Government Defends Rwanda Bill Tackling Illegal Immigration From Human Rights Committee’s Criticisms

A group of people thought to be illegal immigrants are brought in to Dover, Kent, England, onboard a Border Force vessel on July 18, 2022. (Gareth Fuller/PA Media)

The government has defended its proposed asylum law allowing Channel migrants to be sent to Rwanda, after Parliament’s human rights committee criticised the bill for being “incompatible” with human rights legislation.

A report published on Monday from the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that the government’s Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill—which passed in the House of Commons and is moving through the Lords–is “not compatible with the UK’s international obligations” and “openly invites the possibility of the UK breaching international law.”

The committee’s chair, Scottish National Party (SNP) MP Joanna Cherry, said on Monday that the Safety of Rwanda Bill “is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court. Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it.”

“This isn’t just about the rights and wrongs of the Rwanda policy itself. By taking this approach, the bill risks untold damage to the UK’s reputation as a proponent of human rights internationally,” Ms. Cherry added.

Rwanda Is a ‘Safe’ Country

Responding, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We are committed to tackling this major global challenge with bold and innovative solutions, and the Rwanda scheme is doing just that.

“The bill we have introduced, and the treaty alongside it, are the best way of getting flights off to Rwanda as soon as possible.

“Rwanda is clearly a safe country that cares deeply about supporting refugees. It hosts more than 135,000 asylum seekers and stands ready to relocate people and help them rebuild their lives.”

Related Stories

Cleverly Refuses to Say How Many of 33,085 Illegal Immigrants in ‘Limbo’ Could Be Sent to Rwanda

1/31/2024

Pollster Criticises House of Lords’ Disconnect on Rwanda Scheme After Liberal Democrat Veto Attempt

1/31/2024

Initially, the Rwanda scheme, agreed on in April 2022, would have seen migrants who entered Britain illegally, including those who crossed the English Channel in small boats, put on flights to Kigali. Then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson maintained that the system would act as a deterrent to human smuggling.

However, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) blocked the first flight of migrants in June 2022, and in Nov. 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the plans were unlawful. No migrants have been moved to Rwanda since the plans were announced.

Addressing the issues raised by the Supreme Court, The UK agreed to a new legally binding treaty with Rwanda that prevented Kigali from sending migrants back to their home countries. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced on Nov. 15, 2023, that the government would introduce emergency legislation which would “enable Parliament to confirm that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe.”

Prime Minister Sunak introduced the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill to Parliament in Dec. 2023, which the government said would prevent further legal challenges by compelling UK judges to regard the east African country as safe.

The cross-bench human rights committee of MPs and Lords disagreed, saying in Monday’s report summary: “We are not persuaded that Parliament can be confident that Rwanda is now safe. In any event, we consider that the courts are best placed to resolve such contested issues of fact.”

Bill Does Not Prevent Challenges to International Courts

However, the committee acknowledged in their report that the bill does not prevent individuals from bringing applications challenging their removal to the ECtHR on human rights grounds.

“The bill cannot affect their right to do so, because it forms part of the Convention, which the UK has ratified and by which it is bound in international law unless and until it withdraws.98 We note that this means, under the Bill, domestic courts will be prevented from ruling on the safety of Rwanda but an international court will not,” the report said.

Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman had said in December that the legislation “will fail,” insisting that all routes of legal challenge need to be blocked.

“We have to totally exclude international law, Refugee Convention, other broader avenues of legal challenge because the reality is ... people will bring legal claims, they will bring challenges through the courts, and those challenges will operate to block flights to Rwanda,” Ms. Braverman had told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme.

The Safety of Rwanda Bill passed the House of Commons in January after Mr. Sunak saw off a Conservative Party rebellion, which had pushed for tougher legislation.

The bill then cleared its first major hurdle in the House of Lords last month, with the peers beginning examination of the proposed legislation in committee stage on Monday.

The prime minister has urged the Lords not to block “the will of the people” by opposing the bill, having made “stopping the boats” a major pledge in this election year.

PA Media contributed to this report.