No, I will not give way.
On Lords amendment 1, the use of a section 19(1)(b) statement does not mean that the Bill is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. There is nothing improper or unprecedented with such a statement. It does not mean that the Bill is unlawful or that the Government will necessarily lose any legal challenge. These statements have been made in the past, including in 2003 under the last Labour Government. We have a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our
international obligations, and we remain committed to that position. Our focus is on passing this legislation, which will deter people from entering the country dangerously and illegally.
Turning to the revised amendments on the implementation of the treaty and the role of the monitoring committee, clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Amendment 3B confuses the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill provisions to come into force. Amendment 3B confuses the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill provisions to come into force.
As I have said, the treaty enhances the role of the monitoring committee, and the monitoring committee will ensure that obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. It was always intended for the monitoring committee to be independent. Maintaining the committee’s independence is an integral aspect of the design of the policy, and Lords amendment 3C risks disturbing that independence and impartiality. The Government will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that the necessary implementation has taken place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. That being the case, there is simply no need for the amendment.
7 pm
Despite the refinements made, Lords amendment 6B is still a wrecking amendment that seeks to reverse the Bill’s intent. The Bill’s purpose is to invite Parliament to agree with the assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been properly addressed. The Bill reflects the fact that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit.
The evidence that we have provided, and the commitments made by our Government and the Government of Rwanda through this internationally binding treaty, show that Rwanda is a safe country, and enable the Bill to deem Rwanda a safe country. As I am sure those who support and will vote for this amendment know, it would render the Bill utterly pointless and would not enable us to create the deterrent that we need to stop the boats and get flights off the ground.