Migrants are taken ashore in Dover on Thursday
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg said it was “perfectly right” for Parliament to reject the Supreme Court decision court, despite criticism from senior judges.
Sir Jacob, the former leader of the House of Commons, defended Rishi Sunak's plans to introduce a new law that would declare Rwanda safe to bypass a Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday that it was It is illegal to send migrants there because it is unsafe.
He said that in the UK constitution, the «high court» of Parliament, responsible for legislation, «routinely» changes laws made by judges.
“This is a perfectly proper constitutional process in a common law jurisdiction,” he said. “Our system recognizes the supremacy of Parliament, which represents the electorate, and that is where the law is made. Courts adjudicate and give decisions on laws passed by Parliament. Parliament can therefore reverse the decision.”
The government is expected to publish a new treaty with Rwanda next week, followed a week later by emergency legislation that would block legal challenges to the policy by declaring the country safe.
Rishi Sunak plans to introduce new legislation that will declare Rwanda safe. Photo: Chris Ratcliffe/Shutterstock
Ministers hope to speed up the passage of legislation and a treaty through parliament so that the first flights to Rwanda can take place. I can remove it in the spring.
The timetable will depend on parliamentary approval of the emergency legislation underlying the treaty, under which Rwanda made legally binding commitments not to deport anyone deported from the UK.
This is to prevent the deportation of anyone deported migrants. they are sent to their home countries where they may face persecution, which is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled the policy illegal and why Rwanda was deemed an unsafe place for asylum seekers.
But Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge from 2012 to 2018, said on Thursday it was “deeply discredited” and “constitutionally extraordinary” for the government to “change facts by law” by proposing legislation that would declare Rwanda safe. He said it was unlikely to pass the House of Lords.
“It is not uncommon for governments to push forward legislation to change the law after an unfavorable court decision, but I have never heard of them trying to change the facts through legislation.” — he said. “As long as black is not white, passing Acts of Parliament to affirm it is deeply discreditable.
“I thought it would make a huge fuss. The government has the advantage of being supported by quite a lot of public opinion, but that only gets you ahead.
“From a constitutional point of view, it would be a completely extraordinary thing to effectively overturn a decision based on the facts. , according to the evidence, by the highest court in the land.»
Lord Carlisle, the government's former independent counter-terrorism expert, said passing legislation to declare Rwanda safe when the courts have found it is not is a «constitutional breach» and will face «constructive obstruction» in the House of Lords.
“He'll get completely bogged down. He will go into eternal ping pong. He has no hope of getting into the House of Lords and is deliberately creating a conflict between the two houses,” he said.
The government will not be able to use the Parliament Act, a law that allows the House of Commons to override a decision of the Lords if any bill is rejected by colleagues, but is rarely used. Mr Sunak will not be able to use it because this is the last session of Parliament before the next election.
Lord Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner of the Met Police, said: “Given the powers that retired judges have throughout House, it is unlikely that the House of Lords will be able to effectively overturn the Supreme Court's findings of fact.»
Свежие комментарии