I have to say, with all humility, that it is not so much that I agree with them, or that they agree with me, but that this is the law of our land. This is the rule of law as it applies to the United Kingdom, and it is a tribute to the British people that they took that decision in 2016.
As I said to the Prime Minister in December’s Liaison Committee, he can be a world leader on the issue of illegal migration, not only in the EU, but also in the United States, Canada and Australia—every country in the world. The international refugee convention, among other conventions, is seen as requiring reform. In Europe, it is clear that they need to change the European convention on human rights as well as EU immigration law, and European Union voters are voting with their feet.
2.45 pm
Neither the Bill, nor the amendments, are in breach of the current refugee convention, as that convention does not prohibit states from outsourcing asylum claims
and settlements to a third country. Similarly, the European convention does not prescribe how its rights and freedoms are to be secured. Moreover, there has been
“a fundamental change of circumstances”
in the increase of illegal migration, criminality, and the deaths that those have incurred since the convention was created. It is clear that currently described “obligations” must take account of that change. We have to keep up with the times, and mass immigration is one of the main issues before all nations.
What is more important: passing a Bill that works and is consistent with the democratic will of the people, our national interest, constitutional arrangements and parliamentary sovereignty, or supporting the uncertainties and vagaries of international law? Far from diminishing our international reputation, we now have the opportunity to enhance it by demonstrating that we can deal with illegal migration by making this Bill work through our own parliamentary sovereignty. And we can bring an end to the deaths in the channel.
It has also been suggested that it is improper and contrary to the ministerial code to bring in a Bill that is inconsistent with international law—that seems to permeate the legal establishment of this country. That is nonsense on stilts, because any Member of Parliament, any unimportant Member of Parliament, as well as Ministers and any Back Bencher, can propose legislation. Indeed, private Member’s Bills are enacted frequently, such as my International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014.
The acceptance by Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Prime Minister, despite resistance from the legal establishment at the time that we could refuse prisoner voting, as insisted on by the Strasbourg Court, is well known and remembered. The former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Lord Clarke of Nottingham KC, said, when we refused to accept the “international obligation” under the European Court of Human Rights to allow prisoners to vote in elections, that—sorry, I mustn’t laugh—
“prisoner voting was a particular political issue”.
What about illegal migration?
The 2023 House of Lords report makes much of the ministerial code and the civil service code, stating:
“While Parliament is ultimately responsible for the form of any legislation passed, the preparation and introduction of Government legislation is an Executive action for which Ministers, collectively, are accountable.”
It then goes on to reaffirm its
“disquiet about the constitutional desirability of Parliament legislating in violation of the UK’s international obligations”
but it ignores the principles of parliamentary sovereignty where words used in Acts of Parliament are clear and unambiguous. Moreover, the ministerial code is a convention, not legislation.
Once upon a time, the ministerial code did include the words,
“an overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations”,
but those words were expressly removed from the code in 2015 by the then Prime Minister. The current 2022 ministerial code, under the present Prime Minister, simply refers to “the law”. This is no accident. The Government have declined the Lords’ obligation to bring back the words “international law and treaty obligations”, and I would say quod erat demonstrandum.
The House of Lords Committee also suggested, in reference upon the Court of Appeal case of R (on the application of Gulf Centre for Human Rights) v. the Prime Minister and another in 2018 and a statement five years ago by the distinguished Lord Faulks KC, that the ministerial code still requires compliance with international law obligations. However, the Court of Appeal—sadly for it—did not deal with the issue of parliamentary sovereignty with the use of the words that were clear and unambiguous and that in any case did not concern an Act of Parliament.
The failure to pass a Bill to effectively deal with illegal migration has led to vast public expenditure, with billions on services, including healthcare, education, social care, housing, infrastructure and planning to name just a few, not to mention millions and millions on hotel bills. That is why people are so cross, as well as the fact of illegal migration. There is no reason whatever that this Bill should not expressly and clearly exclude international law for the reasons I have given. It is an affront to Parliament and to the courts to suggest otherwise. I therefore ask that my amendment be voted upon and passed by the Committee.
I strongly urge the Government to note the sheer anger and frustration demonstrated in opinion polls and public concern that we get this Bill right and make it work. If not, this anger will continue up to and including the general election. Would it not be wise for the Government to reflect on the position and see that it would be better and wiser to come forward with their own amendments and use our majority, in line with our manifesto, as granted to us by the general election in 2019? That would be in the national interest and for the sake of all Conservative Members of Parliament whose seats would be so at risk if we did not do that.