Labour defends Rochdale candidate Azhar Ali in latest antisemitism row

Both Tory and Labour peers warned of their belief that the Bill could set dangerous precedents for the Government.

Tory peer Lord Tugendhat said: “I have been a member of Parliament for a very long time on and off, and I have been a member of the Conservative party for some 66 years when I counted it up, and I do have to say that I find it quite extraordinary that the party of Margaret Thatcher should be introducing a Bill of this kind.”

The Conservative grandee, whose nephew is security minister Tom Tugendhat, claimed the Bill could have an impact on the UK’s perception as a “marvellous place to do business because of our great respect for the rule of law”.

Lord Tugendhat added: “What we are being asked to do really represents the sort of behaviour that the world associates with despots and autocracies, not with an established democracy, not with the Mother of Parliaments. It is a Bill we should not even be asked to confront, let alone pass.”

Labour former justice secretary Lord Falconer of Thoroton meanwhile told peers: “Suppose the prime minister has a friend or a crony on the House of Commons who is convicted in a court of corruption of some sort, and then the prime minister presents a bill to Parliament saying it it the judgment of Parliament that ‘Snooks MP’ actually wasn’t able to present this new evidence to the criminal court that convicted him, so it is the judgment of Parliament that Snooks MP is innocent.

“That is the route that this particular Bill takes Parliament down.”

Former Tory leader Michael Howard said the Supreme Court’s finding that Rwanda is not a safe place to send asylum seekers was not one of fact, but one of opinion, reports political correspondent Archie Mitchell.

Lord Howard said that it is then entirely appropriate “for parliament to substitute its own opinion… that is what this bill does, and that is why I support it”.

The Tory grandee, who led the party in Opposition during the early 2000s, also said: “The plain fact is that we are a parliamentary democracy. That means that Parliament is sovereign, and the reason why so many of us cherish that overarching principle is that we attach high importance to something called accountability.”

A Conservative peer has said it is “extraordinary that the party of Margaret Thatcher should be introducing a bill of this kind”.

Opposing the Rwanda bill, Lord Tugendhat said: “We in this country boast frequently that Britain is such a marvellous place to do business, because of our great respect for the rule of law.”

And he added that it would be “very difficult to sustain that argument” if the Safety of Rwanda Bill became law.

“It does seem to me that we are going against a fundamental interest, not just in terms of this issue, but in terms of our wider reputation,” Lord Tugendhat said.

Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti said the Rwanda bill “threatens both the domestic rule of law, especially the separation of powers, and the international rules-based order”.

The barrister and human rights activist led calls for the Government to heed advice from the UN about whether Rwanda is safe before beginning deportations, adding: “I will assume that the Government does not want to put the executive of the United Kingdom on a collision course with our Supreme Court or our international legal obligations.

“So amendments in this group seek to offer a way through the stalemate for people of good will from all sides of your Lordships House.”

Lady Chakrabarti said the proposals would mean no one was removed to Rwanda under the Government’s plans “unless two conditions are met”.

She added: “The first condition is that there is advice from the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees) that Rwanda is now safe, for example as a result of the successful implementation of promised reforms and safeguards to the asylum system there.

“The second condition is that this advice has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

Claiming Parliament believes Rwanda is a safe country to send asylum seekers to is “manifestly untrue”, Tory peer Viscount Hailsham said.

Lord Hailsham, who previously served in the Commons as Douglas Hogg, criticised a line in the Bill which says “this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”.

“It is simply untrue to state that it is the judgement of Parliament that Rwanda is a safe country. That may be the opinion of the House of Commons”, the peer said, noting that MPs can come under pressure from party whips, and adding “but what is absolutely certain is that it is not the opinion of this House.”

The town was targeted by airstrikes overnight, with the Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu signalling his intention to carry out a ground offensive in the area.

Read the full article here:

Plans to ensure ministers heed the opinion of the United Nations about whether Rwanda is safe for refugees are an “abdication of the responsibilities of Government”, a former Conservative party leader has warned.

Lord Howard of Lympne opposed amendments to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill aimed at ensuring Parliament considers advice from the UN about Rwanda’s safety, as peers began line by line scrutiny of the proposals.

The Tory grandee, who led the party in Opposition during the early 2000s, said: “The plain fact is that we are a parliamentary democracy. That means that Parliament is sovereign, and the reason why so many of us cherish that overarching principle is that we attach high importance to something called accountability.

To contrast Parliament with the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees, he asked: “To whom is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees accountable? Perhaps they might say to the general assembly of the United Nations. To whom is that body accountable?”

Lord Howard added: “The acceptance of these amendments would constitute nothing less than an abdication of the responsibilities of Government.”

Defence minister the Earl of Minto was also pressed over Donald Trump’s remarks during questions in the House of Lords.

The Tory frontbencher said: “I am sure all members will find that particular gentleman’s comments extraordinary.”

He added: “I can assure all peers that the Ministry of Defence is looking into all possibilities very seriously.”

The Bank of England’s former top economist has said Sir Keir Starmer’s u-turn on green spending was “unfortunate”.

Andy Haldane, who left the central bank in 2021, said the original £28bn annual spending pledge was “big, it was bold and ambitious”.

“It led the world, actually, in terms of its scale. And we now have seen a number of other countries playing catch up, putting forward their own plans,” he told Sky News.

But after Sir Keir scaled back the plan, to instead spend £23.7bn over a five-year term in government, Mr Haldane said it was “a shame”.

He added: “Scaling back our plans in the UK at the same time as other countries have stepped up their plans, is unfortunate for two reasons.

“One, it slows our transition to net zero, which is really important. And two, we do need that investment. And the Green Prosperity plan was about that extra dose of investment to stimulate growth. So I rather lament the sort of paring back of those plans.”