My Lords, Amendment 132A is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, to which I and the noble Lord, Lord West, have added our names. It would require that nothing in Schedule 6
“authorises any action or measure which is inconsistent with the United Kingdom's international legal obligations.”
The reason for this amendment is that there appears to be a grave risk that pushbacks, as they have become known, would be inconsistent with certain international legal obligations that the United Kingdom has entered into. That is because they may easily conflict with the right of those fleeing persecution to seek asylum, the prohibition on collective expulsion, the duty to render assistance to those in distress at sea and the prohibition on refoulment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made clear, pushbacks also raise the spectre of other rights violations, including violation of the right to life. This is because such manoeuvres are likely to be extremely dangerous, with a high risk of damage, injury or even drowning. Those who are familiar with the English Channel know that it is not a hospitable place, and we all know that the craft used by these refugees are flimsy and unseaworthy. So this policy, if it were ever to be implemented, courts disaster. It would take just one tragedy to expose this and, I assume, to shame our country before the world.
The policy is probably unworkable for two reasons. First, boats can be returned to French territorial waters only with France’s consent, which has not been forth- coming and is unlikely to be so in the future. Secondly—some may say to their credit—it seems quite unlikely that Border Force officers would agree to implement the policy. I would like the Minister, if she would be so good, to explain how the pushback policy would be consistent with the right of those fleeing persecution to seek asylum, the prohibition on collective expulsion, the duty to render assistance to those in distress at sea and the prohibition on refoulment. If it is not consistent with those obligations, it is not consistent with international law.