torture and other cruel treatment is punishment about an 84 as well as customary laws that might get in their way including from european court of human rights. international law is binding, no case up, they are supposed to adhere to it. that is why they signed update in the first place. it is abject nonsense. the law society of england and wales wrote further, and state quite clearly that domestic legislation cannot immunise the government from the enforcement of international law but up to claim it can is disingenuous. they also state that refusing to comply with an interim measure would be a clear breach of international law. they accuse the uk government further of using a plot to manufacture a reality and it is the time of year where all indulge in christmas magic and imagine reindeer on the roof but this government has asked the entire legal system of the uk to engage in a former dangerous pretence. the uk supreme court sought out the facts for itself and upon that clear and substantial evidence, found rwanda to be unsafe and this seems most likely why the government once to ban courts from doing this again via this legislation. they speak of the risk of sending people back into harm's way and everyone was so, why would it be the case they were also able to send asylum seekers to the uk as part of this deal? rwandan opposition leader was sentenced to 15 years injail speaking out against the rwandan government despite being released in 2018. he still to this day cannot exercise his political rights. as criticism of this deal has had to be done in the international medium because he says the local media there not give him a platform. perhaps it could expend to me... i will have an intervention the key thing about this whole debate is the tension she has described actually. she this whole debate is the tension she has described actually.— has described actually. she familiar with the rulings _ has described actually. she familiar with the rulings of _ has described actually. she familiar with the rulings ofjudge _ has described actually. she familiar with the rulings ofjudge denning, i with the rulings ofjudge denning, lord hoffmann, of bingham and more recently, cam agreed all of which directly contradict what she has said about the balance between international law and laws passed by this parliament? all of those are very distinguished people say that the opposite of what she says and does she at least acknowledge that true? i does she at least acknowledge that true? . . ~ ., ' true? i acknowledge different la ers true? i acknowledge different lawyers will — true? i acknowledge different lawyers will have _ true? i acknowledge different lawyers will have different - true? i acknowledge different - lawyers will have different opinions on the law society of and wales and their brief says that the government is being disingenuous in what it is claiming here and i will take their word for it. claiming here and i will take their word for it— claiming here and i will take their word for it. w , ., ., word for it. picking up on the other gentlemen's _ word for it. picking up on the other gentlemen's point, _ word for it. picking up on the other gentlemen's point, he _ word for it. picking up on the other gentlemen's point, he cites - word for it. picking up on the other| gentlemen's point, he cites various judges but the most supreme court in the uk is the uk supreme court and they were very clear in the miller one case that while parliamentary sovereignty might mean that the law can be changed internally, this parliament cannot legislate its way out of its international obligations. does the honourable lady agree with me that no matter what various judges may have said at various times, it is a recent massive constitutional case of the uk supreme court we should look to on this issue? she uk supreme court we should look to on this issue?— on this issue? she is absolutely correct and _ on this issue? she is absolutely correct and hurt _ on this issue? she is absolutely correct and hurt leonard - on this issue? she is absolutely - correct and hurt leonard knowledge comes on many of these issues and i think it is important we reflect on these cases and what that means, rather than what members opposite wish of these issues and i think it is important we reflect on these cases and what that means, rather than what members opposite wish those cases mean. this legislation before us today declares rwanda safe in all circumstances. in so doing, they have undermined the rule of law and separation of powers, preventing the courts from establishing their own facts and driving a skoda india through the principle of restraint. for from through the principle of restraint. forfrom being centre, the home secretary makes the grinch looked generous and he does have a heart thatis generous and he does have a heart that is two sizes too small. this treaty creates new rules for rwanda but in reality, nothing has changed in the weeks since the judgment. it was said that intentions and aspirations do not necessarily correspond to reality. the question is, whether they are achievable in practice. the supreme court found that rwanda had failed to meet international obligation and is unlikely to meet additional ones and there is no evidence that long—term culture shift required is likely to happen quickly. rwanda processed 220 decisions on asylum claims in 2020 and rejected claims from countries such as afghanistan, iran and eritrea. i don't want to get right into the merits of otherwise of rwanda as a nation. if we start to off—load our international responsible it is to a third country, we are effectively surrendering our influence of what then happens next. this government has become people traffickers. sending humans offshore against their will as if they were some kind of waste to be processed rather than human beings. there are also concerns about the impact this will have on trade policy, the good friday agreement, the windsor framework. the imprecations of what is happening here today could be far—reaching and long—lasting. and across many aspects of all our lives. then we move to cost. quite typical of the way this tory government runs its business, there has been secrecy over the cost with the permanent secretary finally forced to reveal the additional 100 million payment to rwanda after the figures showed up on some international monetary fund paperwork. this on top of 140 million last year and 50 million. it will cost £169,000 per asylum seeker, significantly more than if they were processed in the uk and allowed to rebuild their lives here and to contribute to society as so many dearly wish to do. we all know the capacity of this deal makes it practically impossible. the estimated capacity of 200 means the pub ability of being centre rwanda is one in 230. if the uk government were to remove everyone who did cross on a small boat last year, it would cost £7.7 billion. this would be an obscene use of public funds anytime but particular in a cost crisis. then there's the ongoing problem which the government is failing to address, those people who have arrived and won't be removed, forever stuck in limbo. at what cost? where will they stay and what will they do? the further danger of this bill is, it will force people into more risky behaviour. the refugee council have stated that almost everybody who arrives in the uk does so after being intercepted by the uk coastguard or the border force and may actively contact those agencies asking to be rescued. this bill makes it far less likely that they will do so. they will take more dangerous routes, they won't seek assistance and the inevitable result of this is that many more all die in the channel or in the back of the federated noise as a result of this legislation. it will also leave people at the mercy of exposure to people at the mercy of exposure to people traffickers. the fight against human trafficking is in practice it no longer a priority for the uk government. this bill and the illegal migration act makes this worse. the treaty also says there is nothing to stop people leaving rwanda once they are removed there, regardless of anything ministers may claim. the bbc, and their visitor rwanda, found those who had been removed there under other schemes do not wish to stay either. almost 2000 people have been relocated to the transit camp since it was set up in 2019, none opted to stay in rwanda, preferring instead to move to another country. so what do we have? an endless policy, the ramping up of tensions, and effective legislation, abolishing the asylum system altogether, undermining human right. it is like the tv series years and years on steroids. it doesn't have to be this way. together with refugees published a clear alternative to fixing this broken system and keeping people safe. ministers could not be less interested. the scottish government has recently published a paper setting out an alternative. in scotland, ending the hostile environment and ensuring a compassionate refugee and asylum policies would be a priority. we should neverforget policies would be a priority. we should never forget the traumas, unimaginable suffering that leads people to flee their homes. there are people just like us. people to flee their homes. there are peoplejust like us. we people to flee their homes. there are people just like us. we would hope to be treated for better than those in the government benches would have it, to find safety in century when we needed it most. it was on this principle that the refugee convention was created. we should stand up for that principle today and reject this cruel and illegal bill. today and re'ect this cruel and illegal bill.— illegal bill. just to clarify, the reasoned _ illegal bill. just to clarify, the reasoned amendment - illegal bill. just to clarify, the reasoned amendment that i illegal bill. just to clarify, the reasoned amendment that is | illegal bill. just to clarify, the - reasoned amendment that is been selected _ reasoned amendment that is been selected is the one in the name of the leader— selected is the one in the name of the leader of the opposition. i know that the _ the leader of the opposition. i know that the un—lady referred to that to start with — that the un—lady referred to that to start with. if i had any chance of getting — start with. if i had any chance of getting everybody in, i need to put a time—limit on, which i will do now _ a time—limit on, which i will do now it — a time—limit on, which i will do now it is — a time—limit on, which i will do now. it is eight women's —— eight minutes— now. it is eight women's —— eight minutes for— now. it is eight women's —— eight minutes for the moment. now. it is eight women's —— eight minutes forthe moment. i now. it is eight women's —— eight minutes for the moment. i have now. it is eight women's —— eight minutes forthe moment. i have been able to— minutes forthe moment. i have been able to notify the next speaker of that _ able to notify the next speaker of that in_ able to notify the next speaker of that. . ., ., .., , that. in the recent rwandan case, which is the _ that. in the recent rwandan case, which is the most _ that. in the recent rwandan case, which is the most recent - that. in the recent rwandan case, which is the most recent case - that. in the recent rwandan case, which is the most recent case on. which is the most recent case on matters relating to parliamentary intentions and the supremacy of law and the rule of law, and the proper location of the law, it is quite clear that one claimant, and it only requires one claimant, because his claim was dismissed by the court on the grounds that parliamentary sovereignty had already undermined his case, the case was about retaining eu law when it actually undermined the case of that claimant. this was a clear indication that the court was going to take the sovereignty of parliament first and that is the key issue in front of this debate. it has been said by the courts that sovereignty trumps international law. it is absolutely clear that thatis law. it is absolutely clear that that is the case and could i add that is the case and could i add that the house of lords constitution committee only this year said, article 58 of the report on the rule of law etc said, parliamentary southern tree means that parliament can legislate, contrary to the uk's obligations under international law. indeed, that was a reinforcement of the cases i have already mentioned in an intervention, including that of lord hoffmann as well as lord bingham, lord denning, our greatest jurists have all come to exactly the same conclusion, including the president of the current court, which dealt with the rwanda case, where he said the same thing in paragraph 144 of their report. he says, the principle of legality does not permit a court to disregard and an ambiguous expression of parliament was my intention such as that with which we are concerned. so the position is completely clear in those cases, if i may say before the un—lady seeks to intervene, i want to get this quite clear. the miller case was on a different set of circumstances at not only that, it has actually been overtaken by subsequent constitutionaljudgments subsequent constitutional judgments ljy subsequent constitutional judgments by the subsequent constitutionaljudgments by the supreme court itself. ijust want to quote now, i will give way and she can say what she likes. refreshing to note that my article ten rights have not been withdrawn yet. the point is this, he may be right as a matter of domestic law of england that the sovereignty of parliament, he may be right those of he may be right that the sovereignty of the english parliament allows england to change its domestic law internally. he may be right but what he is definitely not write about is this parliament cannot domestically legislate to take us out of our international legal obligations without doing so clearly. the supreme court has been crystal—clear about that. there are two separate matters here. the domestic law and international law. if the government wants to breach its international legal obligations, then am i not right, based on supreme court authority, that they will have to withdraw from the treaties? i am lad she withdraw from the treaties? i am glad she mentioned _ withdraw from the treaties? i am glad she mentioned the - withdraw from the treaties? i —n glad she mentioned the fact that an unambiguous statement, the explicit statement as to what the position is in interpreting the intentions of parliament does carry enormous weight and in fact, overrides international law obligations. i will read out does mike know, i will not give way. i will not give way. i am going to quote directly from zero hoffmann himself in relation to a case. he says, the convention is an international treaty on the echr is an international court with jurisdiction under international law to interpret and employ it but the question is a matter of initial law and it is firmly established that international treaties do not form part of english law and the english courts have no jurisdiction part of english law and the english courts have nojurisdiction to interpret or apply them. parliament may pass a law which mirrors the terms and treaty and in that sense, incorporates the treaty into english law, but even then, the corporation may be misleading. it is not the treaty but the statute which forms part of english law and english laws will not, unless the statute expressly supplies, bound to the treaty by international court. even though the united kingdom is bound by international law to do so. of course there is a strong presumption in favour of interpreting english law in a way which does not place the uk in breach of international law, but, this is what he says, this is absurdly crucial here. but, the sovereign legislator in the united kingdom is parliament. if parliament has laid down the law, it is the duty of the court to apply it whether that would involve the crown in breach of an international treaty or not. that is what it is and that is as straightforward interpretation and statement of what has been said. now there is an issue which i want to come unto because my honourable friend, who i praise for his courage, and a brilliant speech, i would simply say, i would endorse every word he said. i would also simply like to say this, we want the government to succeed in its legislation but it has to be legislation but it has to be legislation that works. as i have explained, in relation to the supreme court, the whole question turns on the intention of parliament and sovereignty of parliament, it is and sovereignty of parliament, it is a question ofjustice ability as well. if there are to be amendments, and i put this to my right honourable friend, my noble friend, i'm sure he will be right honourable soon, the fact is, when it comes to it, in this bill, we can make changes. it is possible to extend the scope of the bill and it is possible and i hope we will have discussions with the clerk of public bills, who i have had discussions with already. the point is this, it is absolutely clear that the scope of the bill will determine amendments, whether they are from the government orfrom amendments, whether they are from the government or from backbenchers. it does matter that we are entitled to have a proper debate about this fundamental question about international law and iteration ship to sovereignty. 0nly international law and iteration ship to sovereignty. only one case taken to sovereignty. only one case taken to the courts on this bill, if enacted, could be scuppered by a claimant and by the courts if the words of the act were not clear expressed and explicit in ruling out any such claim, for example under clause four, or any other heading such as rule 39 and all these other things which we will trot out no doubt when it comes to committee stage, if we get there. what i can say however is, you have to address the question of the scope of the bill because that is the way parliament functions. that is the way the speaker has to decide about the selection of amendments, so this is crucially important. i would also like to conclude by saying because i have much more i could say, but i want to draw attention to this global issue. the fact is, in the whole of the uk european union, there is a real problem. they are tearing their hair out because they have the chancellor of fundamental rights on the one hand and they are bound by qualifying majority are floating to comply with the situation, which is actually not the same as us because we have a unique opportunity in our parliamentary system with the sovereignty of parliament to be able to make amendments and to provide domestic law that will satisfy the voters of this country. law that will satisfy the voters of this country-— law that will satisfy the voters of this country. can i first started by expressing _ this country. can i first started by expressing my — this country. can i first started by expressing my condolences - this country. can i first started by expressing my condolences on i this country. can i first started by| expressing my condolences on the news of the death of an asylum singer on a barge this morning. it is now almost one year since the prime minister pledged to stop the boats. no one here is arguing against that goal. we all want to see an end to people risking their lives by getting in small boats and crossing the channel however the home affairs select committee stated very clearly in our report last year that there was no silver bullet to end a small boat crossings. we said it would together write it of policies to be adopted including a safe and legal roots, a