Joint statement calling House of Lords to reject Rwanda Bill

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is
a constitutionally extraordinary and deeply harmful
piece of legislation. It threatens the universality of
human rights and is likely in breach of international law,
striking a serious blow to the UK’s commitment to the
rule of law. It was not a Government manifesto
commitment – on the contrary, it will hinder the UK’s
ability to “continue to grant asylum and support to
refugees fleeing persecution”. As a coalition of more
than 260 organisations working in and across the UK,
we call on Peers to reject the Bill at Second Reading.

The Rwanda Bill undermines the principle that human
rights are universal – that they apply to all of us,
regardless of where we are from. Going even further
than recent Government legislation such as the Illegal
Migration Act (IMA), the Rwanda Bill disapplies key
aspects of our Human Rights Act (HRA) which include
basic, minimum standards that exist to protect us all.
This will create a two-tiered system of human rights
protection, where adults and children seeking safety
who are threatened with removal to Rwanda will not
have the full protections of the HRA to enforce their
rights in domestic courts.

The Rwanda Bill is an attack on the constitutional role
of the judiciary and the rule of law. The Bill legislates
something that has been authoritatively found to be
false by the Supreme Court and requires it to be
treated as true in perpetuity. Even if a court heard
overwhelming evidence that Rwanda was unsafe, it
would be required to ignore the facts in front of them
to “conclusively” treat Rwanda as a safe country. If the
Government is so confident about the legality of the
new Rwanda treaty, it should not fear independent
oversight by domestic courts. If Parliament validates
legislating legal fictions in this way, it would set a
dangerous precedent for future governments – a
threat to rights protections for all. Moreover, the Bill
severely restricts grounds for resisting government
decisions and domestic court remedies. Limiting
access to justice in this way is an erosion of the
principle that we are all equal before the law.

The Bill puts the UK on a direct collision course with the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Its cover
contains an extraordinary statement – that the
Government cannot say that it complies with the UK’s
obligations under the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR). In particular, the Bill expands powers
given to Ministers in the IMA to ignore interim
measures of the ECtHR and that Act’s prohibition on UK courts having regard to an interim measure when
considering any application/appeal relating to removal
to Rwanda. Interim measures are a life-saving tool that
allow the ECtHR in exceptional circumstances to place
a temporary stop on an action where there is an
imminent risk of irreparable harm, to allow time for a
full judgment to take place. They are binding on the
Government under international law. Giving a Minister
legislative validation in ignoring them is a deeply
concerning green light to the breaking of international
law and erodes the UK’s commitment to the
Convention. The Government itself admits in its ECHR
memorandum that using the power would likely breach
the ECHR.

The Bill also reneges on other international
commitments. In particular, it risks violating the
principle of non-refoulement, which the Supreme
Court found has been given effect by multiple
international treaties to which the UK is a party
(including the Refugee Convention and UN Convention
Against Torture). The Rwanda scheme is an attempt by
the UK Government to shirk its obligations to consider
asylum claims and support those granted protection
as part of the international refugee protection system.
Even more alarmingly, the Bill states that the
Government and courts should treat Rwanda as a safe
country, regardless of “any interpretation of
international law by the court or tribunal”. This extreme
provision will damage the UK’s international reputation
and ability to hold other states to account for human
rights abuses.

The Rwanda Bill will breach the Belfast/Good Friday
Peace Agreement (B/GFA) and Article 2 of the
Windsor Framework. The B/GFA commits the UK
Government to “complete incorporation into Northern
Ireland law of the ECHR, with direct access to the
courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention,
including power for the courts to overrule Assembly
legislation on grounds of inconsistency.” These
safeguards, as well as the Government’s Windsor
Framework commitment to ‘no diminution of rights in
Northern Ireland’, will be violated by proposals in the
Bill which directly restrict domestic access to the
courts, remove remedies for breaches of the
Convention, and reduce the rights of refugees below
the standards set by the ECHR and other relevant
international law.

Either we all have human rights, or none of us do.
The Government must not be allowed to pick and
choose when our fundamental rights apply, nor to
undermine the ways that we can hold it to account.