14 February 2024
The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani addressed the House of Lords during the debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, Committee Stage Day 2.
My Lords, I rise in support of Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate’s amendment 33 to which I’m a signatory; and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role of Parliament if a higher court were to declare this legislation to be incompatible with a Convention right or indeed a number of rights.
We should not forget that the Government have been unable to make a statement on the face of the Bill that it is compatible with Convention Rights. As the Government nevertheless wishes Parliament to proceed with the Bill, it seems prudent to probe what the role of Parliament would be in determining how any potential incompatibility should be addressed. In fact, the attorney general has said in the Government’s own legal position paper that it should be for Parliament to address any determination of incompatibility by the courts.
Lord Kirkhope has eloquently set out the motivation for this amendment and I agree that the amendment simply expounds what parliamentary sovereignty would look like in this context. I appreciate the Government believes there is no such basis for a declaration of incompatibility and that section 4 of the Human Rights Act has therefore not been disapplied. However, if Parliament proceeds to pass this Bill on the basis of this view, but our domestic courts declare otherwise, can I ask the noble Lord the Minister – what objection can there be for giving Parliament a clear opportunity to revisit the issue?
Surely the Government and members across all benches agree that parliamentary sovereignty includes the legislative function’s ability to oversee the executive function. As the legal position paper reads and I quote “The principle that Parliament should be able to address any declaration by the courts of incompatibility rather than primary legislation being quashed by the courts is part of the fundamental basis of parliamentary sovereignty.” The Human Rights Act does not compel the Government or Parliament to remedy an incompatibility but Parliament must be able to take steps to do so and it is not unreasonable to expect Ministers to explain, and to explain without delay, why they may not be bringing forward a remedial order. If the noble Lord the Minister disagrees with this supposition, can I ask him, please, to make clear the Government’s position?
Your lordships will know that we have spoken with one voice on these benches as we believe the Rwandan partnership agreement is an abdication of both our legal and moral responsibility to refugees seeking sanctuary here in the UK. It is highly disturbing that this Bill implies human rights are somewhat discretionary, somehow no longer universal and that they can be disapplied for those outlined in domestic law. The fundamental truth I believe in is that every person equally is deserving of rights, as every person is made in the image of God. However, this is not just a theological statement but also an undisputable legal principle that underpins our international human rights framework - that all are equal before the law.
Removing asylum seekers from certain protections enshrined by the Human Rights Act, severely undermines the universality of human rights and our collective access to justice. As the Refugee Convention states “Protection is not a simple concession made to the refugee: he is not an object of assistance, but rather a subject of rights and duties”. Human rights are not an opt in or opt out concept and Section 4 of the Human Rights Act gives the courts the opportunity to remind us of this.
My Lords, this is surely central to the UK’s commitment to the rule of law. Parliament does have a right to create law but our authority cannot extend to creating injustices. Parliament therefore may need to ask whether we should maintain parliamentary consent if this Bill is found to not afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights, and amendment 33 facilitates this. It is a perilous time for the protection of human rights across the globe and the UK’s contribution should not be to diminish their value or put them further out of reach for some of the world’s most vulnerable people. I hope and pray, therefore, that we have the chance to revisit the proposals in this Bill.
Bishop Guli was a signatory to Amendment 33 of the Bill
