Rishi Sunak takes weekly PMQs before MPs debate Rwanda bill – as it happened

conducting a review on the operation of the scheme that will uh uh report before August this year the review is underway and I very much hope that it will address all the matters so those that actually do uh uh qualify for these payments get them in a much more expedited way SP B Richard Thompson thank you Mr speaker now given the length of time it takes in many cases to gather the supporting evidence to make a claim under the scheme given the pressures on the payments board itself and the very strong likelihood that many of those who are potentially eligible have yet to apply it's clear that there's a risk that many of those who could be eligible for a payment may miss out as things stand so one of the ways that the minister the Secretary of State could mitigate against that is to extend the period that is allowed for claims to be made and processed as part of this review will he consider extending that deadline yes it is actually part of the review it's one of the questions we're looking at s Ben question number six please Mr Speaker uh um I wish to uh reassure my I thank my honorable friend for his question I wish to reassure him that the UK government is fully committed to protecting and upholding Northern Island's place in the union I regularly discussed matters of of Union and the importance of Northern island with within it and with cabinet colleagues and meet frequently with the Secretary of State for Wales and Scotland B thank you Mr Speaker would my right on Bo friend agree that the union is now stronger than ever particularly with the decline of the SNP and and that it's 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 winter 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 Ireland 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 is talking through his H see you're as brief as ever secary St well Bas uh based 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 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 up 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 the house service has been able to deliver this 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 constition 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 demure it's vital to make sure that those Vector can access the care and support they need and CH England is actually carrying out a pilot to make sure that we can improve dementia diagnosis in Care Homes our major condition strategy also includes a focus on dementia but crucially as my honorable friend said we are now doubling the funding for dementia research so we can help everyone including his father we now come to the leader of the opposition K can I send my best wishes to The Honorable member and his father also and all those suffering in this way m 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 in marked for removal to Rwanda has he found them yet prime 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 a 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 deterrent 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 about the Rwanda plan they quiz him 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 Mr M Mr Speaker spending £400 million on a plan not to get anybody to Rwanda whilst losing 4,000 is not a plan it's a fast 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 Randa only to end up taking people from Randa to here but but he still hasn't answered the question so I'll try again what progress has he made in locating the 4,250 people his government has 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 arrest 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 order Mr do you want that early cup of tea are going to a little bit more silent prime 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 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 bootes 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 is because he has no values no conviction and no plan it is back to square [Applause] one no no no no he hasn't got a clue where they are has he I could tell I could 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 gimmick 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 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 I said Mr Speaker four eminent cases 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 think I certainly will K stop 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 hello 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 pr 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 European 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 Rel 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 street I ban them he invoices [Applause] them 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 you start Mr Speaker if he's stuck to his position he'd be voting with us he'd be voting with us his former home sec says the plan won't work his current Home Secretary calls it batshit his former immigration Minister 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 Chrystal 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 rat 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 EX 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 leader of the SNP steam FP 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 a 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 prime minister M 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 SMP 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 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 prime minister well Mr Speaker I said it is important that we stop the votes 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 five 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 S 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 helped 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 constituents 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 from an immediate ceasefire it is complicit in the horrors in Gaza not my words but those of the head of oam 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 th000 people have already been killed so can he tell us what will it take for him to back a 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 issues such as the desperate need for 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 invitation well thanks uh thanks to my honorable friend fantastic campaigning on behalf of his constituents Doncaster city council has received I think more than 80 million in leveling up funding to support its regeneration products and most recently Doncaster 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 Dar allows J ellot thank you 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 through our 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 uh 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 princess rbor 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 Rital 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 horable friend that the performance on Chilton hasn't been good enough in recent times uh I know that Chilton have recently begun engagement with the Rolling Stock leasing Market which will help reduce overcrowding uh 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 that 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 gentlemen deterrence works we know that it works because our scheme with Albania has assured a 90% reduction in arrivals from that country J coffee Mr Speaker I'm 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 all 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 Anglia I know marable friend for abeda West was visiting her area recently to Mark the commencement of the project at Sewell SE 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 inquiry 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 acutely 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 romley and see our new cost-saving Civic Center well uh perhaps not not quite uh on my way to Doncaster 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 oak common will be one day but after leads and Manchester 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 cuz I still haven't actually heard from him his position on the whole subject but we have Mr Speaker I would say old o 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 than you Mr Speaker I've 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 cruncho passed away whil pregnant with her baby Elsa after suffering with severe pregnanc 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 Andrew GW the Conservative candidate for the Welling bro by election 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 selection is done locally uh Mr Speaker would my right on friend 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 pronouncing yesterday that the Wilshire Hotel outside rwin Basset is in fact to be returned to his 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 pound 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 Rwanda scheme so we can have a working deterrent and that's how we will stop the boats Charlotte nles 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 relevant drug bodies to make sure we can have the provision of ADHD medicine to all of those who need it to speaker for around a decade over 200 of my constituents in the mill uh complex in iwit have been caught in the crul EST form of limbo um there's deep structural problems with the building and clading problems a few years ago they got about 50 million 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 will prime minister talk to the rst shock to raise this immoral case and also meet with me to discuss away forward for my constituents who I meet with every week prime minister well I'm very sorry to hear about Mar friend's 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 Mar do close question Mr Speaker Mr Speaker I have repeatedly expressed my commitment to join 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 catchup 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 I know 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 L 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 contribute 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 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 future do Mr Speaker the Prime Minister has been very keen to to take credit for falling inflation in previous months will he now take responsibility for today's rise yeah 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 m 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 pound 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 bought Parker run to Tamworth so in the 20th anniversary year of Parker run will the Prime Minister join me in encouraging other towns that don't yet have a park run to get one prime minister well it's great 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 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 hartfordshire 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 h 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 BL 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 laa neglect and decline in 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 spars 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 uh honorable friend is absolutely right and I commend him for being such a strong advocate for blly and I he 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 in 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 route of the a167 the old A1 and it connects Gad with Newcastle City Center and is instantly recognizable around the world as an emblem of Tain sa however the funding is still awaiting sof 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 implications 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 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 question since [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 lstar about the report on the um infected blood inquiry now being uh scheduled for publication in May uh The Honorable member also raised that sir 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 will be a statement from the cabinet office to set out what they are going to do about complying with the recommendations made by S Brian can just first of all say 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 given 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 then Friday 21st of June sir Friday the 21st of June okay thank you right we come to the 10-minute rule motion I call Caroline Lucas here 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 the 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 Rober aduy deborra was tragically cut short when she suffered a fatal asthma attack Ella lived close to the heavily congested 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 MERS 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 Pur 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 all 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 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 Frank Kelly from Imperial College London an adviser to the World Health Organization on health and pollution recently gave an 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 hotpots 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 advisor 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 urgently set out how they're going to meet the new wh 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 is technically possible to do so so the Clean Air Human Rights bill or Ellis's law would set out an entirely new approach to delivering clean air in England 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 20122 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 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 flat shown 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 Air 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 provision 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 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 Madame 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 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 from 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 name 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 8 Clause 8 stand part amendments to Clause nine Clause nine stand part Clause 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 jenrich 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 r a moment but what we're discussing here is whether or not we 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 2022 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 on friend I'm happy to my right on friend's 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 administer perhaps my original 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 intractable 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 uh 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 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 inter IM measures this was something that was created by activist judges in 2005 in response to a particular case which was the mat 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 no no Lord fuks the noble Lord wolf and in a forward to an important piece uh related to this the noble uh unlearned 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 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 away 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 believ leaves 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 international law and that that side couldn't care less about human rights of the most vulnerable individuals T I 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 he'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 deaf 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 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 custom and practice over a very long time indeed was the accepted basis for the rule of law in this country he cites Lord sumption 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 poli makes laws because it has the legitimacy to do so conferred on it by other 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 forward and see what well I'll give way to The Honorable lady then I'll I'll continue my argument forgiving way because as somebody who has served on the the C 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 to the Strasburg 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 not 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 Strasburg 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 return 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 consistantly thereafter the court has held that failing to comply with interim measures amounts to a breach of article 34 of the convention 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 9 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 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 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 month's 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 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're 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 Madame 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 rivers 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 single Asylum Seeker ever being sent there and in addition to that vast sum it will cost at least £69,000 to 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 are 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 yeah yeah that's the narrow legal Point does he think that it was right 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 uh 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 weaks 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 tale wagging the dog because we now hear the prime minister is assembling 150 judges and 1,000 staff to FasTrack 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 Madam 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 Madam chair but I'm not holding my breath but regardless of the operational issues just imagine the impact the prime minister's glib 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 backbenches what an utterly shameful and shabby way for the prime minister of our country to behave Madam chair and I will give way to The Honorable gentlemen I'm very grateful to the 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 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 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 spill and would he agree with me that this is one of the most flagrant attempts we've seen at 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 embroiled 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 the uh people Smuggler gangs are trading in human misery they must be stopped but we need practical ible 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 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 of the tribunals it's really important that people understand that clear division there speaks a true Democrat Madam chair Minister for giving way the 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 we sh 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 they 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 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 gentleman 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 an important part of that as my honorable friend just described is deterent because the criminal gangs he described their brand their marketing message is you'll get to Britain and never leave and sadly that's been too often 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 uh 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 I would 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 saful 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 pajam 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 and 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 Stephen 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 the 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 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 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 pull 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 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 notwithstanding Clauses into this bill would mean that the government would also be dicing with the risk of jeopardizing 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 simp 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 every 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 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 cost 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 similar 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 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 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 statutary 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 ended 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 echr 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 psyched of the past 24 hours only goes to serve the old political adage if a prime minister is incapable of managing managing his 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 Le 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 expense of 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 starting 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 spe 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 standart the debate can range slightly wider than would be normal but it is not a third reading debate there will be a third reading there is an hour put aside for that just in case colleagues preferred to speak at that stage but I know sir Jeremy Wright has an amendment so call thank thank you very much D Gracy 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 five a which describes the safe country as 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 one 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 certain would no serve no purpose in containing bad behavior as we sometimes ask it to do I give what 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 well 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 arbit 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 is the actions of the houthis in the Red Sea because they contravene principles of international law and we were saying too that we justify our own response to that because it is in accordance with the principles of international law and quite right too we would not have accepted the 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 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 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 other 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 is to allow the government if it so chooses to act in defiance of those responsibilities that is perfectly proper and I'm going to come 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 deem the UK's compliance with International LA but it also seems to say that we can deem rwanda's compliance with international law and that is set out of course in cluse 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 claim 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 happily give way my right honorable friend uh who has great experience as former 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 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 this relationship with International obligations on which I will speak later yes very grateful to Mar 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 Lang 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 Mind 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 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 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 and 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 La responsibilities when we do and crucially as I say to achieve the objective of this bill we do not need to so this second reason D 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 exist 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 planes 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 and 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 its 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 super visory 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 in 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 outed 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 h emasculating the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts in relation to Asylum Seekers is anathema 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 unlimited 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 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 the 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 is 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 where 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 Clause as well support my Scottish notwithstanding Clause a new Clause four says that not withstanding anything in this bill if it were to become an Act the supervisory jurisdiction and the nobil 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 no 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 with within limits mitigate the strictness of the law and provide a legal remedy to people where otherwise none would exist I will give away 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 not with standing Clause that benefited Scotland for a change um so my amendments Madam chair they're designed to protect Scotland's courts 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 member of the Scottish Barn 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 restraint 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 amendment to it quite specific about the uh their Provisions so for example uh our 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 bad 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 stand 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 exe 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 gentlemen 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 see 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 inrad 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 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 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 Randa 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 and additionally by as the right 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 why 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 government and the public what their view on the laws compatibility with human rights is and finally turning to Clause five stand part H 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's 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 and 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 Clause 5 at the moment says that only a minister can decide whether to comply with interim measures 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 meas me 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 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 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 in England 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 5 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 because any legal undergraduate 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 passed I would be voting against it chair of the Justice select committee Sir Robert Neil thank you very much Dame Rosy 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 kenth and South um although I I I won't be supporting the uh honorable L's amendments I great respect for the intellectual rigor which she brought to to to to Scots law and its application here and I say the same in relation to the points 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 which I raise because in a nutshell I too would agree with the proposition that V of course Parliament can let 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 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 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 in the 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 me just yes I will actually and then I'll get on I I have 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 he's he's aiding a judge in the UK issuing an injunction late at night in the event of what would be a 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 between the two cases I think H my 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 for these applications in two two matters firstly the anonymity of the judge and secondly the failure 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 baby and treating 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 dialog 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 irreparable damage we can fly people back from Rwanda and that was the argument that we need to keep making my right honorable learning friends is entirely correct and he and I probably would have very happily argued the UK's case in Strasburg on those grounds yes so let's be realistic then about what we're fighting against it's been AR Sally with respect up here because actually things are already being uh steps already being taken to deal with the objectionable uh matters of rule 39 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 but it happens to meet in a different place in the 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 treaty but in practical ways too for example uh the uh members of the parliamentary assembly uh 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 and I 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 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 had 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 right H Ley friend said it operates on a different plane but the sort 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 factly they make what is a difficult situation worse 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 you should be very Loy indeed to ignore uh the um find the findings of the court on an injury matter and it does run the risk as right honorable Ley lady rightly says of placing 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 die on a 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 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 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 nol Lord 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 is done to the to to to the polity of the United Kingdom in that regard no harm is 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 stur 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 cours currently constituted in Strasburg um perhaps less activist if I might say than its predecessors might well have found differently in the prison 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 I will doesn't my 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 more 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 do 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 Il legal base but the simple fact is that is not a reason for the blanket derogation the the blank um removal of echr protections that are proposed in the series of amendments that's the difference in IR at 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 that it actually did um effectively in relation to prisoner voting so it could now if it wanted to I'm not advise 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 facts specific when individual decisions are made that's why give way yeah I'm very grateful to friend for giving away and I don't want to prolong the discussion about prisoner voting but rather like our R from 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 yeah it is perhaps a more or augustinian approach to compliance that we've adopted we just haven't quite got around to it yet I think that's right as I recall it the the UK the UK government put a motion before this house which the house rejected so you could had a perfectly legate 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 issue that we are concerned with and why these amendments had nothing 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 was this 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 new quoted the no Lord Lord Sandhurst very distinguished lawyer in the other place a personal friend of mine I should say I would say Lord Sandos Lord Santos is chair of the research Committee of the Society of conservative lawyers I happen to chair the executive committee of the society Lord 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 Rwanda scheme End quotes So they actually are on the same side of the argument I am that the Amendments proposed by the honorable member for New York take it over the line of being able to deliver the economic migration the the migration Economic Development partnership scheme they risk collapsing the whole SCH 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 proposed 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 Ry thank you very much indeed uh for calling me in in this committee stage and it is a pleasure to follow the honorable ner 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 principles 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 board 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 I 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 very grateful to The Honorable 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 in its generosity and safety um hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees that's how J 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 speak and the point I am making that it's entirely inconsistent one hand to say 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 quivel with it I just say there's a complete juxtoposition between on one hand saying it's safe and on the other accepting refugees from that faum 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 reading 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 Al 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 Tim 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 most robust piece of legislation ever irrespective of whether it works I just make that put it on the record Madam 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 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 not withstanding 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 to 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 blind ly 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 uh 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 in the Minister gave a commitment and fundamentally the commitment that the minister gave H comes in two parts one 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 one 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 dimunition of Rights so this is not captured by article two now we engage with the government and I'm not going to take an ADV adventage 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 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 at the house today that there was a high court case in Belfast it was a judicial review and the matter of an application for amam andon 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 from 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 chter of fundamental rights is article 18 the right to Asylum so everything was seen from government has engaged the discussion around the right chapter of the Belfast agreement it has not engaged the consideration that was resolved and shared in paragraph 994 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 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 who's 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 acoss 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 eg 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 board in the RSC that we are having to deal with that we cannot we cannot casually or mistakenly or through misplaced hope walk ourselves into the creation of an immigration seab Border in the RC because government fails to accept the strength of faing on this issue the cause for concerns surrounding it the legal and judicial uh opinion that has been given that leans into it

Channel: Guardian News

Views: 21,512

Keywords: PMQs, PMQs live, PMQs livestream, PMQs rishi sunak, PMQs watch, UK news, UK politics, house of commons, immigration, politics, prime minister's questions, rishi sunak, rwanda, rwanda immigration, rwanda plan, rwanda scheme, uk, world news

Id: cmPlWjmTgM4

Length: 181min 3sec (10863 seconds)

Published: Wed Jan 17 2024