Date: 2023-04-26
Bill Cash: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to start by asking a big question: what is this Bill ultimately going to achieve? The European convention on human rights was introduced in the 1950s, and at that time I would have agreed with every word that has been said in respect of its application to the holocaust and to genuine refugees. However, what we have witnessed recently has been the phenomenon of this small boats problem, which does not just affect the UK. It also affects Italy, and Madam Meloni, whom I gather is coming over to see the Prime Minister tomorrow, is certainly going to have something to say about that. The problem is endemic and has to be dealt with. I now move to the question of how we do it: we have to pass an Act of Parliament, which is what we are doing now. The next question is, what is the impact of parliamentary sovereignty on the interpretation by the courts of Acts of Parliament? I was in the House in 1998 when we debated the Human Rights Bill. As it happens, the Conservative party voted against its Second Reading, which people often forget. As things have progressed, we need to bear in mind what, for example, Jack Straw said--I am speaking now to those on the Labour Front Bench--when he talked about the importance of the sovereignty of Parliament: he said it was one of the "profound strengths" of our system. He referred to it as the fundamental position established in our  constitution. Derry Irvine said much the same in the House of Lords. The reality is that the sovereignty of Parliament is not confined to the European Union question; it also applies to human rights questions and the Labour party was explicit about that at the time. When the legislation was eventually passed, we arrived at a point where the legal sovereignty continued to rest with Parliament, and the Government, in the words of one Labour supporter, said they had retrieved the first constitution of democratic socialism by ensuring the sovereignty of Parliament. New clauses 17 and 22 are about restricting interim relief. They also deal with the question of "serious harm" and its interpretation. Lord Bingham, who by any standards is the greatest jurist of the last few generations, made it clear--absolutely explicit--in chapter 12 of "The Rule of Law" that it is not for judges to make law; it is for judges to apply the law as passed by Parliament. I think that that is something that all of us here, on both sides of the House, understand. We ask, what is the manner in which new clause 17 will be interpreted in the courts? I am slightly surprised that that matter is being raised for the first time at the end of the debate. It is about what is or is not to be regarded as "serious harm" in respect of persons who have been given a third country removal notice. That is when the crunch comes home in respect of the courts and the application to any individual who is affected by the Bill. I am 100% in favour of the Bill. I would have preferred the "notwithstanding" clause--we all know that--which goes back a very long way in parliamentary drafting tradition, but I am prepared to accept that, after a great deal of discussion, the distinctions between what is or is not regarded as "serious harm" have been set out by a series of examples, which will restrict the courts and the manner in which they make their decisions on these very important questions. I do not have time to go into the detail, but I simply say that, by introducing a measure to restrict interim relief, the Bill will make it clear to the courts the intention that only in-country claims, other than factual suspensive claims, should be under the narrow exception provided by the Bill. In other words, where people face a real and imminent risk of "serious and irreversible harm" in the specific country to which they are being removed, this provision will apply and the courts will be restricted in the manner in which they apply that interpretation to the individual in question. That will ensure that all other legal challenges must be "non-suspensive". In other words the courts can still hear an individual's case out of country--