Debates between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford during the 2019 Parliament

Mon 15th May 2023
Tue 14th Jan 2020
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee stage:Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

But I asked a question; I did not make a speech before. The question is one that I want to emphasise now.

Time and time again, this House has had to address the ability of Parliament to amend statutory instruments. The explanation given by the noble and learned Lord, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, makes it plain that on the question of amendments, we have to rely entirely on the good faith and discretion of the Minister. What in fact was being said by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—I am grateful to him—is that the House, by a Motion, can express a view but the ability to change the statutory instrument depends on—

Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I think my noble friend is actually making a statement.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

I am making a speech, not a statement. I do not think I know the difference between the two. I was making a contribution in the debate.

What the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord have demonstrated is that the ability to amend statutory instruments is dependent upon the discretion of the Secretary of State. I have long taken the view, and I hope your Lordships would agree that, especially when you have so many statutory instruments, this House should be able to amend them—

Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend is making a statement. He is not asking a question, and we should let others get on with their one speech.

Windsor Framework

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford
Tuesday 7th March 2023

(1 year, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, shall we hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and then from my noble friend Lord Hailsham?

Metropolitan Police: Misconduct

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford
Wednesday 19th October 2022

(1 year, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I think we have a bit of time, so let us hear from my noble friend Lord Hailsham, followed by the noble Lord.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, may I put to my noble friend a model that Parliament has established for other professions, such as doctors and nurses? He will know that when a complaint is made to one of those authorities, it can be very rapidly transmitted to an independent interim appeals body, which can make an interim order of conditions or suspension pending a proper investigation of the complaint. Is that not a model that we should consider? Although I recognise that there would have to be an independent authority to which the initial complaint is made.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford
Wednesday 15th June 2022

(2 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I cannot hear either noble Lord.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

I shall repeat to my noble friend the question that I put to her yesterday to which she did not respond. She responded instead to a question I did not ask, so now I repeat my question: given that the judiciary is going to come to a determined view on the legality of this policy of migration to Rwanda in the near future, is it not right, in accordance with natural justice and fairness, to defer any further flights until the judiciary has come to a considered view on the legality of the Government’s policy?

Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the judiciary has come to a considered view not once, not twice, but three times, and none considered the policy unlawful. My noble friend is correct in what he says about the ECHR and its ruling at 10 pm last night. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will reflect on that judgment.

Asylum Seekers: Removal to Rwanda

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford
Tuesday 14th June 2022

(2 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, before I start, I think this is an appropriate point to remember the victims of the Grenfell fire.

On morality, I do not think it is moral to allow people to stand by and allow people to drown, or to line the pockets of criminal gangs who seek to exploit people trying to cross in small boats. That is why we have safe and legal routes, which have in fact seen over 200,000 people arrive here since 2015. On the cost, I do not think we can put a price on human lives. I think we need to do all we can to deter these perilous journeys across the channel.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, given that the Court of Appeal will consider the legality of the policy very expeditiously, would it not be fair and in accordance with natural justice to postpone any further flights until such time as the Court of Appeal has come to a final decision on the legality of the policy?

Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The courts have now determined twice and there will be a JR process in July. That will be the extent of my comments on the legal process, because it is ongoing.

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford
Monday 25th April 2022

(2 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, as your Lordships’ House does, there will be ample opportunity to discuss the aspects of this agreement. It complies with our international and other obligations. There will be ongoing monitoring of the agreement, and there is nothing in the United Nations refugee convention that prevents this happening.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

Does my noble friend confirm that, in the face of legal challenge, the Government have withdrawn their turnabout policies? Does this not suggest that the legal advice from the Home Office that the Rwanda policy accords with our international obligations should be treated with a degree of caution?

--- Later in debate ---
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I think it is quite clear why we are taking action now.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

Because of the May elections.

Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, absolutely not. This Bill has been going through both Houses of Parliament for some time. I am sure that noble Lords have observed that people are dying at sea because of the actions of criminals facilitating journeys to the UK.

Small Boats Incident in the Channel

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford
Thursday 25th November 2021

(2 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Smugglers have a fairly international reach and are not necessarily based in the UK. Quite often, they are based in eastern Europe or the Balkans and they ply their trade across the world. Where they are based is almost irrelevant; their business model is based on people smuggling and multiple types of crime. Claiming asylum in the first safe country is a long-established international policy.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, may I reiterate an obvious point—that if we are to reduce the flow of cross-channel migration, and thus reduce the risk of tragedies, we really have to work very closely with the French? Our interests are the same. To promote that, can we please avoid unnecessary public criticism of and recriminations with the French? Incidentally, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about boat turnabouts. It is a ridiculous proposition.

Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not think my noble friend has heard me once today say anything negative about the French. The only thing that I have said is that it is essential that we work together. We are exploring all options on deterring people smugglers.

Pre-charge Police Bail: Time Limit

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford
Wednesday 26th February 2020

(4 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I completely agree with the noble Baroness that this is not just about bail versus release under investigation; there is far more to concluding and charging people than just those two things. She referred to forensics and she will know, I hope, that we have put £28 million into increasing forensic capacity. She will also know, I hope, that we fully intend to put the Forensic Science Regulator on to a statutory footing.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I encourage my noble friend to be very cautious about this for two reasons. First, by definition, it is not under judicial supervision. Secondly, extending the time limits would encourage the police to be rather dilatory in their inquiries.

Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, we fully intend to put this on a statutory footing. RUI has increased following the legislation we passed some two or three years ago, sometimes to more than what bail would have been. We have to look at this area, but I take what my noble friend says.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Viscount Hailsham and Baroness Williams of Trafford
Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th January 2020

(4 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (14 Jan 2020)
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. We cannot support them, and I will outline why. The Government will provide for a right of appeal against citizens’ rights immigration decisions. While I commend noble Lords for their commitment to citizens’ rights, these amendments create unnecessary changes to the wording of Clause 11 and, at worst, undermine our ability to provide for a right of appeal in all circumstances and ensure consistency for judicial review, and even create perverse incentives to appeal decisions to gain the benefits of indefinite leave to remain.

Amendments 4 and 9 are unnecessary. EU citizens who are appealing a decision on residence must be able to appeal if refused leave, or given what they believe is an incorrect status under the EU settlement scheme, under our international agreements. It is also damaging, as a power is required to implement the numerous situations requiring appeals.

Amendment 5 is at best unnecessary and, at worst, could prevent the provision for necessary appeals. This Government will provide for a right of appeal against citizens’ rights immigration decisions. This is an essential part of our commitment to protecting the rights of EU citizens, EEA EFTA and Swiss nationals under the withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement.

On Amendment 6, the current wording of Clause 11(1) allows the Government to make sufficient regulations in relation to appeals against citizens’ rights immigration decisions. It fulfils our commitment in the agreements and provides certainty to EU citizens that they shall have a right to appeals. Moreover, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recently commended the powers in the Bill as,

“naturally constrained by the scope of the particular matter contained in the Agreements”.

As such, Amendment 6 is unnecessary.

As for Amendment 7, it is in the public interest to make reviews of exclusion directions made in respect of those protected by our implementation of the withdrawal agreements consistent with how similar reviews are treated now. This power enables us to do this, but Amendment 7 would remove that ability.

Amendment 8 would make it harder for EU citizens to challenge an exclusion direction, would prevent the Government being able to prevent removal unless the appeal is certified and would create a perverse incentive for individuals to launch appeals to gain access to the benefits of indefinite leave to remain.

Amendment 10 seeks to limit the power in Clause 11 in relation to judicial review. It is in the public interest to make reviews of exclusion directions made in respect of those protected by our implementation of the agreements consistent with how similar reviews are treated. This power enables us to do this, but the amendment would remove that ability.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham
- Hansard - -

Will my noble friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will, but first I reiterate that appeals processes will be set out in the regulations to be made under the power in Clause 11. The regulations will be made in the last week of January, to answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I may now be answering my noble friend’s question, because he asked whether we have a power to make changes to reviews, including judicial reviews. This limb of the power will be used to ensure that the legislation that interacts with new citizens’ appeal rights continues to function appropriately. It ensures that we can amend Section 2C of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 to provide that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission can hear reviews in respect of those protected by the agreements in the same way as they hear reviews in other cases, such as the most sensitive immigration cases. We will not be restricting the availability or scope of judicial review.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham
- Hansard - -

I would like just a little more clarity, although my noble friend has given quite a lot. Do I understand that what the Government are thinking of doing is procedural only, and they are not seeking in any way to curtail the substantive rights that presently arise under judicial review?