I MIGHT CHOOSE FRANCE

I was listening this morning to the Today Program on BBC Radio 4 and a couple of members of the House of Lords were interviewed in relation to the Rwanda Bill now before the House of Lords for scrutiny, amendments and approval.  The bill is the fabrication of the Government in response to the Supreme Court’s decision against deporting refugees to Rwanda on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to declare that Rwanda was a safe country. It was drafted to override the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and any legal pronouncements by the Court of Human Rights.

 

The apologists for the Rwanda Bill such as Michael Howard are amazing in their duplicity of thought. Whilst arguing that Rwanda is a perfectly safe country, and people should have nothing to fear by being sent there, he firmly believes that the policy is right and will act as a deterrent to people attempting the journey across the Channel from France. He added this at the end of his interview on the Today program this morning.

 

“After all France is a perfectly safe country…  and if people have the option of staying in France or going to Rwanda it’s a fair bet that they might choose France”

 

So Rwanda is a safe country, but the prospect of being sent there is so awful that the risk of being sent there outweighs the risk of crossing the channel in a rubber dingy. I wish someone could explain that is more detail.

 

The other argument put forward by Lord Howard was that the unanimous decision of the five justices was wrong and overstepped their role as unelected judges in deciding government policy. The separation of powers is rightly accepted, but it is for parliament to decide on such matters and not the judiciary. Parliament is sovereign in all matters. The Divisional Court had stated that the Rwanda Policy was lawful and this bill is to restore the status quo that Parliament is sovereign. It is not for unelected Judges to adjudicate against that, which the government claim is what the Supreme Court did. Parliament is accountable, they are elected representatives, the Judges are not. In respect of the separation of powers, in this instance the court has overstepped the mark.  

 

So what we have is effectively a constitutional issue relating to conflict of law and legislation or rather argument as to the interpretation of legislation by the courts. What is legislated by parliament becomes law. The courts enforce and interpret the legislation with regard to the law as written in the statues produced by the legislature together with the already existing common law - at least what little of it still exists. If the Government thinks that the courts have wrongly interpreted the law, then it can produce legislation clarifying the position, to better reflect the intentions of Parliament. Which is what is going on at present.

 

Before that happens the proposed legislation must be approved by Parliament, which includes the House of Lords, although the final say is down to the House of Commons. Fort5unately in this case, not everyone agrees with the likes of Lord Howard, even though the majority of the Lords is made up of Conservative Party adherents.  There are some ex-conservative ministers who disagree radically with Lord Howard. Lord Kenneth Clarke being one.

 

The Rwanda fiasco is the policy of our present Conservative Government. There is the matter of the separation of powers – executive, legislative and judicial – but this government’s party majority in Parliament is such that its policies, no matter how stupid or venal, are bound to get through. In effect, because of the nature of the system - Government always being made up from the majority parliamentary party - the executive and legislative end up being one and the same. So the only other separate power to scrutinise and balance the workings of the government is the judiciary, who are, quite rightly, left to be independent. The judiciary ensures the continuance and strength of the rule of law. Parliament may make the law but it is the judiciary that has to enforce it and bad law can sometimes be found to actually be contrary to the rule of law. Hence clarification is sometimes necessary. The Government can do what it likes up to a point. The judiciary have a duty to make that point to the government,

 

What also surprised me about Lord Howard’s interview was that he kept referring to Parliament being sovereign and saying elected representatives are the ones who are accountable, as opposed to judges who are not elected. Parliament is not just the House of Commons, which he seemed to be implying. The House of Lords is not elected either, yet it is part of the Parliament. Are the Lords not accountable? Should their views be ignored as well? Every person is accountable for his/her actions. It doesn’t take a vote to decide that.

 

Parliament may be sovereign, but it too is subject to the rule of law. Legislation based solely on opinion and not on fact and evidence is a poor basis for creating law. Those politicians who proudly proclaim to act on their belief have led us into the worst of nightmares and wars. The not so long ago belief in non-existent weapons of mass destruction is an instance in point. Deterrence has not worked as an effective policy since the severity of the Hammurabi Code nearly 4000 years ago. If it had, the world would be without violence or dishonesty.

 

Which brings us back to the Rwanda policy. Deterrence or fiscal necessity. Cheaper to send the refugees abroad that to have to deal with them in the UK? Either way is expensive. Given the numbers that are likely to be sent there and the cost involved per individual, it may be more economic in the long run to let them stay, find employment and start paying taxes. I know that’s not so simple to do in this day and age by anyone, let alone a refugee; but, it may be more profitable as time goes by.

 

In any event, I don’t know, just expressing an opinion on the options.  To paraphrase Michel Howard, France is a perfectly safe country, if people now had an option of staying in France or going to Brexit Britain, it’s a safe bet they might choose France.