times more Asylum Seekers than the UK Spain two times uh more Asylum Seekers than the United Kingdom and indeed if we were to just uh forbid the perish the thought Place Britain back into the European Union just for a a second just for a a league table snapshot then we would see that the UK is 20th in the league table of countries uh amongst the other 27 um that um the are the in terms of numbers of Asylum Seekers we take per capita so the idea that the UK is uh overwhelmed with this particular problem is not true and it isn't taking account of the realities across the continent and across the world it's also worth bearing in mind that give the the issue the government is really dealing with or it thinks it's dealing with in terms of its voter base is the issue of excessive immigration in general and yet only 7% uh of the migrants this country um are Asylum Seekers the real issue and where there is an an an issue of us being overwhelmed is that the last time I checked 165,000 411 Asylum Seekers are waiting in a backlog 75% of those people will be on um on past experience counted as refugees and given um uh approval by this government um so we know that the people are broadly who are coming here are genuine refugees and then a maybe different 75% not an entirely coterminous 75% of them are waiting more than 6 months so when people get um letters in their post bag emails and people are outraged about uh about this issue more often than not it's not about the boats crossing the channel so much as the uh fact that a local hotel is is is full of Asylum Seekers and not being used for its primary purpose there is a reason for that those Asylum Seekers do not want to be in that hotel sir Roger they are they want instead to have their cases treated quickly I was in Barrow in the constituency of my honorable neighbor the member for Barrow just a few months ago talking to Asylum Seekers there who would actually rather be told to leave the country and be given a decision that was negative to them than to be waiting the year or more um that they had so far one guy who told me that was a person who was an Afghan interpreter for the British army in Afghanistan but we left him behind the only way he could find to get uh to this country was to come via that irregular route these are the people we're talking about and the reason that we're in the situation that we're in is because the government's failure to tackle the backlog so the first uh false premise this government's this bill is based upon is that the UK's problem is somehow different and greater than any of our neighbors or indeed somehow separate from the problem that affects indeed the whole of planet Earth the second um Miss uh false premise is that the only way to control migration brackets 7% of it because Asylum makes only 7% of UK uh migration the only way to control migration is to duck international law and become a pariah the right honorable member um for kenelworth and and and Southworth said more eloquently and in more detail than I'm going to um he pointed out the issue of the United Kingdom be incredible internationally you know we listened to the Prime Minister early this week we're aware of what the UK is doing government is doing UK military is doing alongside the US um in the Red Sea and the justification for that which I hear and understand and accept is that this is about upholding the rule of law and if we want to work around the world stage and to be a leader um to be people with influence then we not need not to be those who habitually break the rule of law and think these things do not apply to I am content to give away yes um I just perhaps would like to mention to the right honorable gentleman that actually this question of Global Leadership is a matter which I did mention in my speech yesterday for a very good reason it's to do with reputation it's also to do with change and all over the whole of the European Union faced with compulsory quots and compulsory fines they're in a real mess they've also got the chter of fundamental rights they can't do it without changes in constitutional law and their constit tions and they may well have to have referenda in this country we're in a different position and we can do it because we in the dualist system are entitled to require our courts to obey the decisions of parliament by sovereignty where it is clear and unambiguous wording that is used there is the difference that's why we can lead the world and in the case of the negotiations which are bound to be happening with my friends on this side of the of the of the chamber have been indicating that they believe that there are going to be changes in the European convention and indeed for that matter also in the refugee convention for his intervention and uh I would simply say of course it's a given that the Law changes and and laws change via a a variety of different means including how this place votes nevertheless the United Kingdom would be seen to in order to tackle a problem in an ineffective way by the way um to be uh choosing to disapply the Human Rights Act and to disapply and to choose um at least to an extent not to comply with International uh law now I I I heard all the kind of disparaging remarks about you know Lefty lawyers activists judges foreign judges and so on and I I think all of that it's it just going of demeans this place and it's not the kind of thing that people who are supposed to uphold the Constitution really ought to be to be saying particularly given the majority of lawyers I've heard speak in this debate are on that side of the house and if members of opposite want to describe themselves as Lefty lawyers that is their that is their business but I don't think it is helpful um but when you've got the Law Society saying and I quote that this uh legislation may be incompatible with our International obligation and sets a dangerous legal and constitutional precedent by legislating to overturn an evidence-based finding of fact by the court that is something we should take seriously there's no doubt whatsoever that for us to decide that um to to to pass a law to say that Rwanda is a safe country it's not only an overreach of of parliament um because if we have got evidence to say that rander is safe present it to the court do it in the proper way it is dangerously authoritarian for us to decide um that we can decide on a matter of fact of law rather than presenting it before the courts it's not only an overreach though s Roger it's also ridiculous I mean I if we're going to declare Rwanda safe just because we want it to be I declare Blackburn Rover back in the Premier League and Alan Shear to be 30 years younger and back in a number n sh playing up front for us I want there we are make it so and but that's clearly not the case sadly um but you so if there is evidence you present it to the cause um it is ridiculous for this place to say that somehow it can declare a place safe just because it is convenient for it to do so um you don't control Migration by this kind of sophistry but deterrence is still appropriate and people have asked about well what deterrence are you going to have well the deterrence is if we had a functioning Asylum system where you actually returned people who failed in that system I'm I can see him with his hand up off you go yes I'm happy to give away I'm very grateful on his point about declaring a country safe it is the case that France Germany and other EU countries have decided they will not entertain any Asylum applications from Albania because it is a safe country that abides by the same uh conventions so they've done it why can't we I think on balance we'd say as Albania probably is until the bulk of returns that we have had have indeed been to Albania but I think for us to get out of a hole on the on this individual case when there is evidence Rwanda is not a safe place then the issue is we present evidence to the court in order to achieve that I if he wants to have another go yes just discre judgement on the safeness of Albania having said that nobody can determine whether a country should be deemed safe or not there are many dangerous things going on in Albania which is why some people are leaving him involving drugs and trafficking various other things as well all I'm saying is European countries will not entertain Asylum applications from Albania because they've deemed it not to be suitable and applicable so why can't we apply the same criteria to Rwanda I've never been an apologist for the European countries they make their own decisions but I the the clear issue is this house has been asked to decide on a matter of law when that is a matter for the court so if there is evidence Randa is safe you present that evidence to the court that's the proper way to go about it and he he he he knows that and my opinion is neither here or there whether a place is safe or not the issue is about um have the courts considered the evidence in front of them the evidence in front of the courts was that Rwanda is not safe we don't deal with that by just declaring it to be safe which is I unconstitutional and and also ridiculous we present the evidence if the government has evidence present it to the court um but I want to go back to what I was just leading into which was the issue of deterrence the fact is if you want to deter people to come to the United Kingdom who do not have a legitimate claim then be some use at removing those people who do not have a legitimate uh claim the fact is that only a quarter of those people who are denied Asylum once they've gone through the process are actually removed and and that is the problem so we have a government that is incompetent doing the basics inefficient at doing so and is weak at tackling those people who eventually do get assessed and are shown not to be refugees so the problem is not activist judges it is weak and incompetent government um it's also worth saying that what I'm not accusing everybody on the other side of the house of being of being populists but one of the one of the Hallmarks of a populist is that they look as a huge and difficult problem and they come up with a simplistic solution a simplistic solution and and the reality is we need to be honest that this is a very difficult problem and it isn't easy to solve that it is a global problem and that what we have to uh do is work with other countries in order to try to address it so for example some of the issues around Yemen will no doubt been exacerbated by this country choosing to reduce its Aid to Yemen so we want to influence and and stop the flow of people away from trouble parts the world then we get alongside those places and we seek to try to deal with these things at source but the I would not even make any pretense that that will solve the problem but let's not pretend that by trying to attack one part of one part of the symptom is is is an answer it is dishonest to claim that this is an overall answer to the problem the third false premise is that the provisions of this bill will even remotely work at Best on the government's own figures maximum of 1% of the Asylum Seekers coming to this country will end up being removed to Rwanda at the cost by the way of 240 million and Counting I mean we could just say why not put that money into better border Force why not put that money into clearing the back law why not put that money into doing things that actually would deter people from uh coming it won't work though and it won't deter people and let's just think through why it will not deter people let's think of one of the places from which many refugees who end up in this country and indeed come over the channel uh come from in the first place Eritrea Eritrea many people would refer to it as being the North Korea of Africa isas of worki uh an awful appalling dictator um amongst the things that he does and that is a cause of people seeking uh Refuge from that country is that he cons conscripts all young men at 18 and then many of them particularly from Christian communities are then sent to murder their own people and so understandably people ask why are so many these people coming young men that's one of the reasons why so many people are coming are young men and so they seek Asylum where do they go next well many of them will stay in the region but just in this issue of deterrence it's so important to understand it so that young men maybe a couple of Brothers who've escaped it's been hard to escape in the first place from aeri and his evil henchmen so he leaves the country they leave the country they end up at some point going through the Lawless horror that is Libya today utterly appalling a country barely without rules if you think you the experience of what happened post Gaddafi is a reminder there is nothing so awful in this world that you cannot make it worse and Libya is even worse than it was in that time so you pass through that with its human trafficking with the massive murder rate with the appalling experiences of human rights in that country and you make it eventually to the med and you cross the Mediterranean you've crossed the Mediterranean to Mainland Europe and then at some point you're has to make a decision about whether you will or will not cross the 20 or 30 miles of the English Channel I'm sorry sir Roger it's a piece of cake compared to the horrors that they've endured so far on the 1% chance they might against sent to Randa Rwanda do we genuinely think that this is a deterrent at all it's a reminder isn't it that this is a huge distraction from the issue that we are actually facing so this is a bill that assumes a state of affairs that isn't true it assumes the only way to deal with it situation is to act unconstitutionally in a very anti-conservative and unconservative way I might add and it assumes it will work when it bindingly obviously won't um and amendments six and seven by in the name of my right honorable uh friend the member for orty and Shetland are there in order they they challenge the assumption that in order to control migration we don't need to exempt vulnerable people or we believe we don't need to exempt vulnerable people from domestic laws which protect their human rights we don't need to try and du out of our obligations under the ECR By ignoring interim injunctions so this these Provisions they are morally wrong they are constitutional vandalism and it constitutes a failure it is a it is an issue which is all about seeking to distract the electorate from the reality of their daily lives it is a government failing to govern and tackle the cost of living tackle the NHS crisis one in nine people in my constituency sir Roger is currently on an NHS waiting list and this government is wasting its time on something which is morally outrageous unconstitutional and won't even do the thing it is set up to do order um just before I call Sir John Hayes could I remind the house that this is not a second reading debate it is a debate about all of the Clauses stand part certainly and all of the Amendments but it's not a second reading there is a distinction so John Hayes I'm extremely grateful uh uh M Mr chairman um this uh debate is not on this side of the chamber as my friend from uh Worthing and Shum and other places said um uh a difference in ends in aims is a difference about means to those ends we want on this side of the chamber to travel to the same destination what we're debating is the journey to get there so let's not exaggerate the differences between us uh they are those differences and I know the minister shares that view and we've engaged with him we hope to continue to do so even at this late stage uh to improve the bill to make the delivery of those intentions the journey to that end one that we can realize we have to do so because uh Mass migration is perhaps the biggest existential crisis facing this country I say that um not blly because unfortunately in this chamber people say things as though they're definitive and use all kinds of supera lives indeed The Honorable lady from wam stones made a brand out of it um and as we heard earlier so I don't say that blindly but it would be a view shared by a large number of my constituents and as The Honorable gentleman also s his contribution is now widely shared in other countries so the issue of dealing with this bill and these amendments to it affects our constituents directly and personally contrary to the contribution of the on Westman and non he claims that this is a distraction far from it because you cannot absorb the number of people we are as a consequence of both legal and illegal migration into this country in a short period of time with a devastating effect on public service a displacement effect on the investment in the skills of our own people a displacement effects on the need to reform welfare and above and be beyond all of that the ability to integrate those incoming people into cohesive Societies in which we all share a common sense of belonging so uh in dealing with these amendments we need to be realistic about the scale of the problem and the nature of the British Public's view of that problem they know that the vast majority of people arriving here on small boats are men under 40 about 75% of them nine out of 10 of the male by the way uh far from the picture painted by some of the critics of the government uh and our policy so they know too that large number of them are not genuine Asylum Seekers but they're economic migrants I willing a moment I just want to continue to make my point and I'll happily good way and that Truth uh is so evident to the electors of this country they look with amusement at this place that it's not widely recognized here and yet we hear speech after speech from the benches opposite in particular I have to say that seem to be either ignorant of those facts or unwilling to face them I don't know if the honorable lady is the first or the second I happily give way to her he I would just ask him if he perhaps would like to correct the record that most people that come in small boats are in fact refugees because the haers grant them status they are not economic migrants they do not get economic migrant status they get Refugee seeders what we certainly know about them all is they travel through safe countries in many cases more than one before they got here and failed to claim Asylum so we know that about them she's right that we are probably in this country too lacks in the way we process claims certainly we offer asylums of more applicants than they do in Germany for example uh in France for example and indeed across the European average we Grant a higher proportion of applicants for Asylum uh uh a success claim uh than most other European countries now we know too do we not uh Mr chairman uh that the failure to remove these people is costing the British taxpayer immense amount of money when I looked at the figures I was staggered by them uh I was staggered by them the cost of a salum is now 3.97 billion P it is extraordinary that a single matter should be costing so much and the improve the need for this bill is Justified alone on the basis that we can no longer afford to deal with the level of illegal migration at the scale we are we simply can't afford for this to continue we know too that the British sense of fair play is being tested to its limits the public see this uh and they are increasingly disillusioned about the apparent inability of the political Elite in this country and we are the political Elite uh like it or not and there I'm willingness as I described it earlier to accept the fact now progress has been made in clearing the bat log and that was largely as a result of the efforts of my rable friend for and my rable friend for Farah during their stewardship of the home office they focused resources on processing claims more quickly and had considerable success in doing so but the problem is that as fast as we process people more and more arrive and so until you deal with the root of the problem you can never really tackle either the cost that I described nor the disillusion felt by our constituents and that's why the Prime Minister pledged he pledged it after all to stop the boates now uh in order to do so we need an act that is as effective as possible and the amendments in my name of my rockable friend which I strongly uh support would do just that amendments 11 to 18 deal in particular with the Human Rights Act taken together they would fully apply the Human Rights Act 1988 for this bill and the legal migration act 2023 in particular relation to removal Tanda a lot of nonsense has been spoken earlier about rights and there is a lot of nonsense prevailing in this house about rights rights are fundamentally important we believe do we not to Roger in those essential rights which characterize our country right to a fair trial right to be uh to go about one's business freely unimpaired the right not to be arrested without cause the right to vote in free and fair elections these are important parts of what it used to be British but they're not they don't spring from The Ether and not g given it is a liberal myth that rights are natural n rights are the product of decent governments in decent places doing the right thing they are special because we've chosen them not because they were given to us by some Source some ethereal Source The Honorable gentleman well The Honorable gentleman who I who I like and respect by the way will know because he knows scripture even better than I do that rights do not get to mention in the Ten Commandments they don't get to mention in The Sermon on the Mount perhaps he can perhaps he can find uh a place in either of those in either of those to contradict me I I did not mean but he he tempted me I don't think there is any and this ought this is not a liberal thing I think many conservatives ought to support this I don't think there's any case for human rights having any standing whatsoever without some form of metaphysical he's quite right to say the Bible doesn't talk about rights it talks about individual duties if I got duties to you you therefore have rights so I don't I do not believe rights are made up by human beings I think they're literally God given my my opinion my opinion of the honor the writer gentlemen has has soar to an even greater Heights I I knew he was the best of liberals and that is that's not a great thing to be by the way but but but it's better than nothing it's better than nothing and he's confirmed that in that piy intervention so the important thing about the Amendments 11 to 18 is crucially they rule out using sections four and seven of the Human Rights Act and we know from experience that the good intentions of government backed up by legislation passed in this place has been routinely frustrated by what my right honorable friend from Faron rightly described as activist lawyers and I would add I would say dodgy lawyers in this country and deluded pressure groups so it's not just uh malevolent foreigners it's malevolent people here too uh and and the truth of the matter is that the only way that we will affect this policy and I say this to the minister is if we do not allow that kind of gaming of our system both by those who come here although I Ely accept that there are amongst them people of course who we should welcome of course there are people fearing persecution of course we should be proud of the fact that we provide a safe haven people in desperate need we always have we always will but those people who are legitimate applicants for Asylum are being uh are being effectively compromised by A system that doesn't adequately distinguish them from the very people that I've described as gaming our far too LAX system so this bill is an opportunity to put that right but only if it's fit for purpose and the amendments are not designed to frustrate The Minister's intentions they're not designed to to allow uh the prime ministers pledge to fail on the contrary they are designed to make his pledge real to allow it to be affected for if these amendments are not accepted by government I fear it will do just that fail and disappoint fail and disappoint point the very people that we pledged we would stopped votes now section four deals with the Declarations of incompatibility and section 10 as I described it deals with remedial measures as it stands these are not excluded by the bill that means unamended the bill would allow a court to issue a declaration Inc compatitive with the EHR which would effectively kill the Randa scheme the minister must know that that is a possibility at at least we would argue a probability but even if it's a possibility I do have to say to him why wouldn't he want to exclude that possibility I Happ to give away I'm grateful him giving away and perhaps I could just elaborate on the point that he's making in form of intervention what is most likely to happen were this amendment not to be accepted by this house is that on Royal Ascent of the bill someone will bring a case seeking a declaration of incompatibility for the bill that will then go through the courts and if the Supreme Court were then to rule ultimately that the bill was incompatible with the Human Rights Act it would of course then be up to this house and Parliament to determine what to do but if the prime minister is correct that the government of Rwanda would not wish to be a party to any scheme that was in breach of international law the scheme would be dead well my right friend uh explains exactly the point that I was making the intentions of the bill are put at risk by the failure to close this loophole and it is just that it is an opportunity for people to exploit in exactly the way my rable friend the uh absence of Provisions that would strengthen or in the prim this word tighten the bill sufficiently to avoid such an EV honorable friend give way I happily give way yeah all the British people expect is to have real fairness hearings with real judges is not that right we've been speaking about the European Court of Human Rights is it not the case that many appointed to that court that stasbor Court have never even been lawyers they're not qualified let alone Be judges often they're academics they iil servants even politicians and more recently as time has developed on their human rights activists these non lawyers are often Guided by NOS who even help draft their judgments yeah they are what Lord suion has described as ideologically committed staff lawyers why should we here in this place we in this wonderful country be subserviant to that quality of some notion of international Justice make laws here that's what people want well The Honorable lady in that py intervention um has described so much of the the fundamental problem with allowing what my WR friend described as a foreign court with foreign judges from determining outcomes which directly affect the interests of this country on that point well I want to just the way there's so many compelling arguments in their intervention I want to deal with all of them and then give way to my friend U because of course there are three things about this Roger the first is that our judicial system is not common it is particular and special rooted in English common law but also with with a system largely due to the separation of powers which means our courts are are independent from the legislature and the executive so we have a strong tradition of both judicial quality and Independence frankly that's not true in many of the countries of Europe and I'm happy to give way to my friend who who elaborate um talk about the court of human rights in stasbor as it's rather like our own Supreme Court or that of the United States now as I said earlier in this debate I'm on the Council of Europe so I know exactly how these people are appointed we in the Parliamentary assembly it's the one power that we have we appoint these judges and we're given free names and frankly we have very little information on who they are but what is undoubtedly true and there's evidence of this is that more and more of them are not as in our case really distinguished lawyers and judges they are human rights lawyers uh academics and what is worse about the process unlike our judges they're not appointed by an independent process the political grouping in the Parliamentary assembly dominated by the Socialists and the Federalist Christian democrats grouped together to appoint the most Federalist pro- European judge well it is it is that to which I was alluding the the separation that exist in this country between the Judiciary and the legislature between the political process and the process of Justice simply doesn't apply in a lot of the other countries uh in Europe and certainly not further a field so there there is a problem of the politicization of the court and there is also a problem as I also said of quality both the which my two uh right honorable friend uh refer to but furthermore there is an issue of accountability because the point about law in this country is it's made in this place and the reason that that is so significant is this place derives its legitimacy from elections Democratic free and fair elections we are empowered to make laws in this Parliament because we are accountable answerable to the people and as soon as we subsume that accountability into some pan National Arrangement particularly of the kind outlined in the interventions mind will FR we weaken this house and by weakening this house we weaken the people who send us to this house and it's partly why their view of the world is so odds what I described earlier as the political Elite but what I really mean is the bgea liberal Elite the do dominate far too much of the establishment in all its elements there's a bour and I exclude I exclude the right orable member from westand because he is liberal but I don't think he's bis at least not as far as I'm aware um he's definitely not B so so so so um so so the Amendments uh that disapply the Human Rights Act are fundamentally important to the success of the bill by the way just as the side to Roger entirely relevant to the bill of course Human Rights Act should have been uh we should in government from 2010 on was got rid of the Human Rights Act anywhere uh because it's a Blair construction uh which uh which uh through which through which all legislation seems to be now is is seen it's the it's um it's a very damaging uh uh uh statute uh which has styed uh much of the work of uh subsequent governments now um amendments 23 to 25 um uh taken together would uh as my R friend made clear prevent the notorious rule 39 uh injunctions the so-called last minute pajama injunctions which emanate from Strasburg these amendments would ensure the default position is that rule 39 9 indications are not binding and explicitly a matter for ministers the government's own legal advice made clear that without this amendment flights may be grounded yet again ministers will indeed have the opportunity for exceptions will not be bound to do so this bill must be amended so the ministers can disregard rule 39 orders we really cannot allow Strasburg judges to overrule this Parliament and H flights decisions be taken by elected those elected in westmin not by courts in Europe it's what the um what the people expect of us is what the people demand of us uh the bill May uh block claims about the dral saf under but will'll still permit individual claims which will block removal unless such individual claims are explicit excluded we know that spurious cases were used to frustrate removal and thus legislation will have no teeth and the minister knows that these things go on for days and weeks and months these cases are never resolved quickly uh and the uh time is short and so consequently uh at very least surely the government would acknowledge that the uh the flights that they regard and we regard as a necessary part of dealing with the with scourge of illegal immigration will be delayed the um uh the amendment in the name of my friend will block individuals uh will block uh individual claims uh uh suspensive claims limiting such claims to exceptional circumstances though there are circumstances is where perhaps a seriously ill person who can't travel should be accepted and uh I think most of us would well all of us I hope would agree uh with that but those should will be rare cases uh the thos has already correctly excluded families children and pregrant women such exceptional circumstances are incredibly unlikely given what I said about the profile of those people arriving in small boats being overwhelmingly fit men under the age of 40 Mrs M uh uh sir Roger this is the third migration bill in recent times it's our third and final chance as other speakers in this debate have said to deliver on our promise to the British people to stop the boats and control their borders we fail to strengthen the bill in the way the Amendments I've outline do it will simply not work if we fail to make this bill work if we fail the brsh people we will have broken our promise to them thousands more people will make risky Journeys in perilous conditions our hotels will remain full with those waiting judgments at enormous cost the British people will regard this as a failure which is rooted here in this house and in this government now the minister is a good man uh a diligent Minister who I'm sure understands the thrust of the arguments that have been made in this house today because he would know that in the end this is about a fundamental crisis of democratic efficacy the ability of a nation state to deliver for its people the um greatest conservative prime minister of all time Benjamin disra said Justice is truth in action and this issue is a matter of Justice legal justice and and social justice and it is for that reason uh that the British people want to see the boat stopped they simply regard as unjust that our borders are being breached with impunity for if the elected government of the United Kingdom cannot remove people who arrive here without permission to be here then a more troubling and profound question must be asked who governs our country my constituents want the government they elect and the Parliament they voted for to determine who governs Britain only by improving this bill by delivering the prime minister's mission of stopping the votes can we assure that we answer that question well done thank you uh sir Roger um this has been a very interesting committee stage of this bill we've ranged from the metaphysical to MPS feeding each other baked beans to a constitutional tour of the history of Scotland to the case of John Hurst who lived in in Hull who put an ax through his land lady's head went to prison and then fought a campaign to get uh rights for prisoners to be able to vote and we've had that discussion about that particular uh way that we've dealt with the prisoners and and their right to vote uh issue in the past um we've also had a lot of CR criticism of lawyers and uh I have to say some of the best speeches we've had this afternoon of been from lawyers in this chamber actually and I don't know whether they'd be counted as Lefty lawyers but they were certainly sitting on those benches over there in the majority of cases um I'm very conscious Roger this is a second uh sorry this isn't a second reading speech but I do just want to refer the house back to the report that the home Affairs select committee produced 18 months ago when we were looking at small Boat Crossings and what we said in that was there is no magical single solution to dealing with irregular migration detailed evidence-driven fully costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change that deters Journeys such as dangerous Channel Crossings we also said to the government that their number one issue they needed to address was the backlog and I am pleased that there has been some progress in dealing with the backlog I think they've um they've now got a backlog of about 990,000 still to deal with but that's an improvement of where we were last year however I want to now deal with the Amendments that are before us this afternoon I want to speak to amendments 11 to8 and 23-25 table by the right honorable member for nework and I am concerned about these amendments because I think if they were to be accepted they would put the United Kingdom on a collision course with international law I also want to speak to amendments 36 and new Clause 7 um in relation ation to the issue of the costs of the Rwanda policy so turning first of all to clause three of the bill which disapplied the Human Rights Act amendments 11 to18 would extend this disapplication of the Human Rights Act thereby extending the permission of this bill that this bill grants to public authorities to act in ways that are incompatible with human rights and Amendment 11 and 12 specifically appear to extend the disapplication of the Human Rights Act to anything done under the illegal migration act that relates to the removal of a person to Rwanda and this could potentially include uh that person's detention and the treatment prior to their removal meaning that not only would no legal challenge be possible under Amendment 22 which we discussed yesterday of course but also there' be no specific legal obligation on public authorities to act in incompatibility with human rights and extending the disapplication of sections two and three of the Human Rights Act to all immigration legislation as it relates to a person's removal to Rwanda under the bill or the illegal migration act does raise serious concerns over unforeseen consequences and unintended human rights violations and it should also be noted that amending the bill to disapply section four of the Human Rights Act something that has never been done before doesn't actually have any clear legal purpose it would simply prevent the courts telling the government and the public their view on the law now because the secretary of state has already said on the face of the bill that he is unable to say that the bill is compatible with convention rights so no one could reasonably presume that a statement of the same from the courts were it to be made would would have any impact at all so I so that's why I'm quering that those amendments now I I do want to uh turn to amendments 23 and 25 which the former immigration Minister opened the debate with at the at the start and talked about I think taking the pin out of the um the grenade at that that part of the debate so Clause five of the bill concerns interim measures excuse me from the European Court of Human Rights and it states that it's going to be for a minister and only a minister to decide whether the UK will comply with these interim measures so can I at this point again just pay tribute to the chair of the Justice committee and the chair of the joint committee on human rights for their very clear explanation of the current situation around these interim um in these interim injunctions and setting out very clearly how the United Kingdom has um our what our involvement with that court is and our longstanding commitment to that court and also for setting out that there is a review at the moment around those interim injunctions which I think is very helpful but just turning now to the Amendments 23 to 25 they would actually stipulate that interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights the so-called pajama injunctions which halted the removal of the Asylum Seekers to Rwanda in 2022 are not binding on the UK and have no effect on a person's removal to Randa now although the Amendments allow that a minister may choose not to remove someone where interim measures have been indicated Amendment 25 makes amendments to existing provisions on the treatment of interim measures in the illegal migration act designed to make clear that the Secretary of State immigration officers and the courts must not have regard to interim measures in relation to removals to Rwanda so these interim measures are made as we we've been discussing this afternoon afternoon under rule 39 of the European Court of Human Rights their rules of procedure and therefore do not form part of the text of the convention ratified by the UK however the court which is the body that determines the meaning of the convention has held consistantly that failing to comply with interim measures amounts to a breach of article 34 of the convention itself the obligation not to hinder in any way the right to bring claims before the court therefore any decision of administ not to comply with interim measures would be inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the European convention on human rights and the legal advice that the home Affairs select committee has received is that the Amendments before us this afternoon would therefore put the UK directly in conflict with the European Court of Human Rights and worryingly there are also reports today in the media that the government is considering amending the civil service code to require civil servants to ignore interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights something that the General Secretary of the first division Association has described as Madness but it is also quite interesting to observe that there may be uh some Synergy here with the minister now um in the home office and his approach because um I understand that when he was in a different position I think solicitor general he backed the attorney general in the the attorney's previous uh in the attorney is advice stating that ignoring a rule 39 order would breach international law and that the government should not even indicate that it would refuse to comply if I can now just turn to amendments 36 new Clause 5 new Clause 7 these uh are the group these groups are around costs and I want to look at the aspect that's missing from the bill and I think deserving of some scrutiny that is actually how much this policy will cost cost um I also want to speak to particularly um the Amendments um because of what's happened recently uh in terms of the home Affairs select committee and the Public Accounts committee and our attempt to find out about the cost of the Rwanda policy there's far too much that we don't know about how much this policy uh will be will cost and how much taxpayers money is going to be spent which is why I believe that new 7 which requires the Secretary of State to promptly notify parliament of any payments made under the Rwanda treaty does have some Merit and I hope the minister will look carefully at at that Amendment it's for this reason that Amendment 36 requiring the publication of a full impact assessment on the costs involved in removals to Rwanda and the publication of the financial memorandum signed with Rwanda also I think carries great Merit so as I was just saying the the home Affairs committee committee and the Public Accounts committee have found it very difficult to get basic financial information from the government on the Rwanda scheme and uh that's why I also believe that new Clause five is worthy of the The Minister's careful consideration as well now new Clause 5 would place the monitoring committee for the Randa Rwanda treaty on a statutory footing and that would enable greater oversight of the implementation of the treaty and crucially ensuring that Parliament can do its fundamental job of scrutinizing government policy as the home Affair select committee um spelled out 18 months ago in our report which I quoted from earlier dangerous um Channel Crossings are only going to stop when we've got uh that evidence-driven and that fully tested policy initiatives that that I talked about and that there is proper costing for that and it seems to me that's plainly not the case at the moment and it is crucial for for us not only to deliver that policy but in working to to stop small boats but more widely to ensure the responsible and effective use of public money and it is really important to remember that the permanent secretary at the home office when The Rwanda scheme was announced required a ministerial direction from the minister the um Home Secretary to actually Implement that policy as the permanent secretary judged and he still does actually today he still this view that there was no evidence that the scheme would constitute value for money there's just not the evidence available so on that basis you might consequently expect that the government would be very keen to demonstrate exactly how much its spending of public money to allay fears that the money isn't being well spent but I am just very concerned about the position that the government have got itself in um we still don't know um how much how much will be paid to Rwanda in the final two years of the migration and economic develop development partnership or what the cost of the perers uh cost of relocating an individual to Rwanda is and the most substantive update we've received recently on the cost of the scheme came about by accident because someone apparently mucked up and published details in the international monetary funds board papers so indeed um we found out about that on witting disclosure in a simply in a in a similarly haphazard way with a late night letter from the permanent secretary to myself and the right honorable member for hne South and shitch the chair of the Public Accounts committee uh which he then posted on the home office website so it appears that in Rwanda they are able to find out exactly how much money the British government is paying for this scheme but uh British MPS are not allowed to have the same information made available to US unless it it's disclosed in documents seemingly by mistake so what we do know of course is that following the 140 million pounds paid to Rwanda in the financial year 2022 to 23 there was an additional payment of 100 million in April 23 and a further 50 million will be paid in the 2425 Financial year but as I've said the deal with Rwanda is 5 years and the government is still not um willing to tell us exactly how much is pledged in those funds fin two years um as for the Money Paid to Rwanda already we now do have some information and I'm grateful uh from the the minister on the treasury bench that he was able to provide us with some information in a in a letter which the home Affair select committee has published today so it sets out um the 120 million it says 39% was spent on education 21% on infrastructure 19% on job creation 133% % on health 5% uh is for agriculture and 3% is for ICT so we know that the government um have also pledged to pay Rwanda a certain amount of money in relation to each Asylum Seeker removed there but yet again we don't actually know how much that will be and we've all been able to um all we've been able to glean from the home office is from the economic impact assessment to the illegal migration bill when it was going through Parliament I think it came out right at the tail end actually in which they estimate the cost of relocating a single individual uh seeking Asylum to a third country that is Rwanda would be £ 169,000 per person which we are told represents an additional additional costs incurred relative to processing an individual through the current migration system and I understand from previous immigration ministers that the cost of processing an individual in the United Kingdom kingdom is around £12,000 so there's quite a differential where between 12,000 and £69,000 but it it's not just those core costs that we are not clear about there are multiple layers of other possible probable and prescribed payments involved in the delivery of this policy that we've not been given any detail on for instance the treaty with Rwanda establishes this new appeals body for individuals applying for Asylum which will be staffed by and we are told a mix of nationalities the question then is will the United Kingdom be paying for this new international appeals body and paying for its stuffing and if so how much will that be and the treaty also specifies that any person sent to Rwanda will be entitled to a permanent residence permit this deals with the issue that the Supreme Court were concerned about in terms of reement so this means a person will stay in Rwanda even if the Asylum claim is unsuccessful but what we don't know is what the fin financial implications of that are for the British taxpayer what payments will be paid if any uh to the Rwandan government in connection with those unsuccessful Asylum applica applications the treaty also specifies that initial Asylum decision will be made by individuals who are appropriately trained and for the first six months no claim will be rejected unless advice has been taken from a seconded independent expert so will the UK be providing any additional money to Rwanda to train these decision makers and employ these independent experts the treaty also guarantees free legal advice to claimants during the Asylum process so will the UK be making any payments to Rwanda to back up that guarantee again we we've not had anything from uh ministers uh to tell us this um basic information to enable us to effectively scrutinize the policy and that's also before the announcement uh in the written ministerial statement yesterday where um the Lord chancelor set out that there would be 150 lower level uh judges appointed to the upper tribunal in the United Kingdom to hear appeals quickly to enable um I think uh concessions being given to people uh members on the uh the opposite benches who um were obviously very concerned about the number of appeals that might um flow from this this bill so again um I did hear the minister on the news this morning being asked about the cost of the 150 judges and he wasn't able to say what that cost was so again that's another uh factor that we need to uh look at when we're looking at the value for money of this policy so um given the failures that I've talked about to have that transparency and I have to say the resistance that the home Affairs select committee has come come across and also the Public Accounts committee to getting more details on the cost of the Rwanda scheme I think amendments 36 and new Clause 7 are very helpful to Parliament in getting that information um I think those are the main points that I wanted uh to raise today but I do want again to reiterate that a huge amount of political capital and time and parli entry time is being spent on this bill and what we do know and what the home Affairs select committee said 18 months ago is that we still do not have the evidence that this bill will actually do what the government think it will do which is to deter people from getting in small boats and crossing the channel so there is a huge amount of resource going into this and as I started off by saying there has to be a range of initiatives to deal with illegal migration there is no one magic um policy that the government uh can use to stop the problem we have with the small boats and I hope that ministers will take that into account in their closing comments David Simons thank you sir Roger um May I start by drawing The house's attention to my entry in the register of interests the rice Northwood and P constituency is a part of Northwest London which has been shaped by generations of refugees starting particular in the period around the second world war with large numbers of European Jews fleeing persecution and successive waves of people coming from across the world finding refuge and becoming part of our community and understandably had a lot of views this year about not just this safety of Rwanda bill but also previous legislation that we've had about the issues of migration and whil Sir Roger I'm going to focus my contribution on the Amendments which are particularly around the role of the European convention and the European Court of Human Rights it does seem to me that in a debate which has at times become quite philosophical there is a wide recognition that shared sovereignty is often in practice for our constituents greater sovereignty that I'm a big fan of those fine British philosophers Hobbs and lock who talk about the social contract but it's very clear that it is when we work very closely with our neighbors that we achieve the most effective measures against widespread illegal and irregular migration flows we've already seen effective work with the French authorities to tackle the activities of some of the gangs in northern France that has contributed to Bringing Down the numbers coming across the channel so Roger I'm going to attempt uh in my contribution to add uh some further evidence to our deliberations in a way that I hope will help to encourage ministers and to emphasize my support for taking forward this bill in its unamended form as I know the government seeks to to achieve and when we look at the role of shared sovereignty there are many many examples well beyond that of the European Court in the European Convention of human rights that have a significant bearing on this issue if we look for example at the United Nations convention on the laws of the sea which sets out the responsibilities that the United Kingdom and others have in the English Channel in respect of refugee boats that have frustrated the views of past home secretaries about how we might specifically tackle that issue but we've yet to see a great deal of debate in this chamber about why we should repudiate the United Nations convention on the laws of the sea despite the fact that all the international Maritime organization is based just across the river the international tribunal that deals with it is based in hburg it could similar be described as a foreign court and indeed our own judicial Committee of the privy Council acts as the Supreme Court of Appeal for a number of countries and jurisdictions around the world that are not part of the United Kingdom and that are not subject to UK law and indeed despite the fact that both the European convention our own law prohibits the death penalty that Committee of our own privy Council drawn from parliamentarians in the United Kingdom has heard appeals such as the Chandler case of 2011 regarding the death penalty in Trinidad and toaga so it's very clear that there is a long and established history of Nations coming together to establish International conventions processes and tribunals to administer the law in the interests of both our harmonious relationships with each other but also the longer term and greater benefit of our citizens and in respect of this particular problem it's very clear that the work that was done by the late James broken sha when he was the minister dealing with illegal migration to secure in particular the ports and the rail heads in northern France has contributed to the problem that we face today in that the people Smugglers have nowhere else to go other than the small boats which this bill aims to stop now a good deal s Roger has been said about the best way in which we can deal with the role of the European Convention of human rights in the operation of this bill and other matters arising from it now we know SRA that the ECR is a very very broad organization it came into being after the second world war as we've heard and my argument for why we should reject um the amendments to its role and in particular those around interim measures is that we already have a very extensive series of levers which we can exercise in order to shape it and indeed the reason why those interim measures exist is not merely because judges in the court have decided that they would like to have them but because parliamentarians from the UK and other member states and other politicians and ministers and governments have argued for that Court to take on a greater role over the years in response to the challenges and some of those that we've seen for example have affected British citizens they've been caught up in the conflict in Ukraine where those interim measures have potentially influenced the safe return of those people to the United Kingdom we have the Council of ministers the directly appointed members of our government who sit together and determine what the priorities of that convention and that Court should be we have the Parliamentary assembly and it's worth remembering at this point a good deal has been said about the role of the judges the judges of our Supreme Court here in the United Kingdom and indeed our entire judicial process is completely free of political interference the judges of the European Court of human rights are directly elected by parliamentarians from their member states and indeed the legal the legal Committee of the European Convention of human rights of the assembly is chaired by the member of Christ Church who i' hardly describe as a Bourgeois liberal so I think like the member for Brom in chisel the characterization of it as a foreign court is no more accurate than it is to say that the international tribunal of the law of the sea is a foreign court or indeed that our judicial Committee of the privy council is a foreign Court when it is dealing with matters at the request of other jurisdictions which it does on a very regular basis and having served on the Congress of the Council of Europe which is the local government which looks at how those laws are handed down and implemented in practice it's very clear that we have a significant number of diplomatic and other levers which we can exercise if we feel that the court needs to move its practice in a different direction and it is also clear that the court has already begun that process in the light of comments from the United Kingdom and others so my argument sir Roger is that it is in our interest because it benefits our citizens in our country to maintain our membership of the European Convention of Human Rights it underpins so much of our positive influence in the world and it gives us the moral authority to ask others to do things that we maintain our active support and membership of that organization but that we seek to address these issues using our elected members of this house who sit in those assemblies our elected politicians who sit in other assemblies like the Congress our academics and appointees who sit in bodies like the Venice commission which advises on the gold standards for the conduct of Elections that we use all of these levers that are at our disposal to convey our views to the court and to the convention organizations about how we should proceed and in respect of the judges themselves it was very positive to hear from other members who've been part of that process because we know and i' say contrary to sometimes what has been said that there is a two-stage process that for someone to be a candidate to be a judge they have to meet the requirements for international judicial appointment in terms of both legal qualifications and relevant experience they are then put forward for election by the politicians who place them on the court and their decisions certainly in respect of the so-called pajama injunction seem to be very little different from those which magistrates like myself and others across this country will be asked to take on matters of judicial warrants that you are asked to make a decision to enable an intervention to happen at a moment of urgency and then in due course there is a longer period of opportunity for that to be considered by the courts and all the other authorities that may have a stake in it of course just I'm very grateful to the hon gentlemen I just I'm so pleased that we are having this very clear explanation about uh the the court and the judges after what's been said this afternoon it's just very refreshing to have this and can I just thank the honorable gentleman who I also think is a lawyer and I don't know if he's a lefty lawyer but he's a lawyer I think I I I'm I'm grateful so the member of Kingson on Hall North I'm not a lawyer I served as a magistrate in this country but uh but it's always my pleasure to say I belong to that even more despised race of human beings than Toran peace that I was formerly a banker but um so just just turning sers to to a conclusion I do think that in respect of what is said in in the bill and in the Amendments around the Human Rights Act we are right to have some degree of concern about that and this house needs to strike the correct it is a fundamental principle of British Justice which dates back at least as far as the Saxons that people may not be subject to a penalty unless they've had the opportunity to be brought before a court a properly composed judicial Authority and therefore we should be concerned at the idea that in the United Kingdom we would exempt a group of people from access to our law on the basis of the method of their arrival in the United Kingdom however we do need to balance that against the fact that people are dying in the English Channel they are drowning in cold water gangs are profiting from that hugely which is fueling all kinds of other types of crime and to an extent we are a victim of that previous success in that the improved Security in northern France has created and massively exacerbated the problem that we face today and that for me is the thing that balances up the risk to a loss of Human Rights that we need to ensure that we have that really effective deterrent in place to address the problem that has arisen out of um that earlier success so Roger it is and and remains my view and I've expressed it in the debates about the previous migration bill that the point at which we will establish full control of our borders is the point at which we add an asylum visa to all the other types of visas that we have so that there is a single safe and legal route controlled by the British government and the rules set by this house and if you arrive on our Shores to claim Asylum without having gained that permission first then you are automatically ineligible regardless of your method of arrival and that would mirror the process that we already have in place for people who want to come and work to come and study to come and marry to come and invest here in the United Kingdom and it seems to me that we still have not yet put in place that effective process and system that would enable us to do that but it is clearly crucial as the weather will begin to improve soon the Smugglers will be looking to invest in their stock of boats and more people's lives will soon be put at risk that whil we keep our eyes on the objective that is to return to something more like the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme that's required or described by unhcr as the gold standard for international Refugee resettlement that's the model on which we' based our Afghan resettlement scheme whatever logistical problems that experienced that this house is recognized as the way in which the United Kingdom wishes to play part in Refugee settlement resettlement around the world but we need to ensure that we deal with the specific problem that arises of small boats in the channel and it seems to me for all the debates that we've had for all the well-intentioned arguments that the bill in its un unamended form strikes the best balance that we have available to us to address that particular problem ensure that no one else dies on a route to seeking asum here in the United Kingdom and for that reason I will be supporting it un amended tonight Allison Fus thank you very much and it's actually a pleasure to follow the right The Honorable member from from rlip and I it's refreshing to hear somebody from the conservative Benes talking up the merits of an asylum Visa because it is uh something that would break the model of people smuggling gangs because it gives people a safe and legal rout it gives them that safety and certainty nobody needs pay over everything that they own uh and be exploited to get on uh a leaky dingy in the channel if they were able to get travel like any any of us were able to travel to come here for safety and for sanctuary and I understand H from uh other from other people in this house that H the conservative benches are quite Keen to wind this up early tonight because apparently they are going to a burn supper I'm not sure if this is true or not but it's certainly a rumor that I heard earlier um so I I would give some thoughts certainly and I am a big fan of our national board of some of the things that Robert Burns might have to say to the conservative party uh and the way in which they conduct their business and I think I might start I think I might start with man's inh Humanity to man makes countless thousands mourn I remove the Amendments standing in my name of those and those of my honorable colleagues and commend to the house those H standing in the name of my colleagues from Glasgow North and Edinburgh Southwest W and I wish to start with clause three on the disapplication of the human rights act now the Human Rights Act 1998 was Landmark legislation is woven into the fabric of our devolved institutions it underpins the good FY agreement and it should concern as all when a government without any kind of mandate starts to pick away at the stitching the Law Society has said that the exclusion of the Human Rights Act to this extent is unprecedented and thinking of of Robert Burns and defending the rights of people to migrate he had a verse I mean he has a verse on just about everything but he has a verse on the rights of Highlanders against their lards who were not allowing them to then migrate to Canada he said they and be damned what right had they to meet or sleep or light or day but far less to riches power or freedom but what your Lordships please to give them and we should we should give uh Asylum Seekers far more than this government thinks they have a right to e them dis applying section six removes the obligation for courts and immigration officials to take into account human rights when assessing the safety of Rwanda dis supplying section three limits the protections courts can provide dis supplying section two forces courts to ignore any rulings from the European Court of human rights that Rwanda are is unsafe these are important protections they ensure people's safety not just uh from government but they are a check quite specifically on the home office a home office which we know has long inconsistent form and making serious mistakes which have long lasting and life-changing consequences one only needs to reflect in the legacy of Windrush toek and the highly skilled migrant Scandal to know the scale of home office incompetence uh and we see the courts we need the courts to offer protection against the home office's instinct to report first and ask questions later amendments n 11 to 18 in the name of the honorable me of the honorable of the member from New York make make an already unjustifiable situation much much worse Liberty have stated that these effectively remove the possibility of securing any much less than effective Renity for uh remed for reach or threatened Brees of Rights arising from removals to Rwanda on the basis that it is a sa unsafe country and when Robert Burns in his slave lament said torn from that lovely Shore and must never see it more and alas I am weedy weedy o I think we all feel that weediness at the government and the circularity of these ridiculous arguments it is unsafe uh for refugees who get to come here from Rwanda but somehow is safe enough for us to send people uh to Rwanda where they will uh be in safety it makes absolutely no sense uh and this moving of Rwanda to people uh by people for people against their will by this government I would say is is nothing but St state sponsored people trafficking this government is now in effect a criminal gang moving people across the world people moved against their will with no regard to their safety no recourse to appeal to a country they do not know involving money and profit well that sounds like people smuggling to me those in the benches obious either can't see this or they frankly just don't care because to them these aren't really people that we're talking about here they never have to see them they never have to engage with them they never have them crying across the desk in front of them at a community Hall on a Friday it is utterly despicable moving to Clause five on interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights interim measures are important uh and according to the Court's well established practice apply only where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm Clause 5 expands on the previous provisions of the illegal migration act to ignore interim measures now these things that we passed under the illegal migration act are not even yet in forced uh it's an act I mentioned yesterday it's only 181 days since it got royal Ascent but here we are this afternoon legislating yet again and interim measures exist not just in international law but also in our own domestic law and often as my as member for Edinburgh Southwest said often they happen late at night that is the nature of these things they are last minute protections for people who have no other uh um recourse and no other remedy they're not unusual but refusing to comply with them as this legislation sets out and as the member for New York's am amendments demand would be a clear and serious breach of international law no mere technicality here a serious breach of international law so where does this leave us uh with the government of Rwanda whose Minister has been quite clear on the need for this agreement to be compliant with international law and indeed today the president Paul kagami said to the guardian there are limits on how long this can drag on and he would be be happy for this to be scrapped entirely the government is on very very shaky ground here and as the minister and the member for you're really going to have us believe that we can cross our fingers behind our back and nobody will know that the UK government broke international law they are having us on and what is particularly daed about this measure in the legislation is that the European Court of human rights has already responded to the concerns that the UK ministers have made in November last year the European courts of Court of Human Rights provisionally adopted amendments to rule 39 of its rules of court and the procedure for intering measures tightening up in the circumstances and the procedures they're also changing the procedure that me that member after member H about earlier on um so that judges are no longer Anonymous I don't know whether in the in the Amendments that they're making they're going to be able to uh be forced to disclose disclose their preferred nightwear but I think that's perhaps a matter of discretion the grievance that the that the member for New York and the UK government and the back benur how about is being addressed so that makes this bill even more of a waste of everybody's time money and energy and what damage does it do to the the when the UK government continues to behave like a petulent child rather than engage constructively with the international organization of which it is a part uh it sends a judge to this court is part of this process it's not somebody else's court it's our court we are part of it for F more placing all decisions on compliance with an intern measure in the hands of a minister is a deeply worrying suggestion far less appropriate than a court and maybe the minister will also be in their pajamas as they sign off a batch of human Cargo in the dead of night but as presumably it's a British minister in Union Jack pajamas rather than a European judge in a blue one Z yellow stars members opposite will probably think this is perfectly acceptable they care more about Flags than about rights and they have the cheek to call us nationalists deliberately breaching international law is no longer a situation we to assume that a minister of this particular government would in any way hesitate to do the Law Society of Scotland have added to the criticism of this power saying it contradicts the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive and the Judiciary and as the uh honorable member from Kenworth and uh sou pointed out earlier there are foreign policy and serious implications of this move I support the amendment in the name of the or the member for orty in Shetland well I appreciate the intention it's hard not to feel that the amendment in the name of the official opposition is merely an attempt to water this down by having a minister consult with their attorney general and given that the member for fum was the Attorney General before being home secretary and signing the Amendments today that undermine human rights I'm not sure that's the protection that perhaps they think it might be and I knowe the um various amendments and the efforts of the member of from South Swindon and his colleagues to amend this bill but I think we we all know that they are in a hiding to nothing with this moving to Clause eight uh and the extent Clause the S&P have been very clear very clear indeed that we do not believe that this in this uh cruel and unnecessary Bill we do not support it so our attempt to decisively declare that this is not in Scotland's name comes in the form of amendments 45 32 33 34 uh in the name of my colleagues from Edinburgh Southwest and Glasgow North which attempt to remove uh Scotland from the territorial extent of the bill and requireed the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament as my uh colleague from Ed Southwest pointed out earlier on this has a significant impact on the ability of Scottish courts uh and the ability of our leg legal system to work effectively and we have asked for um legislative consent for the Scottish Parliament before this legislation comes into Force it's guy chilly in in Scotland today but I can say to the minister that hell would freeze over before he would obtain our legislative consent on this bill absolutely moving to Clause 9 on on commencement Amendment 41 seeks to separate the treaty from this bill and ensure that it that the treaty itself receives the scrutiny it deserves given the significance of the provisions made within that treaty and I don't know how many colleagues will have examined the treaty but I think it is quite right and quite appropriate that this house does so as the home Affairs select committee has asked in terms of a debate moving because this is the the way that this H strange process is laid out I move last to Clause one it comes last because of course it does in this Topsy Turvy uh world of Westminster the principle of the bill remains aort to us international law is not something that states should disregard when inconvenience to them and again Burns has an important principle on this in his letter to an to Mrs Francis an and Lop he says whatever mitigates the wars or increases the happiness of others this is my Criterion for goodness and whatever injures Society at large or any individual in it this is my measure of inequity this bill is riddled with iniquity and harm we rightly call out States who abuse human rights who ignore their courts who treat people in a dehumanizing manner there's absolutely no justification for the UK in doing so it is me a bogey man to distract the public from the chaos that the conservatives have presided over all these years our amendments 394 42 43 and 44 uh seek to assert the importance of complying with our International organizations to abide by the human rights site is astonishing it is astonishing that we require to do so but as the bill preface sets out this bill is very much incompatible with convention rights and the story government wishes to have us carry on regardless the right Reverend Sally Foster filton moderator of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland has been among many voices calling out this uh appalling legislation she says this bill threatens to destroy the UK's reputation reducing our ability to speak with any credibility on injustices and human rights abuses across the world it also sets a worrying precedent that human that fundamental human rights can be eroded and denied to some now far be it from me to rush to defense of the UK's International reputation but I urge members to consider the wider implications of this cruel policy it is not domestic it is International it has wide reaching implications Scotland wants no part of this failed expensive and cruel Rwanda plan we look forward instead to the day that we are no longer beholden to this insular and damaging UK immigration policy to this Parliament that does not speak in our name we want Scotland to take her place in the world with all the responsibilities that that entails in an International Community and to finish again on burns for all that and all that it's coming yet for all that that manto man the world or should brothers be for all that Nick Fletcher thank you Mr rer it's been a very very long debate and I've listened with intent to uh everybody who was spoken I uh I admit to learning quite a lot today um unfortunately um not everybody who spoken is is still here to to listen to me although I have listened to them but that tends to be the placing tends to happen in this house quite a lot people speak very very long at the beginning and then unfortunately they never get to listen to to the other people now the the lawyers it tends to be mainly lawyers that have spoken and I often thought when I before I became a member of Parliament that maybe this place will be best full of lawyers that's what it should be about we're making law maybe that's the maybe that's the right thing to do but I was corrected by The Honorable member from Somerset I didn't know I was going to speak of him today but he told me no is uh it's wonderful that people like yourself Nick are here and after listening to what I've heard today and having listening to what I've heard with regards to the recent post office case um lawyers just seem to be able to talk at this level continually continually back and back and forth and back and forth in fact I Serv with the post office case there was 60 million pound a given to looking after these postmasters and 40 million of it was spent on lawyers what I'm trying to get out is is that for all the talking that's happened the people who put us here are still struggling like mad to understand why why when we put people on a plane somebody from Strasburg can say no they don't have to go and we all watch with the gas that this is happening the struggle to see why it was mentioned in the telegraph last week that somebody who been caught of producing half a million pound wor of cannabis and convicted for it couldn't be de couldn't be deported because he couldn't speak his mother tongue anymore they can't understand why s an immigrant who's taking 8 million from organized crime and Tred to smuggle it out of this country and we can't Deport him because of his human rights now human rights obviously are extremely important and anyone who mentions coming out of um the echr automatically gets lambasted by many people on that side but unfortunately the people that put us here can't understand why these things are happening and we just got to whatever happens these judges that we're talking about that we've supposedly elected they need to come to donc cast and they need to come and see what's happening there like I said in my speech before uh before Christmas and we should be able to have a conversation like this without being heckled without you know I mean being called like that we have being called out on Twitter and every time we say this it's because it's it's because of the nastiness that definitely comes from the left that stops these conversations happening and stops has been a to have some decent conversation and decent debates having now I've listened to my friends all sat on that b row and they've speak an awful lot of sense they really do and I take it on board but I've Got Friends on this with me want to use these amendments to tighten up this bill and when I hear about what we're trying to do I have to agree with them it needs tightening up because we can't keep on putting people in a plane and then taking them back off again we can't keep on letting people come to this country abuse this system using taxpayers money to defend them while we're giving them Bard and lodgings in hotels next door to schools we've got to stop this we have to stop it from happening so I support these amendments that we're putting through today because I want to help the government I want to help the government with its promise of stopping the boats because if we stop the boats we stop the tragedies that happen out at Sea where five people died five people died last week we need to make sure that that doesn't happen again we need to stop the boats because we are put here by the taxpayers of this country by my constituents and we need to make sure that they're getting value for money with every pound that they get taken in their tax and when we speak about human rights we have to remember the rights of the British people will put us here so I will I will support these amendments because I've got to do whatever I can to make sure that the people that put me here are treated fairly and their rights are considered above anybody else's thank you B sorry Tom thank you uh it's a pleasure to contribute towards this um incredibly important debate and it's a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship as as usual um I also I was very happy to sign uh the Amendments Ted by my right R Amendment for neck amendments 11 to 18 and also 23 to 25 I was also happy to support his um amendments and also the Amendments of my honorable friend member for stone yesterday uh I do have concerns about the bill as it currently stands of course I want exactly the same thing as Minister want which is the votes to be stopped and the votes will only stop if if we have a deterrent I haven't seen an example across the world of this situation being propably dealt with without a deterrent uh and it's critically important that we we have one but I do it does concern me though that the exceptionally narrow grounds for individual appeal won't be as narrow perhaps as the government hopes which is potentially why we heard to talk about the 150 judges uh yesterday which does did cause me some are I I guess in some respects why are some of us so cynical on this side of the house why do some of us have so many concerns that this may not work in a way that we hope it will it's experience it's the fact that we have voted for two bills before the nationality and borders Act and the illegal migration act that we hoped would work comprehensively but haven't it is right the government highlight the reduction in Small Boat Crossings by by a third it is right that we do that but it's nowhere near enough and we will not be fked by the people of this country for not smashing it in a comprehensive way so I will be supporting um Amendment 11 in relation to the human right I won't be given away in relation to the Human Rights Act and I will also be supporting my R friend the uh newrick Amendment on the ECR as well I remember vividly the situation in June 2022 where you and I also remember the referendum we had in 2016 where the majority of people in this country voted to leave the European Union they did so because they wanted the parliament of this country to be fully Sovereign they did not want it to be frustrated by a foreign organization whether the EU or the ECR so the way in which that happened on the June 22nd a policy that has majority support for most of the people in this country I thought was devastating so more generally I think it is important that we respect the discussions that happened at second reading where the Prime Minister said that he wanted sound International legal Arguments for amendments that bar has been matched and my right horable friend remember vck has explained how that's been the case but fundamentally I have regretfully come to the conclusion that as a member of I think we should leave the ECR and I and I think in time my prediction is that we will that is my prediction I think many of the debates associated with the UCR are very familiar with the debates we had around brexit those who originally wanted to leave the EU were branded extremist and a minority and I think and and the same argument made Let's reform it from the inside we will try that again with the ECR and I think we'll be unsuccessful in doing so there's a supranational nature of the ECR that I'm deeply uncomfortable with we've already seen how that operates and and it's interesting to and some members have said they made they've made a point that it it's not a foreign court because we've got ownership of it well people may be same arguments about the European Union about the me is going to Brussels ultimately when it came to that decisive referendum most people who voted in that on that question disagreed with that view and be rightly in my view left the European Union but it is not right and it does open up a serious Democratic deficit when we leave the European Union and the principles for why we did are live in this debate today and we must listen but I I but I say on the issue of illegal migration like the issue of net legal migration we're playing with fire here the level of frustration felt by millions of people in the country is Extreme and the warnings are there across the world about what happens if mainstream parties do not deal with people's legitimate concerns about Mass migration so if a conservative party does not in a respon responsible way robustly deal with this and finally stop the boats for warning signs of air for what might happen and that is that and just to make that point even firmer with which I completely agree does my my honorable friend think that the fact that we are which often isn't mentioned that we're quite a small island with a huge population and a entire infrastructure which was created in the 19th century so that for all these reasons we have that much more pressure on our social services our infrastructure our planning and so forth um I I I think uh Wonder for giv away he's absolutely absolutely right there are intolerable pressures being placed on this country through Mass legal migration and also illegal migration and I think it is right that more and more of my constituents are seeing the link between that issue pressure on public services strains and social cohesion and other things as well I think IM immigration at sustainable levels with integration is a Force for good immigration at unsustainable levels without integration prevents intolerable troubles for the people of this country and that is something they want to guide against and have to give way to it I'm very grateful for for giving way and that and that is a view not just held by him or many in this house or many in this country but across many countries in Europe Mass migration is now seen as a issue of salience by countries right across Europe and the wider world so he is far from being alone he is speaking for the people I I I think my honorable friend for giving way we've heard lots of arguments about the the E the echr r today and wincent church or forming it I Do Not For a Moment think that if winon church was alive today he would be comfortable with the way in which today's echr is operating and with supernational nature to it I do not think he'd be comfortable with that that's an argument that has been defeated time and time again but continues to be wheed out by members opposite that I didn't agree with but ultimately um in many I applaud the prime minister's desire to stop the boats of course I do but it's not enough just to try and it's not enough just to be 80 or 90% of the way there we need to be 100% of a way there and we've seen previously any chinks in the armor of any Bill designed to tackle this issue will be ruthlessly exploited we share the desire of a prime minister we want to work with him to get a bill that we can all unite behind that stops a belt but immigration immigration isn't just an important issue I honestly believe it's become existential an existential issue and ultimately it is important that we unite behind the bill but the bill needs to work and the question is do we think the bill works or do we think it doesn't work and do we think it can be strengthened for all of those reasons though I I conclude my speech today but I will be supporting supporting the Amendments laid by my my right honorable friend a member for new and I will be voting for them with a certain degree of Pride because I believe in the sovereignty of this country I believe in listening to the people of this country and I believe in narrowing the unhealthy disconnect there is between the views of the majority of the people in Immigration and where we are at the moment thank you very much Mr Mar OB thank you very much I'm sorry to be a bit late to the uh to this uh uh to this AUST report stage I want to talk in general about some of these uh uh some of these amendments because I'm very sympathetic to a lot of them I I listen always to what the uh right honorable friend from nework is saying um and I think he is incredibly eloquent on this and also probably very right in some of the things that he says but I'm also going to explain why I'm not going to support always always uh but I'm going to explain why despite my concerns about the EHR are not going to support his amendments and those other amendments because we are dealing with the art of the possible as well as the art of what is right and wrong and I listened to the uh honorable member the my friend from ipswitch to talk about this in very apocalyptic terms um and I think he is right to say there is a great deal of angst and concern about this in my patch like in his over 50% of people according to that recent poll wanted people sent back without a right of appeal so I'm sympathetic towards that argument I'm sympathetic to what the honorable member from Newark says about his concerns about the way the system will not work but we are dealing with the art of the possible and for me when the honorable member for ipswitch says we need 100% system or we need 100% certainty not an 80 or 90% certainty I get a bit concerned about that stat have to give away would my honorable friend give away I'm grateful to my honorable friend for giving way does he recognize that we should be focusing on the practicalities of what are achievable uh recognizing the tensions uh on a very broad debate of what we can legislate for and what in reality will work within the limitations and the context be that from the courts be that from uh colleagues in this place but what will also work for Rwanda themselves um absolutely and if the rwandans turn around and say we've changed our minds we are in a world of pain on this issue uh and again it's a question about I I trust the government but I think the government has been naive in the past on this but to work on the basis that we on this side of the house are not going to trust our own government on this and give them zero credit I I think is going way too far the other direction now when yeah s Roger my friend is making a series of very important points does he agree with me that one of the reasons why our constituents are concerned to see this bill pass has been the enormous impact that very high levels of migration have had on local government finance and representing a local Authority which is an Ireland one of the 31 in the southeast of England that volunteered to be Asylum dispersal areas does he agree that other parts of the country might do well to step up to the plate too uh I think he makes a very good point and I think other countries should do well to set up to the plate thank you for for that comment back to what my honorable friend from MIT for saying about an 8090 versus 100% solution as far as I see there are four options there are four outcomes for today and I want to discuss them if I may in brief detail firstly that this bill Works in a wonderful way and everything is perfect do I think that's likely well I hope it is I live in hope I share um uh uh uh oh I'm so sorry thank you um um I share his concern that maybe it w the option two option two is that some of the legal appeals work some of the legal appeals don't work but we begin to get the planes moving sort of this summer it's a reasonable success we are heading in the right direction with other measures option three it doesn't work I I will give away in one second option three is that it doesn't work we get some brownie points for trying but it's a bad outcome option four we vote down the bill today there are no flights at all the left are in Clover the liberal Elite will be smiling all the way to the next election there will be a 100 colleagues on this side of the house return and there will be nobody to challenge woke there will be nobody to challenge large scale illegal immigration whatsoever I give way to The Honorable my honorable friend I think my honorable friend for giving way I mean I think that what would make the liberal Elite the happiest would be to see this bill strangled in the courts because of its weaknesses fact that make them happiness and also does my honorable friend um does he vote what does he think about the the Amendments put forward by my honorable friend a member for newk who perhaps knows his issue better than anybody else makes two points first about the happiness of the Lial Elites um I think my answer to that is he is giving a subjective opinion about what he thinks they would love actually what they would love most of all is this bill to die tonight we have to get this bill through to give us any form of chance now four options as I say that it works perfectly it may not option two that it is likely to work in part we can live with that option three it fails that's bad we are trying option four we kill the bill tonight we can all go and look for new jobs exactly right so that is what we are what that is what we are facing I want I want to see The Honorable gentlemen and many other people returned but what we need to be doing is to make sure that we give the people the best chance of delivering on this and the the best chance of us delivering on this is to try to push the government in a conservative Direction I give the honorable gentleman that but once we think the government's gone as far as it can can and I'm on the same side of the argument on this but I'm Different my differentiation is that I will give them the benefit of Doubt to get this through third reading we have to get this bill through even if he doesn't vote against but he's willing to abstain at least it will be an improvement I'd love to give away thank you I'm very grateful to my for giving away is it also important that we all note that if this bill is killed off at third reading there is no other opportunity to bring another bill back to address this issue within this Parliament so we will be stuck in the current situation going into the elections um uh I thank my R friend for that very important point I I would just note that on the WhatsApp group where we were chatting about this earlier one of our colleagues from the Northeast posted the idea that we could have a new bill that a new bill would be written I'm I'm finding that to be truly living in la la land because the idea that everybody on this house on this side of the house would agree to a new bill once we've killed this bill is for the birds it's this bill or no bill it's this bill or no chance so I think we have to face the reality I would also because my the my friend from MIT spoke very eloquently about the ECR I just want to touch on the ECR as well because it's important I I'm not a fan of the ECR our freedoms our liberties they're not because of the ECR they're not because of Bulgarian judge gets out of bed at 2:00 a.m. in the morning to strike down democratically elected law there is nobody in this house who was as willing for me to rewrite our relationship with the ECR now this bill is not the time to do it this is an argument for our Manifesto but if he was to suggest to me that what we need to do is to make the EC our advis advisory so we fundamentally change our relationship that a vote in Parliament can overule the ECR he will find no bigger champion of that than myself and for the same in the same way that if we were looking to review the Human Rights Act I'm as bored as him of hearing ministers saying and they don't really do it in private we can't do this because of the the Human Rights Act I pull my hair out we're in government we should be changing the Human Rights Act if we don't like it we shouldn't be doing using it as an excuse for in action yeah I Thank The Honorable member for giving way and listening with interest uh to to his points as one of the people who actually would be seen as The Architects of the Rwanda scheme along with the member for Corby and the right number member for Witham I would have preferred to see this bill with the member from the member for stone and I he many of the points made by my WR friend from nework but whilst I would prefer to see it go further it was a bill that could still work if uh thank you sir if there was I think my friend comments if there was a chance for moving further yes but I don't think there is and I think the issue is it's this bill or no bill and it's this bill or no chance so to come back to what the H my honorable friend from IPS which was saying about the ECR yes I accept what he said and I agree with it so let's reorientate our relationship with the ECR let's reorientate our relationship with these European laws let's look again I don't like judicial activism any more than anyone else on this side of the house judicial activism is the enemy of democratic accountability if you have foreign judges who are willing to get up in the middle of the night and overrule law passed in this house by this Democratic body answerable and Sovereign to the British people so let's talk about changing the echr but we should not be doing it now will he give way on precisely that point isn't there a further addition to his argument which is a practical one which is that overriding the ECR in this instance as opposed to following a broader debate may lead to the Rwandan side being less enthusiastic and pulling out from the deal and therefore practically sending us back to square one I the friend for uh that intervention it's good to see him so thank you very much indeed uh personally or when it comes to I think they called Amendment 39 if I understand correctly the pajama Amendment where judges get out of bed in the middle of the night to strike down democratic I don't even know why our government is still agreeing to abide by these amendments because as far as I can see it should be a matter of principle that EC the amendment 39 amendments are advisory until such time as we wish to adopt them so I don't even know why the government maybe the government has some movement or something that he wishes to tell us about on on Amendment 39 it would be wonderful if they did but as part of this conversation and I think we are appear of flux as our electorates rightly become more concerned about issues related to Crime about issues related to sovereignty about issues related to legal and illegal immigration we start to talk about our relationship with the European human rights conventions I'm up for that but now is not necessarily the time to do that one final point if I may so I'm grateful to my uh honorable friend he's making an extremely important point and before he moves on to the uh uh last part of his speech I want to press him a little bit further on the ECR and the elements that uh that he's commented as well as the comments made by uh my honorable friend uh from itwi does you recognize that some of the fundamental changes that have been asked for in some of the Amendments this evening uh are so great that they then in themselves warrant a a a separate piece of legislation even if they were to come forward uh so that this house could consider them in full and in detail rather than being attached onto an an extremely important bill in itself and where they could undermine the objectives as well as detract from The Wider debate they're trying to make in terms of the ECR I thank my right uh thank you sir I thank my right home friend very much for that point I quite agree I think we're in danger sir of reverse engineering a whole load of opinions on the ECR into a single bill which is influenced by the ECR but is fundamentally about something else I would like to see greater debate about the ECR I would like to see greater debate about the relationship between our laws and what we do about International conventions being Mindful and being respectful of them whilst at the same time understanding that our freedoms our privileges our rights as Britains for me do not come from postwar European documents we should remember where the ECR came from it was effectively written in part by ourselves to help Europe recover from the appalling destruction caused by fascism but also the threat of totalitarian socialism and totalitarian communism since then we've seen what was a good document in part it was a good document sir because it was written by ourselves to help Europe recover to help get its legal and political dignity back what we've seen is that it's been a target of politicized judicial activism and I believe something which is the target of politi exz judicial activism should not necessarily be overruling our own traditions and there I do find a tendency sir Roger The Honorable member of the white is once again making some very powerful points does he recognize that the number of interim measures that are handed down in respect to the UK is extremely small in fact in some years there are no interim measures that are granted in respect to the UK but nonetheless we do need to review the way in which measures which not specifically described in the original documents that underpin the AC ECR have evolved and therefore it is right that although it remains absolutely something which is non-binding and a decision for a government Minister how to respond to those that we need to ensure that our courts and our system understands the role that Parliament expects them to play again thank you sir Roger and I again thank my right friend I think he makes a very valuable point one that I was just about to come on to why is it that some people in this country some political groups generally on the left idealize idealize International courts as if they are great fonts of wisdom when for me a lot of their judgments are highly political highly tendous they seem to be studied disrespect they are a sort of an an exercise and studed disrespect of the English common law which for me is one of the great wonders of of human civilization and human achievements of Roger along with monotheism and one or two other things that these things are extraordinary achievements and we seem to allow these International courts to overrule them as if these International courts are great fults of of sort of um uh Olympian wisdom um when all these sort of great judges from on high who frankly do not come from traditional Judicial Systems and judicial Traditions anything like as strong or as Noble of ourselves I've been agreeing with with the basic thrust that it's this bill or nothing but can I just say to him gently in relation to the European Court of human rights for example that if he looks carefully at the case law of the EC European Court in Strasburg name them British common law Traditions have in fact had a significant impact on the jurisprudence of that Court it does not follow the pure civil law system of the continent those who've served on the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe will know that and actually it's moved to a hybrid system largely because of the influence of British jurists I think my honorable friend and he makes an excellent point and and considering he's an eminent lawyer and I frankly am not um left time left I am I I am sir Roger tempted to say I will stop digging but I but I would just say wrong one point in my answer to my WR refer to Roger yes I accept that point and I think he's absolutely right that we have had an influence but it is also for me that I uh have from what I've seen and read there has been a a influence also of a our more rationalist system on our own common law and I do not find the impact on EU law and EU case work on our system to have been entirely beneficial and entirely helpful I'm glad he's making this point because and I don't blame him because it's easy to align the two EU law and the operation of the Luxembourg court is a very different discipline from Strasburg that court is enjoined to interpret EU law and what says his gospel and we have to follow it that's not the case with Strasburg when he talks about the case law you know I'm not going to put him on the spot too much but name the cases that actually are the problem where are I can I can help him the Hurst case the prisoner voting case was a pretty poor judgment and it was bad it was a bad judgment you're not allowed to use that one there's what there was there was another one about whole life sentences another one about whole life s which we s Ed out in the court of appeal problem solved the abuat case that was a long Saga we sorted that that out those are really the three problems we've had the 10 years that doesn't amount to a hill of beans I'm I'm delighted my right on friend was uh was uh has interviewed because those are exactly the three points that I was about to mention to completely make my case and I I I thank him for uh for letting me do it for me but I I accept the point makes but I also accept for the fact that we are a sovereign Parliament and our relationship to Roger has changed for many of these institutions and I don't think necessarily our relationship reflects that change so I will leave it at that but I am accepting uh not only the points that he said uh but also the wisdom in which he says it um and I think at that point sir Roger unless I've got any more interventions I'm going to be winding up so thank you order just before we proceed and I call Jerome Mayu can I gently say is not escape the notice of the chair a significant number of members have wandered in after many hours of debate during which they have not been here and then sought to participate technically the chair has no power to control that but understand we deprecated I take a very dim view of it as Bad Manners I hope that's very clearly understood The Honorable gentleman the member for ipswitch who's popped out for a few minutes sat in his place for five I'm sorry he's there sat in his place for 5 hours waiting to speak I believe that any other member that wishes to speak in a debate should afford the house the same cursy Jerome May thank you very much sir Roger and I I should start my speech with my personal apology for not having been here for the full uh course of this this debate the reason in my case well I very much wanted to be actually but uh I had duties in Westminster Hall uh for two debates uh during the course of the afternoon which prevented me from taking a full role uh in this debate but I'm very grateful sir Roger for you uh nevertheless uh agreeing to call me in what is obviously a very important debate I have heard sufficient her Roger of the debate the back and forth that there has been criticism from the benches opposite that this Bill does not go goes too far and there is there are even some words of advice and criticis on these benches that it perhaps doesn't go far enough so I think before we get down into the nitty-gritty of the Amendments it is worth looking going back to base principles look at the fundamentals as to why this bill is necessary in the first place because it is without doubt it must be the case for every single member of this house irrespective of their party loyalties they must agree that the current position in relation to small boats crossing the channel is deeply wrong and has to be addressed it's just not fair what is happening at the moment because the the small boats program that is that we see in our television screens and have done for the last two or three or four years ever since we plugged the last Gap in our uh external borders by making it harder for illegal immigrants to get on to lorries or to get on the Euro store that's going back almost a decade in fact uh the business model is such that where you restrict one point of Il legal access the model will seek out the next weakest point in the border of our country and right now that is small boats crossing the channel but these are not individuals buying up dingies and setting up across the channel we all know that this is a massive commercial opportunity for organized Criminal gangs making masses and masses of money millions of pounds tens of millions of pounds from the misery of others this is money going into organized crime which then finds a vent in other crime both in Europe and in our own country and it is Criminal gangs who are imposing violence violence on the very vulnerable people that are then exploited by them in the crossing of the channel so it must be right that any responsible government would take steps to challenge assertive circumstances where very vulnerable people are are being exposed to risk and violence not just the risk of deaths crossing the channel and uh The Honorable member From Doncaster if I heard him correctly said there were five deaths just last week uh from from this very dangerous process there's also the violence of the criminal gangs imposing their will on these um m yes I'll happy give away thank you very much for the intervention uh accepting my intervention does The Honorable member not agree that the massive amount of money wasted on the Rwanda plan would be better spent on creating safe legal routs and clearing the backlog so that those fleeing persecution can build a better life in a country proud of its humanitarian actions as so many have in my constituency of eling Salto I'm very grateful to The Honorable member for eling Sala for his contribution um and he allows me to highlight the success that the government has made in reducing the backlog as was as made clear by the Prime Minister and prime minister's questions early on today but he's also right and I I don't shy away from the point that the Rwanda scheme is expensive and it it if it was to be calculated as cost spent per person um flowing to Rwanda it would be a very high cost indeed per individual uh when the scheme gets up and running I will come to The Honorable member The Honorable friend in a moment but that is not the point of Rwanda it's not that every single person who comes across um borders illegally will then be shipped to Rwanda the idea of the Rwanda scheme is to act as an effective deterrent so you you send a few people to Rwanda the scheme the the criminal gangs and more importantly the people who are paying large sums of money to the criminal gangs get the message that this course of action paying money to the criminal gangs being fed across the channel is no longer an effective way of getting here and they will go I will in a moment but I've got I will give way there and then to you after that that it is not an effective means of gaining access to the United Kingdom if that is successful and I believe it will be when this bill is passed then that is a very sound use of money because it's not not just preventing the additional cost to social Society in this country and to the services physical services but it is protecting the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world whilst uh writing a gross unfairness and the approach to our asum um system so I'm really grateful for that intervention I will give away again I'm great I'm grateful to my honorable friend for giving way and I think he's making an extremely important Point particularly uh in response to the uh intervention received in relation to uh uh the the money and the costs involved clearly he's made a powerful point in response but is he also aware that the president of Rwanda is reported in the media today uh that the UK could well be refunded if all of that resource is not not used because of challenges along the way well I'm very grateful again for that intervention from my own friend I wasn't aware of that um but it adds Gris to the mill and strength to the arguments of the government to to proceed with the Rwanda policy and I will give away again will he give way and can I pay tribute to him in making his speech and he took the intervention from the other side of the house which pointed about safe and legal Roots one of the biggest problems we have with the system is we haven't heard how many where from and what these safer legal Roots would look like there are 100 million people supposedly displaced across the world so if 1% of them even decided to come to the UK that's a million people that have to be processed and found a country if we do this as a one individual country when it's a worldwide problem we create and facilitate not only a problem in our Shores but in the shores where you open those centers and does he believe that there is a plan from the opposition over where these would be how would we band these centers how much they would cost and what all those safe and legal Roots look like especially when people are leaving from France when France is a safe country I'm very grateful for that intervention as well the phrase safe and legal Roots it it feels right doesn't it it feels like you should be in favor of safe and legal roots and speaking personally I do think they are part of a solution a wider solution to immigration policy uh in the future but um my The Honorable member for Bosworth uh referenced that there may be up to 100 million people seeking Asylum uh currently in the world I I think from memory the figure from the United Nations report is actually 108 million people I I will give way there and then there but I will come back and answer that question I'm great talk to my own friend ging way and he's making U an excellent uh speech of course this bill is dealing with a lot of the pull factors or at least uh references or or infers uh uh approaching those in a more constructive and and positive way but on the uh on the push factors and he sits on the Council of Delegation I know do does he agree with me that um this domestic policy uh should not perhaps be disaggregated from foreign policy and our overseas uh Aid policies so for example in subsaharan Africa or in the Sahel let's take the Sahel as an example uh where the French have recently exited or about to exit where the UK does uh have an importance counterterrorism presence that where we have states that are fragile States becoming failed states that they are causing more push factors also there are some adversaries of this uh this country such as Russia uh through uh its proxies in Africa trying to disrupt uh democratically elected governments again in order to uh create a crisis uh of migration quite happy to see people coming up through North Africa and coming in into Europe so does he agree with me given his International experience that we have to have a a more holistic view of this policy in the context of global foreign policy I'm very grateful I mean those are excellent excellent points and it is one of the reasons why the the the merging of the development um Department with the F the FCO as then it as it then was become the FCD has the potential at least to to um link those two areas or policy uh in a way that um The Honorable member describes the the challenge here is very substantial I will come on in a minute but I've got a got a few answers to give before I give away again the challenge with push factors is that they they've only just started you you're quite right the The Honorable member is quite right to reference malign actors such as Russia in the short and um and medium-term but there is a much bigger factor which we need in this house to consider over the next 20 to 50 years and that is climate change because the the likelihood is that there will be very very significant ific Mass migration from subsaharan Africa at a time when large areas of countries perhaps entire countries may become functionally uninhabitable through water scarcity and heat then what we've seen currently in push factors will be nothing to what we see in the future so it behaves us as a responsible government to design and Implement now an immigration policy that is fit for purpose not just for now but the future we as the returning to the the point of the my sorry my honorable friend for Bosworth the uh yeah so um you might have to remind me what it was no no no the point how many places how many how many senses so so um actually I'm rather than going that I'm going to give way to The Honorable member and then on sorry giving well I was just going to make the point that would you agree I do find it frustrating sir Roger when uh especially the opposition Ventures talk about the need for safe and legal Roots as a statement of fact there were 10 safe and legal routes into the UK in the past decade there are currently nine safe and legal routes into the UK which have been responsible for 50,000 refugees coming from of those safe and legals are responsible 50,000 refugees coming into this country from 2015 and overall the numbers of refugees or people granted asylum in this country from 2050 20 16 is a number approaching the population of Manchester now you're talking about something in the upper 400s twice the size of the city of Portsmouth so when people talk about the need for safe and legal Roots I mean I'm just assuming that none of the benches opposite have any clue what they're talking about what do you care the I I agree certainly with that last sentiment uh We've we've had uh very significant I'm welcomed uh uh uh we've been a place of safety for uh I think it's a about 880,000 from uh Ukraine uh we've opened our arms to Hong Kong British Nationals of Hong Kong uh descent uh some 250,000 uh from there we've got the Syria program which is uh from memory again about 20,000 as well as the Afghan resettlement program which was uh about 18 to 20,000 all of these have been safe on Regal rots and the big difference sir Roger is that the British government representing the B British people decided that those were the people we wanted to help they were the most vulnerable and we took the decision not criminal gangs from um abroad final I will give away but then I will make some progress I'm very grateful and it's exactly that the British people decided does he believe that it's right that the government is Consulting on asking local Council authorities how many Asylum Seekers and refugees they can support come up with a number that Parliament will then have a decision on to vote on which is exactly the right thing to say to be pragmatic and practical while warm and welcoming to those who need that help the honorable member of Bosworth makes another very good point one of the key one of the most important things that we must not forget in this place is that our Asylum policy depends on the support and acceptance of our people and if we have a policy that is rejected by people that they feel is unfair that doesn't represent their views then we we we we really run the very genuine risk throwing the whole baby of Asylum and and welcoming people of V vulnerabilities from around the world out with the bath water and um we need this bill helps to maintain a a welcoming stance to Asylum Seekers which are decided by the government whilst maintaining public support for the policy as a whole and I'm I'm going to give way over there and then there and then I will conclude just to shed a little light on us to help him here as the author of the safe and legal Rees amendment in the legal migration uh Bill he is quite right we have very generous safe and legal root schemes already the trouble is they are mostly limited to set groups of uh people and the importance of the schemes that the government working on is for those people who are genuine asy Seekers genuinely fleeing persecution War zones of of whatever can be accommodated in some way but it'll be subject to a cap so although there are potentially hundreds of thousands and millions who may want to to come here the M illegal migration Bill sets a cap for safe and legal uh root so it's the number of people that we can cope with but they're the right people the most vulnerable people we can take in and then separate out then from the those people who have no credible codes for coming to the United Kingdom which is why this bill is so important for with with with every point that my uh honorable friend made we've we've got real anger on the doorsteps so I'm very lucky I represent the uh seat of broaden and fum in in norfol I was knocking on doors just before Christmas of the 100 or so doors I knocked on I had 20 conversations um decent conversations with constituents of mine this is rural norfol 19 of those 20 conversations raised illegal migration as one of the key issues that is the reality of the views of the people who I represent and we would be mad in this house if we did not accurately reflect those views my final intervention R I'm grateful to myal friend for giving way um would he join me in paying tribute to the work of the east of England local government Association and the east of England strategic migration partnership who've done such amazing work supporting the resettlement of British passport holders from Hong Kong syrians coming through the Syrian resettlement scheme uh through homes for Ukraine and does they agree with me that it'd be much more acceptable to those constituencies referred to to hear that those individuals have come to the UK through Arrangements agreed with local authorities you have have the capacity to support them rather than as I witnessed when I visited the jungle camp in Cal done by a r sheet of Smugglers the more you can pay the more likely you are to be able to break into the UK through a back door my my honor friends are exactly right that my constituents are generous minded they are welcoming but they don't like the unfairness they feel that this is inherently unfair so we've got we've got young men aged 18 to 40 typically where are the women where are the children um we've got uh young men 18 to4 who are relatively Rich because they've been able to pay3 to 5,000 to the the the Smugglers or Worse still will be indented and end up in slave labor trying to pay back a debt that will never be repaid you've got um this is this is a terrible situation which needs to be addressed now the government has taken really effective action and we can see that not because I just say it but because in the hard data that is that we've seen this in the last year in a time when migration into the European Union is going up by about a third and in Mediterranean companies by fully 80% last year the the effect of The Suite of uh interventions that the government has already made has been so effective that it has reduced migration down in this country by 36% over a third that's not because of Rwanda it's in in addition to Rwanda it's because we've increased French patrols on the coast by 40% it's because we've been tracking down boat supply in places like Romania and removing that production from the from the ability of these gangs to to physically get people across uh the channel we've increased the raids on illegal workplaces which will part of the pool factor for um for the illegal migrants and perhaps more important than anything else we have cuted deal with Albania demonstrating that since where the year before I think about 20,000 people came from Albania claimed Asylum with the returns policy recognizing that Albania is a safe country just as Rwanda is by the way that those th the number of potential migrants coming across the channel has decreased by in excess of 90% so if we need an example of why the Rwanda policy should work look at Albania look at the results that we have already achieved and this government for who you I I I commend them for the the hard work the hard yards the incremental gains which have shown you we're not all the way there but the 36% reductions um already and Counting and if we add on what we propose in this bill for the r for Rwanda relocation deter uh deterrence I think this is going to really make an enormous difference and we've heard from government lawyers that the current process is likely to uh reduce the number of appeals by 99 a half% yes there may be the odd one who continues to appeal but that that last minute process of repeated appeals that will be removed and that's why I don't feel the necessity to support the proposed amendments in this bill and I will be supporting the government Michael Thomas S sir Roger thank you very much indeed with your permission may I on behalf of his majest Majesty's government pass on my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Sir Tony Lloyd the former member of parliament for for order uh I'm sorry to have to interrupt on such a sensitive issue but Mr Speaker intends to make a statement about that later I'm very grateful indeed for that guidance and thank you for that may I start therefore by turning to those who have contributed during the course of this debate may I start with my honorable friend the member for East Worthing um and shorum thanking him for his powerful points his challenging forensic learned uh even points that he made he once again questioned what Solutions are being offered by the party opposi he's rights to do so answer came there none may I thank my right honorable friend the member for South Holland and the deepings um as so often he debates in poetry and I'm going to come back to some of the remarks um he made made in due course uh may I also thank the chairman of the select committee the right on member for Kingston upon Hull uh north um she was right and she inured she didn't make a second reading speech um but she did mention one or two other matters and amendments and I'll turn to those uh in due course I I thank my honorable friend the member for Rice Norwood and Pinner um always thoughtful measured and so often right and I'm grateful to him for his contributions and also for his interventions uh during the the course of the latter stages of this debate The Honorable member for Glasgow Central cited Robert Burns and asked what he would have to say to the bench is opposite and my honorable friend and neighbor the member for North Dorset rather cheekily from a sedentary position suggested that Robert Burns might say to the bench's opposite how can I join you uh that wasn't the gist or the thrust of her speech um but it was a cheeky intervention that I enjoyed uh nonetheless I'll turn to her amendments in due course my honorable friend the member for Don Valley I listen carefully as I always do and I hope to be able to turn to some of the points that he made and hopefully allay some of the fears uh that he has he said that it sometimes happens that the chamber empties um or isn't as full when he speaks it sometimes happens to ministers as well but not everyone his back um when the minister is responding to their contributions but he is here and he is in his seat and I'm grateful to him for sitting through so much of this debate and also for his characteristic courtesy my honorable friend the member for ipswitch spoke with passion as he always does and I grateful to him for his contribution my horable friend the member for the Isle of white again spoke at some length I'm grateful to him for that he delved into the principles of the echr and he was enticed by my right honorable and learned friend to make some uh to make some pronouncements on some of those judgments and I thought that was a little bit mean of my right honorable and eared friend the member of the South s but he did at least profer one suggestion namely the case of Hurst and I'm grateful to him for that my old friend the member for broadland again I'm grateful to him for his intervention um and for being on duty not only in Westminster Hall but also here in this chamber so Roger the course of this debate has been constructive uh on the whole I agree it has been broadly thoughtful um instructive we've had references to scripture we've had an exchange on that and as a lawyer it was a joy indeed to hear the word oos and we didn't hear it once we didn't hear it twice we heard it several times um we once even heard oeo uh with bells on from my honorable friend the member for Bromley and chilel Hur and I'm grateful to him for that I've not heard that expression before but I feel sure that it is a legal reference that I I must have brushed past uh in my youth we've also heard about box sets we heard that from my right honorable friend the member for NK we we heard about that from The Honorable gentleman the member for Glasgow North and I'll need to do a bit more research on that I think and we also touched on ECR membership although rightly my right honorable friend the member from New York said this was not the place to have that full debate but he set out some of the parameters for the future debates that I'm sure we will have so Roger may I turn firstly please to Clause one this Clause sets out the rationale of the bill it sets out the legal obligations and how the treaty to which the government of Rwanda have agreed addresses the concerns that were set out by the Supreme Court amendments 39 amendments 40 41 and 42 tabled by The Honorable member for Glasgow Central we heard her address those points and also amendments 43 and 44 tabled by The Honorable member for abedine South they seek to exclude the core of these provisions and once again The Honorable member was very clear about her intention in that regard but the treaty is binding in international law in in accordance with Rwandan law the treaty will become domestic law in ruanda on ratification and Sir Roger that's set out in detail and it's confirmed in article 36 of the treaty it rules out anyone relocated to Rwanda being removed from there except to the United Kingdom that is an important part of the treaty set out in article 103 and this is regardless of whether the individual is found to be a refugee or to have another humanitarian protection need this removes the risk of reforma everyone relocated to Rwanda will receive the same treatment those with Refugee status those with a humanitarian protection need or even without that status will be able to stay in Rwanda and receive the same rights and treatment this addresses headon the concern that the Supreme Court set out the Asylum decision-making process is being significantly reformed an Annex B of the treaty and if I have time I might turn to the details of that uh in due course but Annex B contains strengthened monitoring Arrangements uh to ensure and there are also strengthened monitoring arrangements to ensure adherence to the obligations I'm very grateful indeed to my right honorable and learned friend the member for Ken worth and Southern I'm very grateful for his engagement um I don't believe that his concerns are are right he said um offensive or oos um I I would suggest neither um is right and I hope to be able to reassure him um with what I say now because Clause one makes clear that Parliament is Sovereign and that its acts are valid not withstanding any interpretation of international law and he will understand that I'll come back to that notwithstanding terminology that has been so contentious perhaps in recent history but what it doesn't mean is that doing so legislates away our International obligations the purpose of the bill is to say that on the basis of the treaty and the evidence before it Parliament believes that those obligations have been met it doesn't mean that we do not care whether or not they have been met he mentioned jism he was right to do so the parts of this Clause to which my right honorable and Friends amendments are directed they do no more than make clear what we mean by a safe country which is a key definition applied to Rwanda namely that the United Kingdom can remove to that country in compliance with its International obligations and that Rwanda will not remove anyone in breach of any international law my right honorable un learning friend also meant mentioned as a former Attorney General the the Law Officers convention I was I was very grateful to him for that for so so often in this chamber it goes unnoticed it is an important convention and as a former law officer myself um I abide by it very strictly as I know he does as well and I'm grateful to him for reminding the house um of that fact may I turn to the Amendments tabled in the speech of my right honorable Leed friend the member for South swind and I'm grateful again to him for his contributions not just yesterday today um but today as well it's important that the will of parliament is made clear and that following the mammoth efforts between our government and the government of Rwanda the obligations that we have agreed are fully set out uh this Clause Clause one ensures that it's Crystal Clear that it's Parliament that has considered and concluded that Rwanda is a safe country I know my right H friend's concern about this sort of clause he will know that it's not unique that it's not dissimilar to the illegal migration Act and the the Clause one that was there as well he he I I suspect he's encouraging me not to pray that in aid but it is a fact all the same that it is there it is not unprecedented to have a clause such as Clause one in the bill now turn to Roger please to clause three the United Kingdom has a longstanding tradition of ensuring that rights and Liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international human rights obligations we remain committed to that position and we will ensure that our laws continue to be fit for purpose and work for the people of the United Kingdom though some of the provisions in the bill are novel the government is satisfied that the bill can be implemented in line with the convention rights however it has been clear that the people will seek to frustrate their removal by any means therefore this bill goes further than the illegal Mig ation act taken through by my right honorable friends the member for members for new and for farum as we have heard um that bill only excludes uh section three or it disapplied section three this bill and this Clause dis applies further elements of the Human Rights Act and the effect is that the duty under Section 6 one of the Human Rights Act is disapplied from any Public Authority including any court or tribunal that is taking a decis decision that's based on the duty under Clause two of the bill to treat the Republic of Rwanda as safe now I turn directly to my right honorable friend the member for nck um and for his amendments as firstly his amendments 11 um and 18 if I may uh the bill he's right does not seek to disapply section 4 it does not in fact disapply the Declaration of Inc compatibility Provisions in section four this is the only substantive remedy against the inclusive presumption that Rwanda is safe retaining Declarations of incompatibility is important but of course the final say on this matter will remain rightly with Parliament and with the government because of section four subsection six of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that a declaration cannot affect the operation or the validity of domestic [Music] legislation um I I will give way I think he makes a very important point there about the extent to which the courts should and can uh intervene on issues relating to the compatibility of primary legislation uh with the echr uh the section four uh procedure allows the courts to express a view but doesn't trespass directly upon the functions of this place in order with dealing with the problem it simply gives Parliament an opportunity to then Rectify any situation or not frankly and does he agree with me that section four is a much uh better mechanism for the courts to use than the clunky and inelegant and sometimes very problematic section three procedure indeed to my right honorable known friend I heard what he said about section three and I agree with him wholeheartedly and entire he's absolutely right to describe it as clunky and it has been disapplied in this bill um as well as the illegal migration act but may I say directly to my right friend the member for yck that I accept entirely um that the his comments when he says that he is here to help the government that he believes passionately in this policy and he has had um several very Frank um open and uh honest conversations with me about that both in this chamber and outside I'm very grateful to him for the way that he put his points so a um and so clearly but the disapplication of these sections within the bill significantly reduces the extent to which public authorities are bound to act as a consequence of the convention rights uh may I turn to uh some other amendments sir Roger now I turn to Clause five and the further amendments tabled by my right honorable friend because this bill makes clear in Clause five that it is only for a minister of the crown and only they alone to determine whether to comply with an interim measure of the Strasburg courts it also makes it clear that the domestic courts may not have regard to the existence of any interim measure when considering any uh interim measure when considering any domestic application flowing from a decision to remove a person to Rwanda in accordance uh with the treaty what happened with the Rwanda flight in June 2022 was frustrating as many honorable members have mentioned it was a deeply flawed process and raised issues of natural justice but changes have been made since then not least in the illegal migration act and since then the Strasburg court has on the 13th of November announced the outcome of its review Into the rules concerning interim measures and the changes include the naming of judges and that interim measures should be communicated as formal decisions and it confirms existing practice in parties being able to request reconsideration of a decision in the rules and the United Kingdom has responded formally to that Court's consultation um sir Roger I know that colleagues have raised concerns that assuming this bill passes and succeeds in closing down the vast majority of individual claims our deterrent will be frustrated by a rule 39 interim measure may I say directly to my right honorable and honorable friends that I understand those concerns no one who was here in June 2022 and saw the last Rwanda plane left on the tarmac can fail to understand the importance of fixing this issue that is why the Prime Minister has been clear that he will not let a foreign Court block these flights we simply cannot let an international Court dictate our border security and stop us from establishing a deterrent and that is I I I must complete this point I must complete this point that is why we have inserted into Clause five of this bill which is crystal clear that it is for ministers and ministers alone to decide whether to comply with rule 39 injunctions we would not have inserted Clause five if we were not prepared to use it and I can confirm to the house that we can and will lawfully use that power if the circumstances arise the the discretion is there but we go further still and we confirm that the Civil Service must Implement any such decision today the permanent secretary for the home office has confirmed that if we receive a rule 39 instead of deferring removal immediately as currently is the practice officials will uh refer the rule 39 to the minister uh not to be too grandiose but sir Roger in this case to me for an immediate decision as the cabinet office has confirmed that is the responsibility of civil servants under the civil service code to deliver that decision so Roger colleagues have confirmation that we have the power we would use the power and the Civil Service will give effect to it if a plane is sitting on that Runway this government will not stop until it takes off and we all know what the opposition would do they would campaign for it to be grounded will will will my honorable en right um I will give way to my friend thanks R to the minister for giving way with the point he's just referred to he said that there will be circumstances in which we will ignore these pajama injunctions what are the circumstances of w the government will not ignore and therefore comply with them I couldn't have been clearer I that there is the confirmation that we have the power we would use the power and the Civil Service will give effect to it may I resp respond directly to my right honorable um I won't I don't have the time um my I don't respond directly to my right honorable and learned friend the member for faum she spoke powerfully as she always does and I always listen carefully to what she say she set out a number of cases sir Roger where medical reasons were cited in court medical arguments were presented which uh she said frustrated uh the will of this place but in fact in section 39 of the illegal migration act the very act that my right honorable and learned friend took through this place with my right honorable friend the member for Newar addresses that exact point about uh medical records and medical evidence the following sir Roger are examples of harm that do not constitute serious and irreversible harm namely where the standard of Health Care available to the person in the relevant country is lower than that available in the United Kingdom it is there it is in the statute it is in the bill that we past uh last year 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 is not uh does not and will not constitute serious and irreversible harm my right honorable leer friend is right to be concerned about that but those concerns have been addressed and have been met in the legislation that we have passed and in the legislation that is mirrored in this bill uh that we are taking through today uh may I turn to Clause 8 and the the important Provisions um that are there and may I address directly please uh The Honorable member for Belfast East and his submissions in response to new clause three nothing in the Windsor framework including article two or the W or the withdrawal agreement affects the Bill's proper operation on a uk-wide basis any suggestion to the country would be to imply that the scope of the rights safeguards and equality opportunity chapter of the Belfast Good Friday agreement is far more expansive than was ever intended I will not give way we are unequivocal that that is simply not the case and Article 2 of The Winds of framework is not engaged I would be happy to write further to The Honorable gentleman and to the right honorable member for Lon Valley on this point to set out further detail I hope I can reassure him that we have already achieved what the aim that he seeks I I will give away he must be conscious that we are up against a very D tyght deadline I I on on the statement he made with regard to rule 39 and so forth uh can he explain to the house how the government would be able to prevent a judicial review of the decision taken by the minister without legislation my honorable friend has heard what I said on that point respect him um and admire him he knows the esteem that I have for him we have a good faith disagreement on the effect of this Clause five is clear it is for a minister to decide and a minister will decide may I finish this point in response to the honorable member for Belfast East I hope I can reassure him that we have already achieved the aim that 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 United Kingdom as a territorial whole I am grateful to him for his kind and generous comments about me personally I'm grateful to him for his engagement and I will continue to engage with him on this issue sir Roger 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 this is if it is abundantly clear that a legal 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 s Roger Parliament and the British people want an end to Illegal immigration and we need a deterrent we have a plan we have a plan to stop the boats and I invite all honorable and right honorable members to back it yeah order Amendment 11 has been proposed Mr jri do you wish to press it to a vote or do you wish to withdraw it with your permission I'd like to withdraw it but if you are uh agreeable to press Amendment 23 instead we'll come to that in Du is it your pleasure that Amendment 11 be withdrawn amendment by leave withdrawn under the order of the House of the 12th of December I must now put the questions necessary to bring the proceedings to a conclusion the question is that clause three s part of the bill as many of that opinion say I cont no division clear the lobbies Qui sorry sirer thank you the question is that clause three stand part of the bills many of that opinion say I country no no tell us for the eyes Rob Logan and Aaron Bell tell us for the nose Kirsty Blackman and Steven Bonner lock the doors all on order the eyes to the right 339 the nose to the left 264 thank you the eyes to the right were 339 the nose to the left with 264 so the eyes have it unlock unlock we now come to Amendment 23 to Clause 5 which has been selected for separate decision Robert jich to move formally beg to move yeah yeah the question is that Amendment 23 be made as many of that opinion say I I country no no clear the lobby Amendment 23 be made as any of that opinion say I I contrary no no tell us for the eyes so Jacob Rees MOG Miriam Kates tell us for the nose Rob Len and Aaron Bell lock the doors order order the ice to the right 65 the nose to the left 536 the eyes to the right six 65 the nose to the left 536 so the nose have it the nose have it and look the question is that Clauses 5 6 7 and 8 stand part of the bill as many of that opinion say I of the country now division clear the lobby order if members could resume their seats please the question is that Clauses 5 6 7 and 8 stand part of the bill as me say I or the contrary no tell us to the eyes Robert lgan Aaron Bell tell us no Kirsty Blackman and Steve Bonner SP order order the eyes to the right 340 the nose to the left 263 the eyes to the right 340 the nose to the left 263 so the eyes have it the eyes have it unlock we now come to Amendment 36 to Clause 9 which has been selected for separate decision and I call Steven kinck to move formally formally sir the question is that Amendment 36 be made as many of that opinion say I I of the country no vision bu lobbies oh uh if members could resume their seats the question is that Amendment 36 be made as many of that opinion say I or the contrary no tell us for the eyes Andrew Weston Samantha Dixon tell us for the nose Robert lgan Aaron Bell lock the doors order order the eyes to the right 263 the nose to the left 339 thank you the eyes to the right 263 the nose to the left 339 so the nose have it the nose have it unlock the question is that Clauses 9 and 10 stand part of the bill as may say I or the cont [Applause] no division clear the lobby ready to order the question is that Claus is nine and 10 stand part of the Bell say I of the contrary no tell us for the I Scott Man Mark Fletcher tell us for the nose Kirsty Blackman Steve Bonner we take look at those order order the eyes to the right 340 the nose to the left 264 thank you the eyes to the right 340 the nose to the left 264 so the eyes have it the eyes have it unlock we now come to New Clause 8 which has been selected for separate decision and I call Steven kenck to formally move it move formally sir the question is that new Clause 8 be added to the bill as many of that happening say I I of the country no [Applause] love order the question is that new Clause 8 be added to the bill as many have that opinion say I of the contrary no tell us with the I Andrew West and Samantha Dixon tell us for the no scotman Mark Fletcher f fingertip control thank you order order the eyes to the right 264 the nose to the left 338 thank you the eyes to the right 264 the nose to the left 338 so the nose have it the nose have it unlock the question is that Clause one stand part of the billers may say I I three no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it order order that concludes the proceedings of the house in committee on the safety of Rwanda Asylum and immigration Bill order before before I ask the Whit to report it is with great sorrow that inform the house of the death of satony Lloyd he was a valued colleague he spent his life in public service he'll be remembered on all sides of the house with respect and affection I'm sure the house will join me in sending our sympathy to his family in their loss there will be an opportunity for members to participate in a minute silence tomorrow and to pay further tributes at a later date so I want to do that point of order Mr Speaker point of order K thank you Mr Speaker and I know there'll be tributes in due course because many people in this house will want to speak in that session but I'm grateful for this point of order just to say a few words uh about Tony and this terrible loss uh this afternoon we are all deeply saddened at the loss of to of Tony I spoke to him last Thursday when he left hospital for the last time to spend as much time as he could with his family and was able to pass on to him our thoughts our respect our affection for him his commitment his public service and frankly his sheer decency and uh I know that's not just felt across the labor party and labor movement it's felt across this house and Beyond and can I just say thank you to those opposite who have sent messages it is a great comfort to his family to know the respect that he was held in across this house and and our thoughts of course Mr Speaker this evening are with his family at this difficult time I say minute s tomorrow and we'll give the house an opportunity for th F the tributes to be paid right order wh to report I beg to report that the committee has gone through the bill and directed me to report the same without Amendment to the house third reading minister no we are minister to move the third reading right okay Minister uh thank you uh thank you Mr Speaker uh are you good I of course Echo the tribute to she just let the room just clear yeah Minister thank you uh thank you Mr Speaker and of course Echo the tribute to Tony and I beg to move that the bill be now read a third time the Prime Minister the government I have been clear that we will do whatever it takes to stop the boats and we have of course been making progress on that pledge reducing small boat arrivals by over a third last year but to stop the boats completely to stop them for good we need to deter people from making these dangerous Journeys from risking their lives and from lining the pockets of evil criminal people smuggling gangs the new legally binding treaty with the government of the Republic of Rwanda responds directly to the Supreme Court's concerns reflecting the strength of the government of rwanda's protections and commitments this bill sends an unambiguously clear message that if you enter the United Kingdom illegally you cannot stay this bill has been meticulously drafted to end the merry-go round of legal challenges people will not be able to use our Asylum laws human rights laws or judicial reviews to block their legitimate removal and the default will be for claims to be heard outside of this country only a very small number of migrants who face a real and imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm will be able to appeal decisions in the UK and if I will give away grateful Mr Speaker to the Home Secretary as things stand can the Home Secretary confirm that if this bill receives Royal Ascent that it will not breach international law yes or no uh my right honorable friend raises an important point and gives me an opportunity to be unambiguous and clear as drafted as we intend this this bill to progress it will be in complete compliance with international law this UK the UK takes international law seriously and the countries that we choose to partner with internationally also take international law seriously because under our under our I will and then I will make progress yeah the intervention just now is extremely apposite U could the foreign secretary be kind enough to give me the advice as to why he said what he just said about no breaches of international law my honorable friend my honorable friend will know my honor friend will know that the government does not uh make its legal advice uh uh public we have put forward of course uh an uh an explanation of our uh our position but I am absolutely uh confident that we will maintain our long-standing tradition of being a country that not just abides by international law but Champions and defends International under our new legislation migrants will not be able to frustrate the decision to remove them to Rwanda by bringing systemic challenges about the general safety of Rwanda we will I will I'm grateful the Home Secretary Mr Speaker but could you give us assurance that if this bill is passed tonight there will be a system in place that will accurately test its success month by month week by week so that we know all all this anger all this frustration all this work is not for nothing second Mr Speaker the I think honorable gentleman uh speaks certainly for a number of people in the house maybe not too many people on his own benches because certainly sounds as if he wants this to work and I know there are plenty of people uh across the other side of the house who have tried to frustrate uh our attempts to deal with illegal migration but we will of course want to assess the success because we want to be proud proud of the fact that this government unlike the parties's opposite actually cares about strengthening our borders and defending ourselves against those evil people Smugglers and their evil trade um I want to make it clear that we will disapply The Avenues used by individuals to that blocked the first flight to Rwanda including Asylum and human rights claims because without that very very narrow route to individual challenge we would undermine the treaty that we have just signed with Rwanda and run the very serious risk of collapsing the scheme and that must not be allowed to happen but if people attempt to use this route simply as a delaying tactic they will have their claim dismissed by the home office and they will be removed the bill also ensures that it is for ministers and for ministers alone to decide whether to comply with the echr interim measures because it is for the British people and the British people alone to decide who comes and who stays in this country the Prime Minister said he would not have included that Clause unless we were intending and prepared to use it and that is very much the case we will not let foreign courts prevent us from managing our own borders and as reiterated by the cabinet office today it his responsibility as off as as the established case that civil servants under the civil service code are there to deliver Ministers of the Crown's decisions Mr Speaker the bill is key to stopping the boats once and for all and to reassure some of reassure some of the people who have approach me with concerns I would remind them that albanians previously made up around a third of small boats arrivals but through working intensively and closely with Albania and their government more than 5,000 people with no right to be in here have been been returned and the deterrent was powerful enough to drive down arrivals from Albania by over 90% Strasburg has not intervened flights from Rwanda have not been stopped and the house should understand that this legislation once passed will go even further and be even stronger than the legislation underpins Albania we obviously support the Albania agreement but will he confirm that only 5% of albanians who've arrived in the country over the last few years on small boats have actually been returned or removed what's happened to the other 95% as I said this is about deterrence and the deterrent and the deterent effect is clear for anyone to see over 90% reduction in the number of albanians who have arrived in these Shores because of the deterrent effect and I'm glad that she chose this point to intervene because it reminds me of course uh that the labor party have of course no credible plans at all to manage our borders they have tried to obstruct our plans to tackle illegal migration over and over again more than 80 times they even want to cut a deal with the EU that would see us receive a 100,000 extra illegal migrants each and every year and they cheer she's pleased with the idea that they're going to receive an extra 100,000 every year they can laugh they can laugh but we take this issue seriously because it is not what our country needs and it is not what our constituents want Mr Speaker we are united in the agreement that's stopping the boates that's stopping the boates and getting Rwanda partnership up and running is of the utmost uh importance and having a debate about how to get the policy right is of course what this house is for that is our Collective uh job and I respect my good good friends and colleagues on my side of the house for putting forward amendments in good faith in order to uh do what they believe will strengthen the bill but Mr Speaker whilst my party my party sits only a short physical distance from the party's opposite the gulf between our aspiration to control our borders and their BL Lesar Fair attitude to border control could not be more Stark stop in the boats is not just a question of policy it is a question of morality and it is a question of fairness and it is this government this party the conservative party who is the only party in this house taking this issue as seriously as it should I urge this house to stick with our plan and to stop the boats the question is that third Bill the that the bill now be read a third time Shadow home sec SEC Vette Cooper thank you Mr Speaker can I first just add my tributes to Tony Lloyd who did such wonderful work in police as well as in this place Mr Speaker what a fast today and yesterday have been just another day of Tory chaos and Carnage a prime minister with no grip while the British taxpayer is continually forced to pay the price former Tory cabinet ministers Deputy chairs from all sides queuing up to tell us is a bad Bill it won't work it won't protect our borders it won't comply with international law it's fatally flawed the only thing the Tories all seem to agree on is that the scheme is failing the law won't solve it and the prime minister is failing too and they know it a failing Rwanda scheme that's costing Britain 4400 million that sent more home secretaries than Asylum Seekers to kagali and that will only apply to to less than 1% of those arriving in the UK less than 1% the third Tory law on channel Crossings in two years it will get through tonight just like the previous two did even though they failed just like the last twoos leaves the prime minister's Authority in TS he's in office but not in power no one agrees with him on his policy and the real weakness is that he doesn't even agree with it himself a prime who is so weak he's lost control of the Asylum system lost control of our borders and lost any control of the Tory party 60 Tory MPS voting against the government two Deputy chairs sacked a Home Secretary and immigration secretary formerly lost cabinet ministers briefing openly they don't support the bill the Home Secretary itself thinks it's batshit the Prime Minister tried to cancel it and yet so weak they're still going ahead and under the Tories we've seen border security weakened while criminal gangs take hold because they've not taken the action that we need the backlog saw the budget bust criminal Smuggler convictions have dropped by 30% returns have halved and instead of the Practical plans that labors set out to set up the new returns and enforcement unit to stop the home office just losing thousands of people that it cannot keep track of to stop the harving of the returns unit to set up the new security powers to go after the criminal gangs to stop this 30% drop in criminal gang Smuggler convictions and to have the additional crossboard police unit that we could be investing in if we weren't spending so much money on this failing Rwanda scheme because it's £400 million of taxpayers money going to Rwanda all without a single person being sent all in addition to their whopping multi-billion pound hotel bill and of course if they get flights off it's probably another 10 to 20 million for every hundred people they actually manage to send and president kagami an astonishing intervention this afternoon saying he's happy for it to be scrapped and maybe offering to refund the money I think what we could do with 400 million Mr Speaker it's more than a third of the budget of the National Crime agency but the kagali government have clarified the position this afternoon and it's even worse they've said under the terms of the agreement Rwanda has no no obligation to return any of the funds paid if no migrants come and the UK government wishes to request a refund of the portion of funding allocated to support we will consider this request unbelievable the government signed a deal signed a whole series of checks to send hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers money to Rwanda for a scheme they were warned would not work that they were warned would be might be unlawful they were warned would not work as a deterrent and they were warned would be unenforceable and at high risk of fraud yet they signed it because they don't give a damn about taxpayers money and now they want to pass this bill and spend even more taxpayers money on this failing scheme a scheme which is only likely to cover less than 1% of the people who arrived in the country last year over 990,000 people who applied for Asylum and the coure of appeal said Rwanda only had capacity for 100 people the immigration Minister admitted it's just a few hundred and not anytime soon and if they ever finally implement the illegal migration act that will immediately create a list of 35,000 people the Home Secretary is supposed to immediately send to Rwanda and at this rate it will take the government a hundred years to implement their own failing policy although to be honest it is probably even worse than that because they can't even find most of the 5,000 people that they put on the initial Rwanda list totally unbelievable the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary in the space of about 18 months have literally lost 4,200 people they planned to send to Rwanda I bet the Prime Minister wishes he could lose a few of those home secretaries he managed to send he did indeed lose his immigration minister is part of the chaos of the uh the last uh few weeks and months I give way to the former immigration for giving way if she doesn't like the Rwanda policy so much why did she brief the times over the Christmas holidays that she was in favor of an offshore processing scheme a scheme that everyone knows is more expensive than a scheme like Rwanda and has a far less deterrent effect so it seems to be that everything that she doesn't like is her plan except she didn't have the guts to put her name to it so she Brees the times anonymously yeah yeah nice try with total nonsense from the former immigration Minister who does have a history of making things up let's just be clear it's not clear that there's anything on the planet that is more expensive per person than the government's Rwanda scheme 400 million pounds in order to send nobody to Rwanda and to totally fail but look the former immigration Minister I give him credit he has exposed the real front bench plan the real government's plan the real prime minister's plan it is just to try in the immigration former immigration Minister's words to try and get a few symbolic flights off before a general election with a small number of people on them not to worry about handing over a small fortune to another country not to worry about the fact that this all this focus on one small failing scheme means they're failing to go after the gangs and they've lost thousands of people the home office should be Tracking not to worry about the fact that this new law is so badly drawn up that frankly they may be ordered by the courts to bring people back at further huge cost to the British taxpayer turning the whole thing into an even bigger fast that is not a workable policy it is a massive costly con they're trying to con voters trying to con their own party but actually the fact is everybody can see through it now he's a 400 million pound Rwanda scheme for a few hundred people is like The Emperor's New Clothes and the Prime Minister and his immigration ministers have been desperately spinning The Invisible Thread but we can all see through it the Home Secretary is just wandering naked around this chamber waving a little treaty as a fig Leaf to hide his modesty behind I admit he doesn't have much modesty to hide Mr Speaker there are things the Home Secretary and I agree on we agree on working with France we agree on the deal with Albania we agree on the importance of stopping dangerous Boat Crossings that are undermining border security and putting lives at risk and I think he probably agrees with us about the failings of the policy he is trying to defend today we need stronger border security and a properly controlled and managed Asylum system so the UK does its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict and those who have no right to be here are returned we need LA's plan for the new security Powers the new crossb police the new security agreement the new returns and enforcement unit the clearing of the backlog the ending of Hotel use keeping track of the thousands of people that the Home Secretary has lost but they'll get their law through tonight this third new law in two years the third Home Secretary to visit Rwanda with a checkbook the third bilateral agreement with Rwanda the Tory back Ventures have been saying it should be three strikes and you're out well we're now on three six nine strikes and they haven't even got to first base cuz every time they bring forward a new law it makes things worse the First new law failed because the main Provisions now suspended the second new law failed the main Provisions not even implemented forgive us for not believing a word the government says and for voting against a third fa failing bill today the only difference now is that none of their back benchers believe them either broken promises on clearing the backlog on ending hotel use on stopping the boats on returning people who come it's chaos and C failing on Smuggler gangs failing on returns and failing to get a grip Britain deserves better than this Tory Asylum chaos Sir William cash well thank you very much indeed Mr Speaker um very simply I just simply reply to the uh labor party uh we have no intention certainly I have no intention uh if I vote in this uh division this evening against this bill uh to do any single thing to support their propositions as just put by the front bench spokesman I get that completely clear they're not doing anything they have no plan I want this bill to succeed and the sole reason why I shall be voting against this bill will be because on third reading I don't believe to put use the home secretary's own words that this is the toughest immigration legislation that we could produce nor do I think we've done whatever it takes I can only say that in this context but it's about the law I am deeply worried and this is my main concern that there will be another claim which comes as a result of this I don't think anybody expects anything else and when it does happen it will go to the Supreme Court and when it goes to the Supreme cour Court the question in front of that Supreme Court is going to be very very simple and I put this in my speech yesterday and I don't retract a single word and I'm extremely grateful for those people very senior and some members of the government who said to me privately that they agreed with every word I said and it is simply for this reason that I say this that actually if the act of parliament is sufficiently comprehensive using the notwithstanding formula and at the same time the words used are clear and unambiguous then there is no doubt at all that we would win that case in the Supreme Court sadly I just don't think that that's going to happen I explained yesterday why there's no need or reason for me to go into it now I've said what I've said and all I can say is I wish the government well but I do have to say that I can't support this in all conscience because I've set out my case and I'm not going to retract on principle we come to S SMP spokesperson Allison pulas thank you very much Mr Speaker the front page of this todry pathetic piece of unworkable legislation says in the name of the Home Secretary I am unable to make a statement that in my view the provisions of the safety of Rwanda Asylum and immigration Bill are compatible with the convention rights but the government nevertheless Wishes the house to proceed with the bill it is another a legal bill that will not work will not fix the problem and it is a bill for which this government has no mandate the 2019 conservative Manifesto said we will continue to Grant Asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so nothing about flights to Rwanda nothing about extradition nothing about ripping up people's fundamental human rights since then there have been two unelected prime ministers there have been four four home secretaries and no mandate for this bill the unhcr also say that and I quote from their H assessment of this bill it maintains the position that the arrangement now articulated in the UK Randa partnership treaty and accompanying legislative scheme does not meet the required standards relating to the legality and appropriateness of the transfere of Asylum Seekers and is not compatible with International r Refugee law Rwanda have been clear that they don't want to sign up to an agreement that breaches international law this bill breaches international law it is very clear and it is very dangerous that the government is going down this road we cannot make a country safe simply by legislating that it is so it is a fantasy that this government is engaged with and more dangerous than that they ask the courts they ask public servants and they ask all of us to also engage in that same fantasy it becomes upside down Topsy Turvy that the right is wrong and wrong is right and all of those things make no sense you cannot make a country safe simply by legislating it so and we know that it is no deterrent because the supposedly harsh bills that came before um have not been a deterrent either it's been 181 days since the last tough harsh difficult uh deterrent piece of legislation was passed and those measures are not even yet in force from their previous tough difficult harsh bill that would be a deterrent so we cannot believe them now and it will also you will also find that the tiniest number of people are actually going to be sent to Rwanda anyway a tiny less than 1% of The Crossings this year would be sent to Rwanda what happens to the rest of people left in Immigration limbo to wander the streets of these islands they can't see they don't know and they have no idea for what they will do when people have no rights and they are out looking for assistance Mr Speaker this bill amounts to nothing more and nothing less than state sponsored people trafficking far from they don't like to hear it but it is the truth they don't like to hear it and I will explain to them exactly why listen to my description and see what they think far from dismantling criminal gangs this government has become the criminal gang breaking international law moving vulnerable people across the world without legal process no right of appeal no concern for the safety or human rights of Asylum Seekers to a country they do not know involving money and involving profit it involves people it involves people that this government will never meet will never look in the eye will never sit across the table and watch them in tears because they can't be safe Robert Burns said Robert Burns said that great humanitarian of Scotland said said man's inhumanity to man make countless thousands mourn I mourn what this government is doing to human rights to the undermining of international law and international principles and I give this assurance when Scotland gets our independence we will take our place in the world we will take our responsibilities seriously and we will play our full part in the world as an independent nation here s fo Mr Speaker can I begin also by adding my tributes to Tony Lloyd one of the most charming and civilized politicians uh in this house a model that would do well to be replicated more widely than it sometimes is it's very clear from the debates in the last couple of days that it is this side and this side only that understands the concept uh of deterrence when it comes to to lady has had her hysterical say I will have mine um the uh when it comes to the importance of dealing of dealing with illegal immigration and it's in Star contrast I have to say to the intellectual vacuum that now passes for today's labor party on this side the debate has been entirely about workability of the bill and there have been some exceptional speeches if I may single out my right friend for New York in those debates in the past couple of days now I don't believe that we should be demonizing at any point those who want to get a better future for themselves by seeking asylum in or migration to the United Kingdom a fine Fair tolerant society that anyone would want to come to but the principle of territorial assignment the right to access the national Asylum system upon putting foot on land has already had a coach and horses driven through it by the fact that many of these are not coming from a dangerous country by boat they're coming from France and that cannot be tolerated if we are to have control over our borders and even more important a point made very frequently by my right honorable horable friends is the need to curb the evil of people smuggling and destroy the economic model of those who traffic in this most disgusting trade and I have to say Mr Speaker political infringements of the ECR are nothing to the duty to stop people suffocating in lorries or people drowning coming across the channel particularly when France is a country that is perfectly willing to ditch the judgments of the ECR when it suits them when it comes to deportation our deterrent will be even greater if we pass this legislation and can convince other countries to do the same in a synergistic way now this bill may not be everything that everybody wants but it is much better than what we have today if I were only to have voted for legislation that I agreed with 100% my my voting record in the past 32 years may have been different from it is today and I hear those in my own side saying actually we can replace this bill with something else well we can't Mr Speaker as you well know esen may says and I quote when a bill has been rejected or lost through disagreement it should not according to the practice of parliament be reintroduced in the same session this is the one chance that we get to pass this legislation what we do will be judged by our voters according to their priorities if we leave tonight with nothing that judgment will be harsh or Worse leave us to the cringing mediocrities that make up his Majesty's opposition also to to uh Tony Lloyd who I sat with for his last speech which was in Westminster hall on human rights on this very issue we're discussing now and he he was he spoke with such wisdom um and we will all miss him I also am shocked to hear a member calling another member female member hysterical it's a classic call out of misogynistic term and I I was shocked to hear it Mr Speaker so this is the third reading of the third Bill to try and stop the channel Crossings in two years the first the nationalities and borders act has been partially suspended because it was making things worse the second the illegal migration act has mainly not been implemented because the home office believes it's unworkable and so here we are for the third time this is the uh fail again and Fail Harder unaffordable unworkable unlawful it weakens our intern our national borders it undermines International courts those courts that protect and that we rely on as British citizens and I've been very concerned about the attacks on the European Court of human rights during debates on this bill and the costs are spiraling £400 million plus 2.1 million already spent in legal bills Alone by November 2023 three this latest gimmick not a plan lets down people fleeing persecution and won't deliver on fixing the immigration system it will leave nearly a 100,000 cases in a backlog 56,000 people in hotels and as we've now heard more than 4,000 people missing from the system it won't fix the system that the conservatives have broken it won't be that deterrent it's too small and unworkable it doesn't respond to the international situation with increasing climate change impact and conflict around the world that is driving people to seek safety it feels like the conservative party can't cope with International reality and have stuck the fingers in their ears and are chanting something about Rwanda instead of facing up to real reality and this lets our country down what will stop the boats and the Dreadful deaths in the cold Seas is Labor's plan we will clear the backlog with a new Fast Track system and a thousand officers we will end Hotel you saving the taxpayer over two billion and improve enforcement with a new returns and enforcement unit to reverse the collapse in returns for those who have no right to be here look the conservatives started this by employing some temporary new officers and it started working so why not invest in things that work instead of this G that they have started clearing their backlog the T have also started smashing their gangs with with work that they are doing in France again it's beginning to work so why not invest in those things that work not the Randa plan it's it's a nonsense to start something but not finish it and leave a half faked plan in place what works is smashing the gangs and working with France we would smash the supply chains with new powers and a new crossborder police unit which will stop the boats reach reaching the French Coast in the first place we would work in Partnership internationally to address some of the humanitarian crises which are leading people to flee from their homes we believe in strong border security and a properly controlled and managed and fair Asylum system so that the UK will do our bit to help those fleeing for persecution and conflicts but return those with no right to be here and we believe in stopping the gangs who are the only winners from this bill under the Tories we just have costly chaos thank you it's a t copy you Mr Speaker it's important to speak in this bill today I have to say I was somewhat astonished by the speech of the Shadow uh Home Secretary who can't even get the name of the country right talking about the kagali government we talking about Rwanda you know respect a country that has recently been president of the uh cwe in that regard though Mr Speaker I also want to associate my comments with the with those respecting the sad loss of s Tony Lloyd I'm conscious that both as Minister sorry Member of Parliament in both Manchester and Rochdale uh that he was assiduous for his constituents assiduous when he was in government and he will be much missed from this house the reason I stand today is that I am very keen to make sure that this Bill gets through third reading with the largest majority possible so that we can say to the other house the elected house has had it and we're doing this bill solely because having had excellent Bill taken through by my rore friends the members for faram and nework the illegal migration act which we should all remember the labor party opposed religiously blocked everything that we tried to do but the Supreme Court after disagreeing with the high court um pointed to the issue about Rwanda specifically and I think it's important that Parliament stands up addresses that specific point so that we can get through this stage and then commence the legal relevant sections of the legal migration act particularly regarding having a safe Third Country now I'm very conscious that temperatures are pretty high but there is a genuine passion on this side of the house to respect the will of our constituents who want to see a fair legal migration system and not this vague plan which really isn't a plan by the labor party but I want to say to my R honorable and honorable friends do support this bill tonight so we have the biggest majority possible and I point to Clause two of the bill where specifically it says in law and I appreciate what other members have said but it's very specific that when decision makers are making these decisions that Parliament has given its full confidence that when people go to Rwanda that they will be treated fairly that the conventions will be applied and then we will have that effective process but also that effective deterrent which I think actually the whole house seeks so Mr Speaker let's be clear let's talk as one voice I wish that the opposition would come on this side I know from their track record of opposing the illegal migration act that actually they might talk the talk they're full of Bluster they don't really mean it they don't really care but I know that this conservative government cares I know that every conservative MP cares and we need to make sure that the law listen to the elected house want to say I'm personally gutted by the loss of s Tony Lloyd he was a decent uh kind wise man and an excellent Member of Parliament and we will all seriously seriously miss him um as as for this debate they do say that the the smaller the stakes the more ferociously over which they are fought and the small Stakes are that 1% of the Asylum Seekers who come to this country might just if this bill Works end up being sent to Rwanda at the cost of 24 0 million and Counting and we know it won't be a deterrent we know that people have traveled from the Horn of Africa as I said earlier on and through Libya through over the Mediterranean through Europe to that that tiny fraction of people who end up trying to cross the English Channel as if that will put them off the 1% chance they may go to Rwanda having taken all the risks they've taken to get as far as France and of course people travel from France and because you know they're not going to BM in sell directly from Libya are they for pity's sake people people will come from France the French government could turn around to the Spanish and to the Italians and say no no you're a safe country stay there you see where I'm going from all this if we don't work cooperatively then the whole thing falls down the real issue is 165,000 backlog of Asylum cases that this incompetent government has failed to clear the issue of deterrence I've already tried to cover but one issue I think will come about is that people may well decide the people Smugglers May well decide to bring people into this country and they will simp simply go under the radar not claiming Asylum at all so you won't reduce the number of people coming here you will make sure massively increase the number of people who end up in the black market being being in people trafficking uh being results victims of of sexual slavery and and so on only a quarter of those few people who are denied Asylum who do go through the system only a quarter of them are actually removed by this government so what we've got is a government that talks tough and acts weak if you actually wanted a deterrent then you'd make sure that there was a system that actually dealt with those 165,000 people and you removed the ones who weren't genuine Asylum Seekers even the government's own figures though show that 75% of those people who come here claiming Asylum are legitimate and genuine refugees if you want to deter people assess them and then return the ones who are not genuine refugees but the weakest thing of all about this bill is it's predicated upon the government's desire because they think somehow the electorate likes this that they would demonize those people people who are the most vulnerable in the world I want to say Mr Speaker that they have misunderstood and massively Mis underestimated the British people and certainly my constituents who are better than they think they are I can tell you about my community 1945 half of the children who survived the death camps in nzi occupied Europe came to our Shores in fact they came to the shores of Lake windir they were the windir boys the windir children and we are proud of that Legacy because that speaks to the the kind of people we are in the lakes and the kind of people we really are in Britain when you speak to people and I've visited some of the camps in Europe when you visit people and you speak to those people who are seeking to come to the United Kingdom and by the way there are 19 European Union countries that take more refugees per head than the United Kingdom which is an important thing to remember when you talk to those people who do want to come here what is it that drives them to come here it's not benefits it's not the NHS it is a belief in Britain they believe Britain is the kind of place where you can raise a family in peace where you can earn a living where you can have religious freedom and other other Liberties and the thing is that reputation is built on hundreds of years of experience proud experience of what it is to be British our for fathers and foremothers have built that reputation it will take more than this tor government and this shabby piece of legislation to undermine that reputation overseas they want to make Britain unattractive they will fail this bill will fail it is a costly expensive failure and it deserves to be rejected by this house Mr Speaker I'll I'll I'll be quick but um it's been a very useful debate already because we've heard from the opposition parties where they stand we've heard from the SNP that they want Scotland to take its place among the nations of the world what we didn't hear is whether they want to take Scotland to take its fair share of the refugees of the world because so far they don't do it and we heard from labor which was very good to hear that they do in fact have a plan to stop the boats it's our plan it's everything that we're doing already just without the Rwanda bit which is the one essential piece of the jigsaw that will act as an effective deterrent and stop the boats and I honor The Honorable gentleman uh from the liberal Democrats and his his passionate speech there but I think what he was saying is that we should just be more like Europe when it comes to refugees and Asylum I'm not sure that's what the public want Mr Speaker I just want to pay tribute briefly to a few people the the government whips first of all have done a brilliant job today uh my congrat congratulations to them and uh I I I honor their efforts they've been more successful than I have been uh today but but but but I'm very glad um that we're all more or less uh United again as a party um I uh can I pay par can I can I pay particular tribute to the minister uh who has worked with colleagues uh across our party across the house in fact to uh to address the concerns that this that we had and I I'm pleased to say there have been some commitments uh today in the last few days I don't think they go far enough uh and I want to just acknowledge the really important work that my honorable friends from Stone and from nework have done through the committee stage of this bill because I think that the Amendments that they tabled and that so many of us have supported in the last two days would have made significant improvements to the operation of this bill we are all on the same place as many colleagues have said we all want to do the same thing on this side of the house which is to establish an effective deterrent that would ensure that people who are across the bill across the uh channel are immediately detained and removed I don't think this bill is going to work as it's currently drafted I'm afraid to say I think that in fact we will see legal challenges that will clog up the process and ensure that the deterrent is not enforced I regret that we are not honoring the trust that we had made to the people to effectively control our borders which is what they voted for in 2016 and 2019 so decisively and what all the inion polls all our our constituents tell us all common sense tells us is such an essential part of our commitment and our responsibilities in government and I regret that the essential principle of parliamentary sovereignty while the bill pays tribute uh quite ostentatiously to the concept uh does not in fact ensure that that is going to be the case we believe that statutes passed in this place have Supremacy over judg made law certainly over the jurisdiction of the European court and I'm afraid to say that the bill as it stands much as the government agrees with the principle I was just established the bill as it stand still allows lawyers to use uh foreign uh international law commitments and protocols to override the supremacy of Parliament and I deeply regret this my view is that we could have got a better Bill through Parliament in this session I think we could have developed it and I understand it would have been possible to bring forward a bill of a different scope that would have achieved the same ends so I regret that we're not doing that but I understand this is where we are many of my colleagues and I pay I honor them for their decision have decided to vote with the government tonight I don't want to cause the political disruption which a government defeat would ensue I respect that greatly I think that's a very honorable position my view is I said at the outset that the bill needed these improvements I don't think it'll work I think we could have done better nevertheless the fundamental factors that we on this side of the house are united in our commitment to stopping the boats through this policy the real division is not this gangway it's that aisle and the the great value of the debates that we've been having is that it exposes the position of the parties opposite they don't believe in stopping the votes and we all do thank you Philips thank you uh Mr Speaker um the tribute I received about Tony Lloyd today came from the ex-chief Constable of West Midlands police who used to be the deputy chief Constable of Greater Manchester police and he said that Tony was one of the best people he had ever worked with and so I I stand here to say that I I want everybody in here to know that they are about to vote for a bill that they have absolutely no idea how much it's going to cost like we haven't been given that information um I was in for the committee stage of the debate I was in for the committee stage of the debate earlier and the chair of the the home Affairs select committee said that there was um a view that each person that was sent to Rwanda would cost £1 169,000 and it Peak my anger so greatly cuz I had just come from an event with the Home Secretary around it being a year on from the Independent child sexual abuse inquiry and what progress we have made since then and I was holding in my hand a piece of paper that said that in 2022 100,000 children were sexually abused and came forward and said it and then I looked up how much money the home office was allocating for their sexual abuse against children Fund in 2022 and it was £4 4.5 million which I worked out was £42 for every child who' been raped in that year and I thought what political capital of walking around around and round and around for now the third bill for something that won't work and 150 judges can be found yesterday under the I don't know the sofa by the Prime Minister when cases in my constituency of rape victims waiting seven years to get in front of a judge yeah you frankly Mr Speaker people who think that the amount of time spent on wasting taxpayers money on something that hasn't worked the last two times we tried it and will not work this time frankly Mr Speaker should be ashamed of themselves for voting for something when they don't have any idea how much it's going to cost the people in their constituencies I hope they feel shame for the amount of air time and the amount who turned up today but not for the victims of child abuse excuse me would you like to intervene no um the the other thing I want to say is that I was in a British Court last week not a foreign Court a British Court I was in a British court with a vict vitim of human trafficking she'd been trafficked twice we deported her once already as a trafficking victim and she was retracked back to this country and I went to the upper tribunal with her last week she has two children born of the repeated rapes that she suffered as a victim of human trafficking and the the the home office was trying to deport her again to which the judge scolded the home office lawyers for daring to bring it in front of them and because I was sat in the courtroom the home office lawyers were not so Keen to give their evidence in front of me so they didn't really give any yeah I wonder why they didn't want to talk about how it was fine for a woman who'd been ritually raped repeatedly and repeatedly to have to go back to the country where that had happened and she'd been and she had been trafficked to here I have heard nothing today in any of the debates about when we pick up scoop up all these people without any appeal what happens to the victims of human trafficking what happens to them because currently I've sat in courtrooms where this government is abusing them I would never vote for this not today and neither should anybody else J be Corin thank you Mr Speaker I was first elected to this house on the same day as Tony Lloyd in 1983 he was um brilliant friend brilliant comrade voted against the Iraq War student tuition fees and against the renewal of trident and was a brilliant Shadow Northern Ireland secretary and he will be much missed by many good people all over this country this bill Mr Speaker is an appalling piece of legislation it fails to take any account of the human suffering of people that are forced through lack of any other alternative to try to make a very dangerous Crossing across the channel I have met people in C who are desperate who are poor are confused have traveled from Afghanistan and other places they are victims of War of Human Rights abuse and of poverty and so much else the government is now claiming that the only way to deal with this is to attack what they euphemistically call as a foreign Court when in reality that court is the European Court of human rights which is part of our judicial system and that um they are trying to Offshore their obligations under international law and international treaties look at it on a global stage it is is the wealthy countries of the world such as Australia and Britain that want to Offshore issues surrounding Asylum and the rights of people to seek Asylum and pretend that somehow or other they're doing the world a favor we have to work with other countries to deal with the issue of the desperation of so many refugees in Europe far more in other parts of the world this bill blames those people for being victims plays Into The Narrative of the most backward horrible remarks made in our national media and National newspapers about Asylum Seekers without ever recognizing that those people that have sought legally to seek asylum in this country it's always legal to seek Asylum that's their In Trey uh tomorrow eventually there'll be our doctors there'll be our lawyers they'll be our teachers they'll be our Engineers as they are all over Europe but it's playing into this sort of racist Trope against refugees all over the world and it is attacking refugees because of where they come from and so I hope that the house tonight rejects this bill but I hope in future we don't come back to this kind of debate instead we start to look at the issues of Human Rights abuse victims of war victims of environmental disaster and the needs of those people to be cared for on this planet as fellow human beings rather than making them in out to be the end enemies they certainly are not desperate people are looking for a place of safety surely It's Our obligation the home secret is getting very excited it's his obligation to try and make sure they do have a place of safety in which to survive for the rest of their lives are than Mr Speaker I to pay tribute to Tony Lloyd um he was a far far better man than most of us in this house I think we would all admit and those of us who have survived thus far Advanced cancer often feel a particular poignancy I know the um Home Secretary will agree with this point um when someone does is lost a friend is lost to cancer so my um condolences go to his family and I hope we will have a proper time to commemorate him as you've said Mr Speaker Mr Speaker I I want the boats to stop not because I don't value the lives of those who paid thousands of pounds to risk their lives on the high seas and un seaworthy vessels but because I do value their lives because I despise the people traffickers and because I don't want the generosity of the British people to be tested to Breaking Point I'm voting against at third reading today for four reasons though first I agree with the right honorable members they're not all here now I'm afraid but for Newar for stone and for devisers this bill won't work it's a false promise and I'm sick of false promises it's a waste of money and I'm sick of the government wasting our money and I'm very skeptical that it will actually act as a deterrent after all if the freezing Waters of the channel that can take a life in a matter of minutes are not a deterrent how will a 1% chance of being transported to Rwanda act as a deterrent exactly second this bill is based on a he mixture of gross exaggeration Preposterous wishful thinking and miserably misconceived machismo look at the exaggerations the right honorable member for Newar said yesterday millions of people in the world want to make that journey in a small boat where On Earth Is His evidence for that the right honorable member for farum said that there are many instances of Asylum Seekers purporting to be homosexual to receive preferential treatment in Asylum applications where on Earth is her evidence for that many have claimed that the vast majority of those arriving in small boats are economic migrants but the evidence is that when the home office has investigated it has granted 65% of them Refugee status third the right honorable member for Newar said yesterday that the law is our servant not our Master but it is wrong that even without Amendment this bill places ministers Above the Law it means Mr Speaker that even if a dog is fact actually a dog and a court having interpreted the law has adjudged it to be a dog the government can declare it nonetheless to be a cat the former Attorney General said earlier quite rightly that we rely in the UK on international law it's the basis of how we protect ourselves and our interests so how can we argue that China and Russia and the houthis should not reene on international human rights law when when we ditch it when it's inconvenient for us and how many of us condemned Russia quite rightly when it's declared by Statute law that luhansk and donet were part of Russia when they are patently part of Ukraine as laid down in international treaty fourthly and finally Mr Speaker new the right honorable member for Newar said yesterday we are not a parish council I agree so let's stop behaving like handworth handforth Parish Council let's behave like the House of Commons protect ancient Liberties including the rights to appeal respect the rule of law and honor our International commitments like honorable members yeah yeah yeah well the committee has gone through the house and it's not made any amendments any of the varying contradictory amendments from the varying and contradictory factions on the Tory parties H and what we're left with is a bill that in reality nobody actually wants the hardliners on the Tory party right don't like it something to do with foreign courts the Tory left left don't particularly like it because they realize how close it sails to reaching our international human rights obligations the official opposition don't like it I think because it's too expensive and on the SNP we are opposed to this bill and the entire hostile environment policy in principle because this is just completely the wrong way to deal with some of the poorest and most vulnerable people who come to these Shores seeking refuge and safety we want to welcome refugees and encourage them to contribute to our economy and Society but Mr Speaker it seems even the Republic of Rwanda is getting cold feet and no wonder not withstanding the fact that the United Kingdom continues to Grant Asylum to Asylum Seekers from Rwanda why should a country that aspires to be a prosperous stable African democracy allow itself to become a political football for wannabe leaders of the opposition Who currently inhabit the T benches according to the Prime Minister today the best or perhaps the worst thing about Rwanda is that it is not the UK and the Very fact of not being the UK is a deterrent for people to come here because they might be deported to it so by the same logic if the government threatened to deport people to Disneyland that would also be a deterrent because Disneyland is not in the UK now of course Disneyland is a place where dreams are supposed to come true but I think the former Home Secretary and indeed the former immigration Minister's dreams of flights taking off to Rwanda are not going to come true and neither are their dreams of becoming the next lead of the opposition after the election but the dream on these benches of an independent Scotland the dream which will never die of an independent Scotland that has its own independent Humane Asylum system which recognizes human rights and wants to welcome refugees that dream will come true and soon or rather than later Mr Speaker the question is that the bill now be read a third time as many of that opinion say I the country no no division clear the lobbies the question is that the bill may be read a third time as many of that opinion say I I the country no no the tellers for the eyes of Mark Fletcher and Scott man for the NOS of Sam Dixon and Andrew Weston CL the doors e order the eyes to the right 320 the nose to the left [Music] [Applause] [Music] 276 the eyes to the right 320 the nose to the left 276 the eyes have it the eyes have it [Music] look I'll just let the chamber clear and the thank you nobody right I think I'm going to move put motions three four and five minister to move I beg to move the question is on the order paper as many of had opinions say I the country no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it I beg to move that this house do now adjourn the question is this house do now adjourn Simon J thank you Mr Speaker I'm delighted to have secured today's important adjournment debate on hospice funding in Devon I welcome the minister and colleagues to this debate a few years ago at a dinner hosted by the Rotary Club of exiter I was sat between the bishop of exiter and Dr John C the founder of hospice care a brilliant local independent charity providing Specialist Care to people across our County I must confess it was a surreal experience with this 30-some yearold from Devon who is more comfortable in a pub not Black Tie dinners they both spoke to me about local Hospice Services and the good work they do in Devon
Info
Channel: The Telegraph
Views: 15,588
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: Telegraph, News, rwanda bill, house of commons, parliament, immigration, sunak, election, uk, vote, rwanda, africa, deportation
Id: UtyT5jVx-Mc
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 574min 8sec (34448 seconds)
Published: Wed Jan 17 2024
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.