Ms Stella Creasy
MP for Walthamstow · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear-sighted commitment not only to talk about a two-state solution, but to actually try to act to achieve it, as the only foundation of a safe Israel and a free Palestine.”
“Could he reassure the House that we will not acquiesce and bend to such pressure, and that the only action that could ever be acceptable to us to make us contemplate reversing this ban would be a halt on the E1 development and a permanent end to settler violence?”
“I start by paying tribute to the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for all the work she did on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on these issues. I know that she will do a brilliant job in this role.”
“I do not really understand the technology, but I know that he does, and I understand and share his fear accordingly. We come here today to debate this Bill because we all know that trust is a bygone issue in our politics.”
“We would welcome her having that conversation, which might be more illuminating than whether she is concerned about Zach Goldmsith’s leaflets. I add my support to the amendments tabled by my hon.”
“From today, if we do not take a stand with this Bill to tackle the ways that money has infiltrated our politics, the risk is that they will think we are acting in the interests of our own back pockets.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,976 lines we hold for Ms Stella Creasy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 100.
“In that way, we will generally be confident that our pet welfare is one of the best things that we can look forward to.”
“There is a lot going on in the world and, obviously, some very serious matters are facing us, but there is such a level of agreement across the Chamber that it is right to clarify things and have this legislation. We have had the frustration and disappointment of having done all the work, looked at the law and found a way through the challenges that people have identified, only to see the legislation dropped, I hope that Minister will recognise that there is full support in the House for the Bill. We just need to get this done, put the protection in place and help ensure that the 54% of us who have one can take our pet out to the park—we will try to shut our doors to prevent our cats from leaving the house and becoming the Six Dinner Sids.”
“The constituents who come to me are devastated when their pets have been stolen and they feel that nobody else cares. The message we are sending from Parliament today is that we do think somebody should care and we do think it is a serious matter. Finally, I join others in congratulating all the brilliant voluntary organisations that help us as a nation of pet lovers. The hon. Member for Southend West talked about Tilly’s Angels. We have Waltham Forest for Cats and Waltham Forest 4 Dogs. They are two separate groups, obviously—like Sharks and Jets, never the twain shall meet. Those organisations rightly reflect that love and affection.”
“A siamese cat can cost between £300 and £400 to buy. An English bulldog is £2,000 for a puppy. A dachshund is £1,500, and even a cocker spaniel is £300 to £600. It is not, therefore, a surprise that there is a trade in stealing animals and pets to re-sell. When the police response is simply to dismiss that and not even investigate, we are giving a green light for that to continue. I fully support the Bill and the message we are sending by the clarity of having specific pet abduction legislation. It is important to have data from police forces about the scale of the crime. As we know with other crimes, data is the start of the investigation. If we do not know where these crimes are taking place, we cannot then look for the patterns that help us identify the people behind them. I also recognise the distress that this crime causes.”
“There are no other items under theft legislation of such value that we would then expect the police to say, “Well, it’s a civil matter. Sorry about the loss of your cat, but we are not going to investigate.” It is actually a very valuable item, in addition to the emotional distress. Another constituent’s son’s ex-girlfriend stole their dog. The dog was microchipped, so it was very clearly owned by the family, but the police told her that it was a civil matter and therefore they would not assist. Again, I would just point out that there are other examples of those kinds of disputes where items have been taken and the police have clearly recognised it as theft. After all, often breaking and entering is facilitating the seizure and abduction of a pet. That is partly because some of the breeds we are talking about are incredibly valuable.”
“More seriously, it is a worry to me that the experience of my constituents who have sadly experienced this challenge—one reason why I wanted to speak and support the Bill—has been so difficult with the police. The emotional impact or, frankly, the financial consequences are not being taken into account. In my short contribution, I want us to be clear that, yes absolutely, we recognise the emotional distress when somebody’s cat or dog is taken, but the trade behind that is also why legislating for this specific offence and addressing it is very worth doing. I want to share some of the experiences of my constituents. One constituent had a Bengal cat stolen. Bengal cats can go for up to £5,000 if it is a particular type of breed.”
“There was an explosion in the number of cases of pets being stolen during the pandemic, and the response people received from the police tells us that there is something wrong with the way things are being dealt with. By legislating, we are sending a very clear message that we want that to be different. This is a long-overdue change and I pay tribute to the pet theft taskforce—one can only imagine what its meetings were like and whether they took place in dog or cat cafés around the country. The way in which things have been slightly re-jigged for cats and dogs is also right. As Granny Meow, Six Dinner Sid and most of us know, cats are different creatures, whether they act like their owners or their owners become like them.”
“Perhaps that is why they should be mandatory in Parliament. I always thought we should be able to have them in our offices. Maybe that would help some of our conversations. They lower blood pressure and they are good for loneliness. As a nation, half of us own a pet. In fact, the quarter of people who own a cat own more than one. We might have more people owning dogs, but we have more people being owned by multiple cats—those Six Dinner Sids. The message the Bill sends is that this is not an insignificant matter. That answers the question from the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) about the need for additional legislation. One reason to legislate in this place is when we see widespread patterns of harm.”
“It is a genuine pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow the comprehensive report by the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), the expertise of the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and, of course, Granny Meow. should declare that I have often voted in the Westminster dog of the year competition—I have obviously voted for everybody’s beautiful dog, if anybody asks—but I have never participated. I still own a rather elderly cat, who would probably not win any awards, except from me. She is not of any particular breed, apart from loved. But we recognise that pet ownership is an intrinsic part of many people’s lives, and for good reasons. There is a lot of evidence that owning a pet can help with stress.”
“With so many people struggling with the cost of living crisis, surely the best thing is to think again. The scheme will make things harder for British business; at worst, it will be a nightmare. I ask the Minister: will she give people some relief and say that it is off again?”
“Above all, what is she doing to warn the public about the potential impact on their food supply and costs? Or is she prepared to say here and now, on the record, that there will be no delay in food provision, no shortages and no increase in prices? Nobody wants to eat meat that has been sitting in the docks or beeswax that is off, even if it had a health certificate when it started its journey. Because of what is happening, the UK has already dropped from fourth in the World Bank logistics performance index to joint 19th. The main challenges result from border friction, which is contributing to the decline in just-in-time supply chains and efficient customs. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that this scheme will clearly make things harder for British business. No wonder it has been delayed five times.”
“What commercial confidentiality behind calculating inflation and the impact of the policies possibly trumps the public’s right to know how expensive it will be to put food on the table? No doubt the Minister will say that an outbreak of foot and mouth disease would cost business more than this scheme, but will she set out the cost of the administration of this project, separately from the health checks that the Government have calculated? Can she clarify the timetable for the introduction of the west coast port charges and what the difference in the regime will be? Will she explain why the Government have not negotiated a veterinary deal? Are they even looking at the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention to try to solve these problems without giving businesses all this extra paperwork?”
“The Government have admitted that this will cause inflation, but they are trying to claim it is going to be just 0.2% over three years. In their response to me, they said that “will depend greatly on how businesses adapt their business models and supply chains to integrate the new controls regimes”, putting the pressure on business to pay for the Government’s scheme. Will the Minister clarify what the variation might be if businesses do not do that, and what has been calculated into inflation, if they cannot get to grips with the Government’s new system? What impact is her Department predicting that the situation will have on food prices in that first year—not over three years, but in the first year? Why will this Government not come clean on the data sources they are using to make those calculations?”
“Is it in addition to all the other charges from the Port Health Authority and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and does it cover customs fees? If the checks are not going to be made, when will they be made? What will she do about traffic management in Kent? Currently, there are 40 inspectors in the port of Dover. How many has her Department assessed are needed, and why are only 30% of them being checked, if this is about biosecurity? What will they do if a lorry goes to the wrong port, or tries to shop around? Does she expect different border control ports to charge the same fees for their services, or will they set their own? How will she stop those lorries from trying to game the system? Can the Minister tell us about the status of the single trade window project, and whether Fujitsu is involved in its delivery at all?”
“If there are not going to be checks on lorries in 12 days’ time, as she has previously told businesses, when will the health certificate checks come in? What will happen to a lorry that does not have one? Can she confirm that the opening hours for the border control posts match the just-in-time supply chains, so that we do not see lorries of rotting foods sitting in our ports waiting to be checked? When will the common user charge be applied and what will it be? If it is common, it should be uniform, so can she tell businesses here and now whether it is happening and what it will be per consignment, or whether it will take account of groupage? The Government said in December that they would provide this information and businesses are still waiting. Will the Minister confirm what the common user charge will cover?”
“Goodness knows what is happening in the west coast ports, which are operating to a different timetable. That will open up further loopholes and complications with ports such as Holyhead, Pembroke and Fishguard, which are the land bridge to Ireland, also facing confusion. I have a series of questions for the Minister, and I hope that she will take interventions when she responds so that we can get to the bottom of this. First and foremost, can the Minister actually confirm whether any checks will be made to lorries on our borders in 12 days’ time to see whether the goods in them have environmental health certificates? What work is her Government doing to ensure that there are enough vets in Europe to provide the certificates? Can she confirm whether they even exist?”
“Little wonder that Nichola Mallon, Logistics UK’s head of trade policy, says that businesses have still not been given all of the detail and guidance they need to plan and prepare and that there is a high risk of delays, traffic congestion, higher prices and reduced choice for consumers. We all understand the need for checks to stop things such as African swine flu, but given that this country has not even signed up to be part of the shared biosecurity alerts, it is clear that there are other things we could do to help tackle that. Those charged with running the service certainly have their doubts. Health inspectors at Dover have had a 70% cut to their funding to do any of the work to try to stop infections reaching our shores in the first place. Those in Dover would know about all this, because they are in the frontline.”
“They say that they are willing to risk friction rather than the paperwork. The Institute of Export and International Trade points out that more than 20 different measures on imports will come into force between the end of last September and the end of this year. The freight representatives point out that the lorry drivers need to go through the same entry and exit systems, and will be in the queues behind the schoolkids and the holidaymakers under- going checks. They will be stuck behind those school coaches, with all the knock-on effects for the picking up and transportation of imported consignments. The representatives say they estimate that would create around 70 miles of freight traffic, turning Dover into a literal lorry park.”
“Those “not for EU” stickers, which will help to protect the border with the EU and Ireland, reflect the lunacy of all those people who tried to argue that technology could prevent trade barriers. In a situation where we are the smaller market, it is not hard to see that, when companies trading in multiple nations are faced with such policies, they will move away from doing business with us, focusing instead on less complicated markets. Between 1999 and 2000, the EU accounted for 50% to 55% of UK exports. By 2022, that had already fallen to 42%. Traders in Belgium have already publicly said that they are not going to spend any more time trying to figure out what the Government are up to. They say that they have been marched up the hill too many times, only for the scheme to be delayed at the last minute.”
“Joining the pan-European Mediterranean convention, which is wider than the EU and includes Israel and north African countries, would also help, as businesses could make use of the EU hubs where products from outside are often consolidated. Frankly, even if businesses pay, there is no guarantee that they will get a service. The Government are planning to check just 30% of imports. Just when I thought it could not get any more complicated, in 286 days’ time they want to introduce safety and security declarations for all EU imports. These will be required even if the pallets coming in on a truck are empty. It relies on the single trade window process not being a total disaster, yet at present businesses have no idea whether the technology is working. Of course, all of this is different for businesses trading from Northern Ireland.”
“It would be helpful for British businesses to know whether it is coming in at all in 100 days’ time, as well as knowing what the charge will be. The charge is intended to apply to each consignment, whether it is one leg of lamb or a van full of reindeer and frogs’ legs. As 65% of lorries coming into this country carry multiple consignments, known as groupage, it is clear how expensive this way of applying the charge will be. The Government have therefore chosen to fund the new border by imposing fees directly on businesses that import. The pledge that Brexit would be a bonfire of regulation turned into a smouldering pile of paperwork that will kill imports for small businesses. It does not have to be that way. A veterinary deal with Europe could remove the requirement for export health certificates.”
“Ministers have told me that more than half of the expected £330 million annual cost of the scheme to businesses will come from these certificates, but they have also said that it is not as bad as the more onerous tracking system they previously suggested, which would have cost businesses £520 million a year. Frankly, that is like me telling my kids that they should be grateful that I have let them keep the bell on their Lindt bunny because I was originally going to take that too, along with all the chocolate. Health certificates are one thing, but the Government have also been consulting on introducing a charge to cover the cost of the scheme—the so-called common user charge. That is planned for April, just 100 days away. The consultation says the charge could be £43, but it might be less or more.”
“Sevington in Kent cost £154 million, including £70 million on the border control post infrastructure alone, and £25 million has been spent on Portsmouth, £12 million on Holyhead and £3 million on North Weald. I am sure those communities would rather use the money for something else. In theory, all of that will finally change this year. In just 12 days’ time, if businesses want to import pork, beef, reindeer, camel, frogs’ legs, cream, yoghurt, flour, beeswax—but not honey—or animal paws, they will need a health certificate. That all means finding a vet who will sign the health check.”
“Frankly, geography matters, which is why adding more friction to the process will lead not only to shortages and delays but to inflation and costs for everyone. Under this Tory hard Brexit, we left the EU customs union, the single market and the VAT area, and we have been threatening our own customs controls ever since. Understandably, businesses have been driven mad by the fact that those controls have been postponed five times. In the meantime, we have all been stuck with the bill at the checkouts. The white elephants of Brexit stand empty at our expense, as the Government have spent more than £700 million on border facilities and jobs.”
“It is a combination of higher transport costs, supply chain designs, customs complexity and reduced volumes. Whatever we do at the border will be critical to the nation’s capacity to eat more than porridge, given that oats are one of the few things for which we produce 100% of what we consume. Let us not pretend that other countries can pick up the slack for us. Although the Government are negotiating free trade agreements with six other countries and have two agreed, these will not be able to replace the food we import from the EU. And if we care about animal welfare, we should want to work with the EU because it still has equivalent animal welfare standards, contrary to Australia and New Zealand, from which food can now be imported, tariff free, without any equivalence to our welfare standards.”
“In 2021, we imported £10 billion-worth of fruit and vegetables from the EU, £6 billion-worth of drinks and the same amount of meat. The EU accounts for 90% of all the dairy, beef, egg and pork products coming to the UK, and nearly two thirds of all food and feed not of animal origin. Some 40% of that is from just four countries: the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany and France. It is little wonder that Brexit has already hit our food prices and supply. Research from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics shows that. We all saw the empty shelves and rationing, and businesses are clear that it is Brexit, not Ukraine and the energy crisis, that is pushing up the prices of production and causing all those problems. That is all before we even get to the new import controls.”
“The Government cannot make Brexit work, and it is causing problems to millions of people every day. I am not standing here advocating that we ask to rejoin, either. Frankly, with all the problems we are facing for businesses and jobs because of it, we do not have time for such treaty negotiations. This debate is about what this Government are doing now to manage our borders, and the very real consequences of their decisions for food security and the cost and nutrition of food. Currently, the UK imports around 46% of our food—we are self-sufficient for 54%. Our trade with other countries is the reason why we have food to eat and are not all just eating turnips and cabbages, delicious though those home-grown delicacies are.”
“The Government intend to introduce a charge of £40 a time to import things from the EU into the UK from April. That might come as a surprise to many businesses, because they do not know about it, and most of our constituents likely do not. I think that is because the Government are not even sure that they want to do it. Today, I hope to get some answers about the border operating model on behalf of all those who will pay the price if it actually happens—namely, the British public. Brexit is the gift that keeps giving. Like contracting recurrent food poisoning, we think we have seen the worst of it only to feel that sick feeling in our stomach again. Pints of wine and blue passports cannot make up for the inflationary impact of this latest dose of extra paperwork and delay. For the avoidance of doubt, we have left the European Union.”
“Can I be critical? We are talking about something that is potentially coming in in 12 days’ time. I recognise that I gave her a long list of questions because there is so much that comes from this policy. Let me give her three that we would really appreciate a direct answer on. First, what checks will be done in 12 days’ time at our border on the lorries? Will there be any checks at all on the health certificates? Secondly, what will the common user charge be in April, in 100 days’ time? What will businesses have to pay to import? Thirdly, will she say on the record, here and now, that there will be no impact on food pricing or food availability in the UK as a result of these policies—yes or no?”
“Can I just put on the record on behalf of British business—this is mad? We are talking about something that is happening in 12 days’ time. Trucks do not know whether they will need to provide a PDF of the check at the border. In 100 days’ time, there will allegedly be a charge, but nobody knows what that charge will be, so nobody can factor that into their costs, let alone—”
“So there we have it: in 12 days’ time, businesses will have to pay for these certificates, but they will not be asked to provide them, and in 100 days’ time they might have an extra cost but they do not know what it is—”
“As somebody who has served on the Council of Europe and was proud to do so because of the United Kingdom’s history of setting it up to protect citizens from overbearing Governments, I think it is worth looking at the data on interim measures. In 2019, 82 requests were made to the Strasbourg Court for interim measures against this Government and zero were granted; in 2020, 47 requests were made and two were granted; and in 2021, 51 requests were made against this Government and five were granted. That is just seven out of 180. Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that this Government get things right all the time, so there should be no capacity to challenge them legally, even when irrevocable harm is on the agenda?”
“Those who are worried about social media may also find it useful to use their phones in the Chamber to double-check those international obligations, and indeed the original text of the European convention on human rights, which states explicitly: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” From the start, it was intended that there was a check— [Interruption.] I listened to the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick); I hope that he will accord the same respect and courtesy to me. Does my hon. Friend agree that, from the start, it was envisaged that it was an important check and balance to involve the courts in decision making?”
“I am pleased to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say on the question of international law. Does he share my concern—and I fully accept that I am not as legally qualified as him—that the Government’s own legal advice says that by stating that the Bill is incompatible, it makes it compatible? Is that not worthy of the mad March Hare when it comes to consistency in standing up for the rule of law?”
“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.”
“They want to uphold Government Ministers as judge and jury, and it does not even align with their own data on how many people they were granting asylum to when their cases were heard. Nevertheless the point about the ECHR is the point that was understood by Churchill and, I believe, by many of us in the Chamber: we withdraw at our peril the opportunity for that freedom to be heard, that freedom for a fair trial and for somebody else to hear your case against an overbearing state.”
“He might be concerned about the idea of a judge and jury existing in the same person. The very principles that led to setting up the European Court of Human Rights are ones that we all feel every single day, because it does not just defend those basic things like a right to family life or the right to privacy, it also defends a process by which those rights are upheld. Even if the Chair wanted to take somebody to task for not following the rules in this place, they might at least be entitled to a fair hearing or a fair trial for what they had done. Yet what the Bill does is remove that concept of a fair hearing from those people in our country who are often some of the most vulnerable: people fleeing torture and persecution.”
“Let me to try think through a real world example of why those rights might be upheld by a third party. One could think of somebody, perhaps a Member of this House who did not have the respect and courtesy for other people speaking in this debate to even stay and listen to them shortly after he had spoken; somebody who thought that the rules did not apply to him, that the treatment of others was not something that mattered and who perhaps was far too busy worrying about his social media account. The Chair would want to hold him to account, and rightly so. Goodness, many of us would think he might need legal representation for what could happen next. He would want his day in court. He might not want to be in the Chamber when we were talking about those very issues.”
“How dare he believe that working with other countries was the way to protect those rights? As he said: “In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.” The scoundrel. What sort of rights was he trying to protect? What sort of abuses by the state did he dare to think we might need a court to uphold for us? The right to family life? A travesty, surely. The right to privacy? I mean, goodness me, what a terrible thing to be concerned about. The right to freedom from torture or the right to liberty, or even the right to freedom of thought? Well, no wonder we need to look at all this again. How terrible those things must sound to those of us who are not legally qualified and who cannot see the rub there.”
“The Government state that the Bill is: “a clear statement of Parliament’s view that Rwanda is safe, ‘notwithstanding’ all specified domestic legislation and the common law, and any alternative interpretation of international law including customary international law”. For those of us who are not qualified, the word “notwithstanding” is doing an awful lot of work to justify the diminution of rights for people in our country and the concept that somehow international law does not protect us. So much of the anger we have heard about the idea of a foreign court has come from it being about the European Court of Human Rights: that it is an affront to our democracy that that organisation is part of protecting those rights, liberties and freedoms on which we depend. How dare Winston Churchill sign us up to such a thing?”
“It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and many of the colleagues sat next to him who have brought an immense level of legal expertise to their concerns about the Bill. Let me try to offer something different, as somebody who is not legally qualified: a lay person’s view or perspective on what the Bill is doing, in particular why I tabled and will speak to amendment 9, and why I support the amendments in the name of my Front Bench colleagues. This is not about the R of refugees or even the R of Rwanda; it is about the R of rights—the rights we enjoy that protect those freedoms and liberties that so many of us fight for, are passionate about, and believe are intrinsic to a good life.”
“We should be proud and confident in our capacity to speak up for human rights and to recognise that a right to an effective remedy is an integral part of that. There is no point having a right if we cannot exercise it, and that means having a separate body to oversee the process and ensure that it is fair to all parties.”
“Gentleman would do well to reflect on that and perhaps reread some of those arguments—as well as the rules about taking part in a parliamentary debate. When Churchill talked about welcoming any country in which the people owned the Government, he was talking about democracy, and our courts are an integral part of our democracy because they keep Governments honest, even if they are straining with this current Administration. Just two countries have left the European Court of Human Rights. I was there when we expelled Russia because of its aggression and when we tried to prevent it from coming back. Greece left in 1967 when it was under a military regime and rejoined once democracy was restored.”
“I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not here earlier to be part of the conversation. I am sure that he would want his own right of remedy to explain why he could not be bothered to be here at the start. He would have heard the debate that we had about the original intention of the Court. Let me quote back to him the original document, which states: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” From the start, Churchill himself advocated for the Court as a backstop against overbearing Governments that could speak for people and prosecute people in ways that were being talked about after the second world war without any challenge. I do not quote Churchill sarcastically. I recognise what he saw at the time: the danger of authoritarianism. The hon.”
“I know the right hon. and learned Lady feels this passionately, but will she clarify her concern about a “foreign court”? What does she think NATO is?”
“The Prime Minister said that the stated aims of this action were to degrade the capacity to strike. We have had confirmation that today another cargo ship—a US cargo ship—has been struck by a ballistic missile. There have been explosions at the Yemeni port of Hodeidah. The Defence Secretary told the media this morning that this Government were prepared to “take the decisions that need to be taken” if the attacks continue. Given the news that the attacks have continued, will the Prime Minister set out what those decisions are and how he intends to involve Parliament in that process?”
“Happy new year to you and your team, Mr Speaker. It is clear that any sustainable ceasefire will have to involve an accountability mechanism for the allegations of war crimes, whether the taking of hostages, rape or genocide. Now that there is the case before the International Court of Justice brought by South Africa, UK residents have a right to know the approach that their Government are taking to that. I asked the Minister on 11 and 19 December to set out what mechanism for upholding international law the Government support. For the avoidance of doubt, will he now say that the Government have a position on the court and what role it will play, and whether he believes all parties should abide by any outcomes from it?”
“The challenge in securing a sustainable ceasefire—many of us have been calling for a ceasefire for some time—is not just the immediate military concerns, but the allegations of war crimes. Just in the past week alone, the Minister will have seen Houthi forces attacking shipping in the Red sea. He will have seen the situation outlined so powerfully by our colleague, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), in the Holy Family church. On 11 December, when I asked the Minister about this issue, he told the House that the Government were continuing “to identify and look for mechanisms for ensuring that there can be no impunity” —[ Official Report , 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 618-19.] for anybody who commits a war crime. Can he update us on whether he has identified such a mechanism and what that might be?”
“It is time the British public woke up to what this Government are doing. We cannot amend ourselves out of this challenge without, on the one side, Tweedledum and, on the other, Tweedledee arguing anymore. This is a mess. It ruins our international standing, it is more money being wasted and it is more time in this place being wasted, when we could go after the traffickers and those exploiting vulnerable people fleeing persecution. We should speak up for the values that, post war, we stood for in the world, including supporting people who are at risk of persecution. This legislation will not stop the boats, it will not stop the rot and it will not stop the Tory party tearing itself apart. Britain deserves better. With this side of the House, it will get it.”
“No wonder a ministerial direction has been required to uphold this policy. Parliament can pass any law it likes stating that things should happen. We could pass laws saying that there should not be smoking on the streets of Paris, but it does not mean it will happen, and that is the legal fallacy at the heart of this Bill, along with the Home Office permanent secretary saying there is no deterrent effect. I could pass legislation to say I can sing, but if Members came to karaoke with me, they would quickly realise the truth. The cold, hard reality of the law is that the Bill does not change the facts that the Supreme Court identified, and only the people who think it is a deterrent think that they can somehow keep saying to the courts, “No, no, no—Rwanda is safe,” like some kind of Vicky Pollard approach to making legislation.”