the to everyone else? given that the illegal migration act, the majority of which has not yet been brought into force, rests on the idea of a use of third countries rather than returns to original countries of origin, are we right to question what will happen to the 99% of people who will not be sent to rwanda? we still do not know the full cost of this scheme. the government has been reluctant at every stage to divulge the cost of this flagship policy. in december, the secretary of state appear to indicate that around £400 million would have been sent to the rwandan government by 2027. can the minister confirmed this figure? it is an extraordinary sum of money but not the whole picture. according to the treaty, there are additional per person costs of the scheme. the economic impact assessment for the illegal migration bill was only

published after considerable pressure from noble lords from across the house. this document... in this document, the home office was prepared to tell us that the average imagined cost of sending an asylum seeker to a third country however, the detail of the treaty suggest the cost may be higher for sending somebody to rewind. before we begin to fully debate the details of the legislation and its role in the implementation of the rwanda plan, will the minister be clear about how much this plan is actually going to cost? there is bill, whatever its impact, will not address the state of our asylum system. the uk to serve as a managed asylum system that upholds a strong border security and that can process claims fairly, accurately and quickly, a system that can return those with no claim to stay and help

those with no claim to stay and help those who rightfully seek sanctuary. that is not our current asylum system. we have a backlog of 100,000 asylum claims waiting for a decision, 40,000 people who have yet to be removed from the uk, and up to 17,000 people the government cannot account for. the pace of decision—making is improving, but the backlog that has been permitted to develop will take time to fully clear and more work is needed. nor will the bill help us negotiate returns agreement, threats of a compliance with international undermine our ability to establish returns agreements from other countries. farfrom helping us, this bill may greatly harm our ability to reform our asylum system. the government has repeatedly said that it is motivated by a desire to see the end of criminal smuggle outgoings and to prevent boats crossing in the first place, yet this is now the third bill that seeks to end a small boat crossing is without any measures to directly

target the gang activity behind them. in fact, the latest police work for statistics show a fall in the number of national crime agency officers, the law enforcement body responsible for fighting smuggling gangs, between march and september 2023, the numbers fell by 343 personnel. 400 million pounds is just under half the total budget this yearfor the nca. would just under half the total budget this year for the nca. would the government's money not be better spent increasing the size of operations fighting against human traffickers working with european counterparts and going after the supply chain? this bill, and the deal behind it, will do nothing to stop boats coming to our shores. the government's plan hinges on the idea that the rwanda scheme presents a deterrent effect without presenting any evidence that this will be the case. it is certainly difficult to

imagine what deterrent effect a one or 2% chance of being sent to rwanda would have. it is even more difficult to imagine why this would stop criminal traffickers, nor will the bill present those fleeing conflict and persecution with safe alternatives to channel crossing. a report was published detailing additional safe and legal routes, a report has arrived, but it contains no proposalfor report has arrived, but it contains no proposal for creating safe routes for those seeking asylum. can we assume, then, that the additional pledge to implement any proposed new routes by the end of this year is to be broken too? this was an issue that was raised repeatedly in both houses during the passage of the illegal migration bill, and it is disappointing that the government has not taken this seriously. if we are to truly address the challenge of migration, we must accept that we cannot do so alone. the government is acting as though the challenge

here is not related to those in other countries, particularly of our european friends. the uk lacks the leadership needed to succeed in the world is now marked by increasing conflict, the climate emergency, and the erosion of law and order, all of which fuel migration. we need to —— an approach that restores the aid budget, parts a renewed focus on conflict resolution, and seeks international cooperation, an approach that is workable, strategic, humane, and rooted in the conventions. i will conclude shortly, but i want to mention that one colleague, my noble friend lord dubs, is unable tojoin us. he is in berlin taking part in events to mark the anniversary of the kindertransport, which began in late 1938. injune, it will be 85 years since he arrived in britain, having been put on a train by his mother in

prague. although we miss his contribution today, we can be reminded of what and who we gain when we play our part in helping those who flee conflict and persecution, and we look forward to his return. my lords, i hope the house will not be deterred from changing these bill when it sees fit. it certainly needs our help. i hope too that the government, rather than trying to communicate through press conference, engages with this house in good faith and through more conventional channels. we are faced with a deeply broken system and layers of bad legislation which have only made things worse. i hope the government rethinks this bill, this plan, and his approach to migration. but i fear we will be left without the change we need until we change the change we need until we change the government.— the change we need until we change the government. amendments, lord german. the government. amendments, lord

german- my — the government. amendments, lord german. my lords, _ the government. amendments, lord german. my lords, i— the government. amendments, lord german. my lords, i beg _ the government. amendments, lord german. my lords, i beg leave - the government. amendments, lord german. my lords, i beg leave to . german. my lords, i beg leave to move the amendment _ german. my lords, i beg leave to move the amendment standing . german. my lords, i beg leave toj move the amendment standing in german. my lords, i beg leave to - move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, and in doing so direct attention to my interests as laid out in the register. my lords, the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees which this bill is seeking to affect, is completely contrary to how we should be acting as a country with a reputation for protecting individuals' rights and freedoms, where the rule of law is upheld. i do not need to repeat the key points of last week's debate on the rwanda treaty, but the decision of this houseis treaty, but the decision of this house is significant in respect of this bill. this house resolved that it could not ratify the treaty which the government is using to declare that rwanda is safe. the house determined that the safeguards and protection outlined in the treaty must be fully implemented. the house agreed that future assurances of changes in the processing of asylum seekers in rwanda were not

sufficient. the changes need to be fully operational and effective. but, my lords, significantly, the treaty is the instrument by which the government declares it can state ten day spell that rwanda is safe. clause one—two—b is clear, it says this insist that the country of rwanda is a safe, but these houses of parliament have not determined that this is the case. the treaty is the platform on which these bill sets, and if this platform is not in place, then bill it sinks. my lords, the legs have come off the table, or put it another way, the foundations have been removed. it was the settled will of this house last week that the treaty cannot yet be ratified, so how can this house consent to a bill which relies on

that treaty having the approval of this house? this is critical, because the decision of the supreme court was based on its analysis of the facts. the country case put forward by the government in these bill has not been supported by this house. the temple before us requires parliament, and parliament of course includes this house, to agree that includes this house, to agree that in ourjudgment as a house, rwanda is safe. this house, in this respect, needs to be consistent with itself in the decision that it took last week. this bill places the uk at risk of breaching our commitments under international law. we as a country have signed up to comply with the obligations of these international treaties and conventions. having done that, we need to demonstrate that as a country we can be relied upon to uphold international treaties and that we promote a rules based international order. because if we do not, then we cannot expect others

to comply. we are in no position to call out other countries when they fail to comply with international law. the best is often accused of double standards, and under this legislation, this accusation will only increase. 0ur legislation, this accusation will only increase. our global leadership, ourability to only increase. our global leadership, our ability to have a serious voice on the world stage, will be severely damaged. we will no longer be a country whose voice is respected and listened to. we simply cannot rely on our historical traditions when our current actions are going in the opposite direction. global responsibility sharing is the foundation of the 1951 refugee convention. it relies on us all doing our part. the government says this plan is a partnership and burden sharing, but frankly it is off—loading — off—loading the most vulnerable people on our planet and off—loading our responsibilities under international agreements we

are signed up to. if this bill is enacted, we would be legislating contrary to our international legal obligations. 0ur domestic law would be out of step with these obligations, and some might say that is acceptable, but i do not believe thatis is acceptable, but i do not believe that is the case, i believe this house will stand up for the object and purpose of these international instruments to which we are signed up. our courts would have their hands tied by this legislation. there is a strong possibility, particularly without pre—existing safeguards being proved operational and effective in rwanda, that this would lead to refoulement and breaches of article two and three rights. that is why it is critical for the steps set out in the treaty to be seen to be working before this bill can have any effect. the bill introduces the option for ministers to refuse to comply with a rule 39 injunction from the european court of human rights. ignoring an injunction would be a clear breach of international law, as the president of the court declared last

week. and if you are strengthened by the rule 39 reforms which the court itself has introduced. domestically, this bill undermines the rule of law, and further, it is the jurisdiction of our courts. the rule of law is a central tenet of our society, expressed thus, we speak of the rule of law as a characteristic of our country — not only that with us no man is above the law, but that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunal is. my noble friend lord thomas will elaborate on this in his contribution. this bill seeks to exclude a group of people from accessing the legal protections we grant to everyone else in our society. it is critical in a

democratic society that the law is applied equally, that human rights apply to everyone. notjust some in our society. the government's bill prevents the right to access redress, which is afforded to the rest of us. further, they spell is an abuse of parliament's role in reversing the supreme court's factual assessment of risk of harm in rwanda. —— this bill. if the government believes they have new evidence to show that rwanda is safe, then surely the correct procedure to follow is to let the courts decide and consider the evidence and come to a judgment. that is the proper way to go. if rwanda was indeed safe, there would be no need to have the option to ignore interim injunctions from the echr or disapply elements of the human rights. this bill represents an overreach of parliament, and it is critical that we retain the balance in our democracy achieved by the separation of powers. despite all these, the bill will not

actually achieve its stated aim, and it certainly doesn't represent good value to the taxpayer — £368 million at the last count, added to that at least £169,000 for each person removed to rwanda. these are staggering, eye watering costs which could pay for 100 million free school meals or nearly 6 million more gp appointments. far from school meals or nearly 6 million more gp appointments. farfrom being a deterrent, they spell will promote smuggling, a point which my noble friend will develop in her remarks. it doesn't address real solutions to prevent people using criminal gangs to take dangerous journeys to the uk. the focus on deterrence is misplaced. two thirds of all those who have crossed the channel since the illegal migration act was passed came from six high ground countries. the push factorfor these came from six high ground countries. the push factor for these people came from six high ground countries. the push factorfor these people is far higher than any deterrent the uk

may dream up. we need safe alternatives to dangerous journeys, and this must be part of the strategy to reduce dangerous crossings. swift, efficient, accurate and just determination of asylum claims, and humane removal of those who do not qualify will be a deterrent in itself to people without a protection claim. we also need constructive engagement with european neighbours, in cooperation around asylum, addressing the root causes of displacement and onward movement is critical, and a strong international aid and development budget is key to that. instead, we are presented with a political totem of the tory right, a device to satisfy their internal party politics, a bill for which there is no going back. if rwanda is found to be unsafe, then this bill will act as a block to putting matters right. this legislation was not in the government's manifesto, and the

convention does not apply. i maintain that this is one of the rare occasions which has been used by both conservative and labour parties in this house, and as was foreseen by a report to the constitution committee, when this house should vote against a bill at second reading. it is within our powers as described. this bill acts where... come out i am grateful to the noble lord for giving way. i wonder iii the noble lord for giving way. i wonde . , ., wonder if he agrees with me that the function of this _ wonder if he agrees with me that the function of this house _ wonder if he agrees with me that the function of this house as _ wonder if he agrees with me that the function of this house as a _ wonder if he agrees with me that the function of this house as a revising . function of this house as a revising chamber, it is not a veto chamber, it is a revising chamber, so can he explain to me how the liberal democrats pearl mark noble constitutional thinking, by throwing out these bill on second reading prevents the revising chamber from revising. in

prevents the revising chamber from revisina. :: " ., , prevents the revising chamber from revisinu. :: " ., , ., revising. in 2011, the noble lord voted against _ revising. in 2011, the noble lord voted against the _ revising. in 2011, the noble lord voted against the health - revising. in 2011, the noble lord voted against the health and i revising. in 2011, the noble lord - voted against the health and social care bill at social reading, as has happened before in earlier versions by members of the conservative party, so if our laws and rules in this house say we can do it, then we can do it, and it has been done by both sides here. i maintain, and this chamber should listen to the real power of what people will be saying this afternoon about the nature of this particular bill. it asks us to believe that black is white, that facts are not facts, it breaches conventions and treaties to which you are signed up, it damages our standing which you are signed up, it damages ourstanding in the which you are signed up, it damages our standing in the world stage. it seeks to damage our relationship with things we have already signed up with things we have already signed up to, including the european convention on trafficking, including the agreement with the european union, including the united nations, the echr and many more. it damages

the echr and many more. it damages the separation of powers in this country, which is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. it offends against the rule of law. my lords, fundamentally, it treats some of the most vulnerable people in the world, people who are facing persecution, torture and fleeing for their lives as undesirables. and for us on these benches, this is unconscionable... we take you away from the house of lords to bring you breaking news concerning laurence fox, an actor turned politician who has lost a high court battle against two individuals he referred to as paedophiles on his social media account. thejudge said paedophiles on his social media account. the judge said that laurence fox, the founder of the reclaim party said he did not attempt to show the allegations were true and he was not able to bring any other defence recognised in law. the judge also said that any damages or issues around that would be

settled at a later date. back to the house of lords and add continuing debate over the rwanda legislation. it is required to operate independently to ensure that balance, the balance of the core of our democracy. it would not do for one of the legs to instruct another as to how to operate or how to look at a particular issue, and by way of example it would be quite wrong of the house of lords were to instruct the house of lords were to instruct the judiciary as to whether it hear a particular case. i do hope that the prime minister, sitting atop, as he does, the government leg of the stool, will reflect on those simple thoughts as he thinks back to his words of the 18th of january at the downing street press conference concerning our role in this bill. the duties of this house are inextricably linked with a series of

conventions, by which we, an unelected chamber, cohabit with our elected neighbour. among these conventions, the salisbury—addison conventions, the salisbury—addison convention is especially pertinent today and to this bill in general. the convention has a number of parts that, in simplifying matters for reasons of time, one is that a government bill with manifesto characteristics will be given a second reading in the house, and we can see that the convention as a number of people concerned about it, and i am preparing a series of papers on this convention at the moment. for my part, ifeel that this convention is engaged here, and accordingly i will not be supporting the amendment to the second reading of the motion in the name of the noble lord, lord german. the convention also has elements concerning the speed with which the house will consider things. the

house will consider things. the houseis house will consider things. the house is already assisting the speed of consideration of this bill. we have changed our business around and freed up today for the second reading. three days have been set aside for committee, which given the likely number of amendments that will be tabled, could only work if the house sits late, and by that i mean until at least midnight and probably on two of those three days. i am sure, however, that on those days, the benches will be very full and the quality of the debate will remain very high, without natural and respectful tone. i expect that this house will send back various matters to the other place for their consideration, to think again, as is our role. and i imagine that we will then enter a ping—pong phase. conventions will apply if agreement cannot be reached, but the elected house, at the end of the full due process, has the right to pass law,

whether that law be good low or whether that law be good low or whether that law be good low or whether that law be bad law. in the meantime, this house will engage in ourfull meantime, this house will engage in our full processes, meantime, this house will engage in ourfull processes, and meantime, this house will engage in our full processes, and cowed meantime, this house will engage in ourfull processes, and cowed by any creaks and groans in the other legs of the stool. —— uncowed. my creaks and groans in the other legs of the stool. -- uncowed. my lords, in almost every _ of the stool. -- uncowed. my lords, in almost every tradition _ of the stool. -- uncowed. my lords, in almost every tradition of- of the stool. -- uncowed. my lords, in almost every tradition of global i in almost every tradition of global faith and of humanism around the world, the dignity of the individual is at the heart of what is believed. in the christian tradition, we are told to welcome the stranger, jesus said, i was a stranger and you invited me in. in numerous places in the old testament and knew, the commands of god are to care for alien and stranger. my lords, it has

already been said, and i agree with it, that the way they —— this bill and its cousin that we debated in the summer works is to obscure the truth that all people, asylum seekers included, are of great value. we can as a nation do better than this bill. with this bill, the government is continuing to seek good objectives in the wrong way, leading the nation down a damaging path? it is damaging for asylum seekers in need of protection and a safe and legal routes to be heard. for this, safe and legal routes to be heard. forthis, it safe and legal routes to be heard. for this, it is damaging for the country's reputation, which it contradicts even as late as last week, where the prime minister himself spoke eloquently on the

value and importance of international law for this country. it is damaging in respect of constitutional principles and the rule of law, and most of all, my lords, it is damaging for our nation's unity, in a time when the greatest issues of war, peace, defence and security need us to be reunited. we are united on, i think, almost all benches in agreeing that boats must be stopped, and the government is to be congratulated that the number has come down. that the people smugglers who it is good news that so many groups have been broken up, and we need to be united and effective controls on agreed limits to immigration. the right way forward, though, is to enable the unity on end is to be

translated into unity on means, and thatis translated into unity on means, and that is not happening in the way that is not happening in the way that these bills are successively brought to the country before the country. the challenge of migration is, as has been said, long—term and global, and so must our response be. we need a wider strategy, i spoke of this at boring length in the summer, and i will not repeat it — we need a wider strategy for refugee policy which involves international cooperation and equips us for the far greater migration flows, perhaps ten times greater, in the coming decades, as a result of conflict and climate change and poverty. instead, this bill offers only ad hoc, one of amanda is a country i know well. it is a wonderful country, and my complaint is not with rwanda know

with its people. it has overcome challenges that this house cannot begin to imagine. but they spell continues, wherever it does so, to outsource our legal and moral responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers, where other countries, far poorer, are already supporting multitudes more than we are now, and to cut back on our aim. 76% of refugees globally are being hosted in low and middle income countries. at the end of 2022, countries. at the end of 2022, countries far poorer than our own. the uk should lead internationally, as it has in the past, not stand apart. 0thers as it has in the past, not stand apart. others on these benches will say more about international and domestic law, human rights and constitutional impact. i will simply say that a pick and choose approach

to international law undermines our global standing and defends against the principle of universality that is increasingly threatened. finally, i and my colleagues on these benches take its revising role seriously. when we vote, we vote to seek to improve something. i will, sadly, not be voting with those who want to vote they spell down today, although i found vote they spell down today, although ifound lord german's speech convincing and powerful. but i think we have to wait until third reading and have done our revising work. we have been criticised many times over many decades on these benches here by those thinking defence of the government of the day is sure to be our highest virtue and aspiration.

we refused last week —— we were accused last week of voting against the government whip. i'm sorry to say, we don't take the government's whip! it might be worse news for this house to recognise that, on the labour benches, it is not 95%, a false statistic of times there has been against the government whip, it has been 100%. maybe they should be criticised for that obnoxious behaviour! we serve on these benches as independent members. last week, as independent members. last week, as recently as thursday, we were discussing what had happened in a particular vote, and we saw that we had cancelled each other out, bishops often cancel each other out, in every possible way! giving his contribution to the house of lords debate over the rwanda

bill, he criticised it saying "we need a wider strategy for refugees and asylum seekers, he says his complaint is not with rwanda or its people, he said that "these people are trying to be outsourced, this issueis are trying to be outsourced, this issue is trying to be outsourced, and we have a legal, moral responsibility for asylum seekers and refugees". you are watching bbc news. live from london, this is bbc news. following the deadly drone strike on a us base injordan, president biden blames iran and says america will respond. at bbc verify, we look at what we know so far about the drone strike that killed three us troops in jordan and what that means for the wider region. more countries halt funding to unrwa

over allegations of involvement in the 7th of october as the largest un agency operating in gaza says the situation there is "extremely desperate". king charles leaves hospital after treatment for an enlarged prostate, just hours after the princess of wales was discharged following abdominal surgery. hello, i'm luxmy gopal. welcome to verified live, three hours of breaking stories and checking out the truth behind them. president biden has said the united states will respond to a drone attack on an american military base injordan near the syrian border, at a time and in a manner of its choosing. mr biden blamed the attack on radical iran—backed militant groups operating in syria and iraq. tehran has denied any involvement in the attack in which three service personnel were killed and 34 injured. our world affairs correspondent paul adams has more.