Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stella Creasy

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

I am glad to accept that intervention, and the shadow Minister has made his point and I have made my point. I suspect we will find as much safety in the point that has just been made as in that of those who stand bullishly and say that this is the strongest, most robust piece of legislation ever, irrespective of whether it works. I just put that on the record.

As Members will be aware from Second Reading, we have concerns about the operability of the Bill in the light of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the legislative framework that surrounds that relationship. That is why our new clause 3 is a notwithstanding clause. I know that we have had some humour around notwithstanding clauses from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but that notwithstanding clause is there because we have concerns, in contradiction to the Government’s position, that the claims that have been made in this House and the position that the Government have deployed are not sustainable legally.

Our amendment states:

“The provisions of this Act shall have effect in Northern Ireland, notwithstanding Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”,

amended in 2020. That is important from a principled perspective as a Unionist and from a practical perspective as a Member of this Parliament who believes that our immigration policy applies equally across the United Kingdom—it always has applied equally across the United Kingdom. The worry is that the Government are blindly ignoring our concerns and allowing a situation to develop that will cause a fracture in the immigration policy, which until this point has applied equally across the United Kingdom.

I have engaged with the Minister on this issue and I am grateful to him for both making the time available and the courtesy with which he always approaches these issues. Colleagues will recall that we raised this issue on Second Reading and the Minister gave a commitment, which fundamentally comes in two parts: that the Government have never accepted that the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement engages immigration policy, and furthermore that the Government have in the past robustly defended the position that the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement does not engage immigration policy and have won. They have advanced that argument in court and have won. The argument that the Government are putting forward is predicated on article 2 of the withdrawal agreement—that there be “no diminution of rights” for the people of Northern Ireland whenever the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. As a consequence, and given that they say the rights chapter does not apply to immigration, they say there is no diminution of rights, so this situation is not captured by article 2. We engaged with the Government—

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

I will not take an intervention at this stage, because there are a few elements that I want to get out clearly and cleanly. I will then be happy to give way.

The Minister put forward his point, and we exchanged positions on Second Reading about the potential of an updated legal note. I have to say in all candour that the Minister and the Government have been forthcoming in more formally addressing this point in terms of article 2 of the European Union withdrawal agreement alone, and not article 7.

Let us be clear: we as a national Parliament are considering on a national basis our national immigration policy, and our amendment is intended to elicit a response from the Government. Eyes wide open, they could choose to ignore us at this point, to dismiss the concerns that have been raised and ultimately leave it to the courts to decide and the judiciary to determine whether there is cause for concern. Or they could take the simple step on immigration grounds alone to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That is the choice.

Yesterday I shared with the Minister—I share it with the Committee today—the details of a High Court case in Belfast. It was an application for judicial review by Aman Angesom, and it was interesting reading. Paragraph 94 of that judgment states clearly:

“The combined effect of section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018…and Article 4 of the Protocol limits the effects of section 5(4) and (5) of the EUWA 2018 and Schedule 1, para 3 of the same Act which restrict the use to which the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU General Principles may be relied on after the UK’s exit. Thus, the Charter of Fundamental Rights remains enforceable in Northern Ireland and falls within the ambit of Article 2(1) of the Protocol.”

Contained within the charter of fundamental rights is article 18, the right to asylum. Everything we have seen from the Government has engaged the discussion around the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement. It has not engaged the consideration that was resolved and shared in paragraph 94 of that Belfast High Court judgment, which has a completely separate legal construction for the Government’s ambition for how this Rwanda Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland.

The Minister has said clearly on the Floor of the House that the Bill will apply in full in Northern Ireland in the same way as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom. New clause 3 is our attempt, first, to get the Government to rule out the concerns that have been raised by agreeing it. Then, if they should not do so, they should at least articulate their intention, their position, what they believe to be the case, why they believe that interpretation and why the judgment from Belfast is wrong. I raise those issues on a number of levels: as a parliamentary spokesperson on home affairs and somebody who has engaged on immigration issues for a while, as someone who has voted against previous attempts because I do not believe they are the right approach, and as someone who voted against the Bill on Second Reading because I still do not believe it is the right approach.

I also raise those things as a representative for Belfast. Believe it or not—I say this with no alarm and no theatrics but as a matter of record—House of Commons Library figures from September point out that, across the entire United Kingdom, Belfast has the second-highest number of asylum seekers, housed within our city. We have 78 asylum seekers for every 10,000 of the city’s population. I am not being alarmist about that and I will not over-egg it; I am just making the point that these are important issues, and the unity of our immigration system is important. The protection of our borders is an important issue in immigration terms.

Heaven knows, we have had enough difficulty around the creation of a trade border in the Irish sea that we are having to deal with. We cannot casually, or mistakenly, or through misplaced hope, walk ourselves into the creation of an immigration sea border in the Irish sea because the Government fail to accept the strength of feeling on this issue, the cause for concern surrounding it and the legal and judicial opinion that has been given that leans into it. This is our opportunity to put it right, and we should take it.

I am about to finish, but in fairness I did indicate to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) that I would give way, and I mean no discourtesy, so I will.

[Stella Creasy]

I appreciate the case the hon. Gentleman is making. My concern is that the Angesom judgment—I looked it up after he and I talked about it—states:

“The applicant and respondent both agree that the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity enshrined in Strand Three of the GFA do not exclude asylum seekers.”

The Home Office, which brought the case, accepts that the Good Friday agreement extends to refugees in Northern Ireland, yet with this piece of legislation the Government are seeking to exempt them from those rights and therefore undermine the Good Friday agreement. I just wanted to clarify my reading of the ruling he mentioned.

[Gavin Robinson]

The hon. Lady is entirely right in the quote that she shares. It is fair to say that the Government won that case. We therefore did not see the Government—indeed, they did not have any rationale to do so—taking forward an appeal to defend some of the points that they may well have chosen to defend, but she highlights a frailty in the position, if the Home Office is not accepting a position that it has defended in other cases by saying that the rights chapter is not engaged. That is a frailty of the Government’s position, and that is why, in fairness, the hon. Lady has tabled her own amendment. It is not as fatal as our new clause 3, in terms of the notwithstanding provisions, but it is at least asking the Government not to proceed with the Bill until they are in the firm position to publish a position. This House has agreed that that is the basis upon which we should proceed.

I have been in this place for almost nine years. There are many occasions when this House has agreed to proceed in the face of what I believe to be well-grounded, politically supported and principled decisions. It is not an amendment I take comfort from, but I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, given the day that this is and the potential for Third Reading this evening.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(5)

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stella Creasy

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

I could not agree more. It was a great shame that back in July that disincentive was provided to the restoration of the Assembly, and we are seeing the outworkings of that.

Is it not bizarre that those who propose the changes in this legislation and who framed it in a way that allowed the Assembly to return failed to recognise that disincentive? Even this evening, when it is suggested that these devolved matters should be considered by a devolved Assembly, should it be restored, they are outraged. They are outraged by devolution, outraged by local democracy and outraged that people who are elected to represent their constituents in Northern Ireland, from whatever perspective, should have the ability to legislate on the issues that matter.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Robinson]

I will, but I am conscious of time and I have a bit more to say.

[Stella Creasy]

For the avoidance of doubt, no Labour Members are opposing devolution. Many of us have been strong supporters of it in many different ways. We are concerned tonight to hear that a piece of legislation written in good faith in this House is going to be amended to say something different by the Government—that is what the Minister will have to do, because it does not say that. That is the concern. This is about honesty with the British public about what we voted for and intended that is now up for grabs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

That is right. The people of Northern Ireland are concerned by the proposals and by the absence of any regulation over the next five months. We will be devoid in Northern Ireland of any legislative protection. The Minister referred to section 25 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act. I do not believe he was right. I would like him to consider this point. He indicated that it provided a legal protection from termination during this five-month period, but it applies only to a woman whose pregnancy is at such an advanced stage that the child is capable of being born and living. We are talking about towards the end of gestation, arguably 27 or 28 weeks. At that stage, there would be some difficulties, but not a barrier.

People have talked in this Chamber about legislation in England that says that healthcare professionals have to be regulated individually, but that is not the case in Northern Ireland. The piece of paper I am holding here is a legal opinion from a QC who is pre-eminent in the field of healthcare. He is also a former Labour Member of Parliament: David Lock. This legal opinion lays out in stark terms the lack of any legal protection that will be available in Northern Ireland over the next five months. [Interruption.] I see people sitting on the Labour Benches to my right dismissing this, shaking their heads and saying it is not true. Well, it is, and it is not just their former colleague making this point. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has made exactly the same point. It said:

“The likelihood of individuals resorting to potentially unsafe practices remains while prosecutions under the criminal law have been removed and a healthcare process not yet been established.”

In Northern Ireland, we regulate the buildings not the people. I wish to ask the Minister a series of questions. I will understand if he cannot answer them in full this evening, but if he cannot, I think we will need a written response in quick time. Can he indicate which piece of legislation in Northern Ireland over the next five months will preclude terminations where there is not a person qualified to do one? What law stops a non-qualified person, when consent is present, carrying out such a termination? What legislation precludes terminations taking place anywhere or what legislation requires a termination over the next five months to take place in a hospital or clinic? Those are serious questions.

The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) raised the concerns of women in Northern Ireland. They are concerned about the lack of any legislative protection whatsoever as a consequence of the cavalier attitude taken when passing the legislation in the House.

[Stella Creasy]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this, but he is simply wrong to say that the Act, which only repeals sections 58 and 59 of Offences Against the Person Act 1861, removes all legal protection. For example, will he confirm that the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 1945, which refers to child viability in Northern Ireland, will still be in place? It is not removed by this legislation. It is simply not true that there will be no legal or regulatory framework. He might want a new one, but it is not true that it does not exist.

[Gavin Robinson]

The hon. Lady has not answered any of my questions. She does not accept, as the Minister outlined in the report, that section 25 of the 1945 Act is not adequate. She does not accept that in Northern Ireland we do not regulate individuals who carry out procedures, and she does not accept that we have no legislation that would indicate where those procedures can take place. She does not accept the views of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has expressed its concerns very clearly. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission does not often look to me for advice, and nor do I look to the commission. We approach things from completely different perspectives, but we have exactly the same concerns.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to exceed my allotted time. I think that the interventions have been helpful, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak.