Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Illegal Migration Bill

Thursday 6 July 2023 · 4 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Attorney General is bound by the Law Officers' convention not to discuss or reveal advice given to Cabinet colleagues regarding the Illegal Migration Bill and its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • The Government will seek permission to appeal the recent Court of Appeal case outcome to the Supreme Court, aiming to uphold the policy of removal to a safe third country.
  • The Attorney General affirmed the Government's commitment to the rule of law and adherence to international legal obligations, standing up to Cabinet colleagues when necessary.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Chris Stephens SNP
Immigration Standards & Ethics
Context

The Illegal Migration Bill is under scrutiny for its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The bill faces challenges from various quarters, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Question

What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the compatibility of the Illegal Migration Bill with the European convention on human rights?

Answer from Victoria Prentis

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am bound by the Law Officers' convention not only to not talk about advice that I give to Cabinet colleagues, but to not even reveal whether such advice has been given.

Answered

How: Bound By The Law Officers' Convention

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Chris Stephens SNP
Immigration Justice & Courts
Context

The Court of Appeal found certain aspects of the Illegal Migration Bill unlawful, based in part on evidence provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The recommendations included cooperation with EU neighbors and fair asylum procedures.

Question

Will the Attorney General ensure that the Cabinet listens and enacts those recommendations?

Answer from Victoria Prentis

The Government are disappointed by the recent outcome of the case before the Court of Appeal and will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal did say that the policy of removal to a safe third country could be compatible, and it did not disturb the finding of the High Court that Rwanda is safe, though the majority was concerned about the possibility of onward removal from Rwanda.

Partly answered

Not addressed: ensuring cabinet compliance with UNHCR recommendations

How: Disappointed By The Outcome, Will Seek Permission To Appeal

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Andrew Slaughter Lab Hammersmith and Chiswick
Democracy & Elections
Context

The Attorney General is expected to uphold the rule of law. Previous legislation, such as the Bill of Rights, has been criticized for undermining European convention rights.

Question

Will she now stand up to other of her Cabinet colleagues who repeatedly transgress international law?

Answer from Victoria Prentis

I absolutely can and do stand up for the rule of law. The Government are committed to the rule of law domestically and committed to maintaining and upholding our obligations under international law. That is made quite clear to all Ministers.

Partly answered

Not addressed: confronting cabinet colleagues on specific transgressions

How: Stand Up For The Rule Of Law, Commitment To Maintaining And Upholding Obligations

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 Angela Crawley SNP
Asylum & Refugees
Context

The Rwanda asylum plan has been declared incompatible with several international conventions, including those protecting against torture and inhumane treatment. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on its legality.

Question

How much taxpayers' money does the Attorney General estimate the Government will spend appealing this illegal plan?

Answer from Victoria Prentis

I absolutely do not accept the premise of the hon. Lady's question. The divisional court was a strong win for the Government. At the Court of Appeal, the majority found against us, but we also had a strong judgment from the Lord Chief Justice. We believe that the assurances we have had from Rwanda regarding asylum protections there are robust, and we intend to make those arguments strongly in the Supreme Court.

Partly answered

Not addressed: providing an estimate of appeal costs

How: Do Not Accept The Premise, Strong Judgment From The Lord Chief Justice

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)