THE External Relations Minister has expressed “disappointment” that the UK government has taken the first step towards legalising deportations from the Island to Rwanda under its controversial asylum bill without first consulting Jersey.
Under plans designed to deter small-boat crossings from France, the UK government is pushing ahead with plans to deport asylum seekers to the African state and has included within the legislation a “permissive extent clause” which could in future extend the law to Jersey.
It has emerged that the Jersey government was so concerned about the move that it wrote to Labour peer Lord Dubs of Battersea ahead of last week’s House of Lords debate on the bill asking him to raise the matter publicly.
Speaking in the Lords, another peer – Tony Blair’s former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer – asked what it was about the bill that made the government “think they can throw all constitutional convention to the wind”.
The use of the permissive extent clause without prior consultation follows the UK government’s inclusion of a similar provision in its Fisheries Bill in 2020 which could allow Westminster to pass laws governing fishing rights in Jersey waters.
At the time, Deputy Gorst described the actions of the UK government as “unwanted and unnecessary and not consistent with our established constitutional relationship”.
Commenting on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, he said the permissive extent clause would have “no practical effect”.
But he continued: “It was disappointing that the UK government included the PEC in its Rwanda Bill without proper consultation.
“This has been raised with the UK government and we continue to engage in close discussions with ministers and officers on this bill and other relevant policy areas.”
Speaking in the House of Lords last week, Lord Dubs said he had received a letter from the Jersey government asking him to raise the matter.
He said he understood no consultation had taken place with the Jersey government over introducing the permissive extent clause into the bill.
In theory at least, this would make it possible for the UK government to extend the legislation to Jersey, something Lord Dubs suggested might be “complex” given the Island’s own human rights law.
“I am not sure whether this is an oversight by the government in their haste to get the bill through or whether something else is going on that I do not understand, but I would very much like the government to explain why they have not sought the consent of Jersey, whether they have sought the consent of Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and what they propose to do to rectify this position.”
Lord Dubs received support from two of the Lords’ most distinguished legal experts – Lord Falconer and cross bench peer Lord Anderson of Ipswich, currently a judge in the Jersey and Guernsey Courts of Appeal.
Lord Anderson said: “I have written to the minister on this issue already and await with interest his response to the compelling points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
“I add only that the irregularity that he has identified surely applies, as he indicated, not just to Jersey or the Channel Islands generally but to all the Crown Dependencies – including, I assume, the Isle of Man.”
Defending the UK government’s position, Lord Stewart of Dirlton, Lord Advocate of Scotland, denied that the government had challenged constitutional convention in its actions, describing the position instead as “an assertion throughout of constitutional orthodoxy”.
He added: “It is important to note that inclusion of a PEC in a bill does not constitute legislating for the Crown Dependencies…It is a legislative tool that enables the United Kingdom’s provisions to be extended to the Crown Dependencies when either a Crown Dependency or, in extremis, the United Kingdom thinks necessary.
“There is no obligation to activate a PEC, but the enabling power remains in reserve,” he said.
Ultimately, however, the government suffered a series of defeats when the Lords came to vote on the bill. The legislation will now be returned to the Commons where the government’s majority means that amendments brought by the Lords are likely to be overturned.
