I would make two points about that. In fact, I supported the noble Lord Cameron in that regard because it was a political decision. It is also worth looking at the practical politics. Although we were for a period of time at variance with the Court, no harm was done to the polity of the United Kingdom in that regard. No harm was done to the interests of the United Kingdom and no terrible international consequence for us flowed from it. I think the Court got it wrong on that occasion, and one of the problems is that there is no appeal system in the Strasbourg Court, so we have to wait until some future decision goes a different way. I think many of us take the view that, in reality, the Court as currently constituted in Strasbourg—it is perhaps less activist, if I may say so, than its predecessors—might well have found differently in the prisoner voting case. However, the fact was that UK Ministers took the decision, and they did what was right in the UK, which was supported by those in all parts of the House, and no harm was done. So the idea that some terrible consequence will flow for the UK because of the ability to seek rule 39 interim measures is just misplaced.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Neill
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 17 January 2024.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
743 c865 Session
2023-24Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-02-12 17:21:40 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-01-17/240117104000065
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-01-17/240117104000065
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-01-17/240117104000065