Part of Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (Continued) – in the House of Lords am 9:15 pm ar 19 Chwefror 2024.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Llafur
9:15,
19 Chwefror 2024
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which are less powerful protections.
We as a country proclaim our compliance with the rule of law. We signed up to a convention that set up a court that would be the ultimate determiner of what that convention meant. That court, over a period of time, habitually issued Rule 39 statements or orders. Almost invariably, they are complied with. The court itself, in a case called Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey in 2005, said that those orders made under Rule 39 were binding in international law, not domestic law. If we had set up that court to be the final arbiter of what the convention meant, then we should accept it. How could I not, having heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, with his leading counsel, the noble Lord, Lord Howard? They are two of the most effective advocates of their generation—therefore, not to be relied on because they are advocates, putting the contrary view.
Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee addressed this issue in paragraphs 60 and 61 of its report on the issue of what to do about Rule 39 orders, saying that:
“Arguments have been made that interim measures are not judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, such that the UK is bound to adhere to interim measures as a matter of international law”.
That is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, but the report states that:
“Others have expressed a contrary view. The European Court of Human Rights, drawing on Articles 1 and 13 ECHR, considers it a breach of international law for a signatory state not to comply with interim measures”.
Therefore, accepting the Howard/Hoffmann view, they have got it over the net. There is an argument that it might not be binding in international law.
The provisions of the Bill at the moment leave it to a Minister of the Crown to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measures. When he replies, can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, confirm that this decision by a Minister will be subject to judicial review? Assuming that it is, presumably the Minister will regard himself as bound by the Ministerial Code. By committing himself to it, he accepts that he must comply with the law. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in his place, because in 2015, on behalf of the Government—it has never been subsequently tested—he confirmed that despite the omission of an explicit reference to international law in the Ministerial Code, the reference to law in the Ministerial Code applies to international law.
No Minister would therefore wish to break international law. If judicial review was sought of an order by a Minister not to comply with Rule 39, it would presumably be open to the court to say that whether the Minister is acting lawfully depends on whether not to comply with a Rule 39 order is in breach of international law—for which the court could then make an interim order restraining the effect of the Minister refusing to comply with Rule 39.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
Also referred to as the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights was instituted as a place to hear Human Rights complaints from Council of Europe Member States; it consists of a number of judges equal to the number of Council of Europe seats (which currently stands at 45 at the time of writing), divided into four geographic- and gender-balanced "Sections" eac of which selects a Chamber (consisting of a President and six rotating justices), and a 17-member Grand Chamber consisting of a President, Vice-Presidents, and all Section Presidents, as well as a rotating selection of other justices from one of two balanced groups.
Of a male MP, sitting on his regular seat in the House. For females, "in her place".
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
