Safety of Rwanda (Asylum & Immigration) Bill

The principle that individuals cannot be removed from a country to face a real risk of persecution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or death is a core principle of international law, to which the UK has committed itself on numerous occasions over the past 70 years. The Committee welcomes the Government’s continued recognition of the binding nature of its international obligations and its commitment to respecting them. It is nevertheless disappointing to see, for the second time in the past year, the introduction of a Bill that the Government cannot say is more likely than not to comply with its international obligations under the ECHR. (Paragraph 36) Safety of Rwanda

We have heard different views on whether the new treaty with Rwanda meets the Supreme Court’s conclusions as to the country’s safety. We recognise that, if complied with, the Treaty’s strict prohibition on the removal of any relocated individual to anywhere but the UK would prevent refoulement. However, we note that the House of Lords International Agreements Committee has reported on the need for further steps to be taken to establish a system for ensuring that removal contrary to this obligation does not occur. Particularly given the clear conclusions of the Supreme Court, it remains unclear whether compliance with the treaty can be guaranteed in practice.

We have considered the Government’s evidence that Rwanda is now safe, but have also heard from witnesses and bodies including the UNHCR that Rwanda remains unsafe, or at least that there is not enough evidence available at this point to be sure of its safety. Overall, we cannot be clear that the position reached on Rwanda’s safety by the country’s most senior court is no longer correct. In any event, the courts remain the most appropriate branch of the state to resolve contested issues of fact, so the question of Rwanda’s safety would best be determined not by legislation but by allowing the courts to consider the new treaty and the latest developments on the ground. (Paragraph 58) Judicial scrutiny

The overwhelming majority of the evidence we received supported the view that by denying access to a court to challenge the safety of Rwanda the Bill is not compatible with the UK’s international obligations, most obviously Article 13 ECHR – the right to an effective remedy.

Given that a declaration of incompatibility cannot affect an individual’s removal to Rwanda, we do not consider that it can meet the requirement of Article 13 ECHR that asylum seekers have access to an effective remedy with automatic suspensive effect. (Paragraph 80) 36 Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Clause 4 of the Bill would mitigate the Bill’s impact by allowing for claims based on individual circumstances. It would not, however, make the Bill compliant with the Refugee Convention or with Article 13 ECHR because it would continue to deny access to court for individuals with arguable claims that they face persecution or a violation of fundamental human rights as a result of Rwanda being unsafe generally or because there is a risk of refoulement. Neither would clause 4 provide for a suspensive process, as required by Article 13 ECHR, in all but the rarest of circumstances. (Paragraph 81) Disapplication of human rights law

The Human Rights Act 1998 is the cornerstone of human rights protection in domestic law. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has previously been critical of disapplication of parts of the HRA because it weakens human rights protections for particular groups, and thereby undermines the fundamental principle of the universality of human rights. The Bill would go further than ever before, disapplying almost all of the key provisions of the HRA in respect of removals to Rwanda. This is inconsistent with respect for universal human rights and for the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. By expressly legislating to allow public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights the Bill also risks undermining the rights- compliant culture that should exist in all public bodies. This risk is exacerbated by issuing guidance requiring civil servants to act incompatibly with interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights. (Paragraph 95) Interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights

We recognise that there are differences of opinion over whether or not interim measures ought to be binding on the United Kingdom. However, as a matter of international law, they are binding. Failing to comply with interim measures directed at the UK would amount to a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Clause 5 of the Bill contemplates a Minister choosing not to comply with an interim measure and thus violating the UK’s international human rights obligations. It also prevents the domestic courts taking into account what may be a relevant factor for any decision whether or not an individual should be removed to Rwanda. This is not consistent with a commitment to complying with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. (Paragraph 110) Other issues

We have heard serious concerns raised about the compatibility of the Bill with the Windsor Framework and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, which guarantee human rights in Northern Ireland. The Government has not adequately explained why it considers those concerns are not merited.

The Government should provide a full explanation of why it considers the Bill to be consistent with the Windsor Framework and Good Friday Agreement before the Bill reaches Report stage in the House of Lords. (Paragraph 116) Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill 37

The UK has a reputation for respect for human rights and the rule of law, of which we should be proud. Legislation that seeks to disapply or fails to respect international law risks damaging that reputation and encouraging other states who are less respectful of the international legal order.

We consider that our concerns about the compatibility of this Bill with human rights and international law relate to the Bill as a whole. We have not provided amendments designed to render the Bill compatible because any such amendment would inevitably be inconsistent with the Bill’s central purpose. (Paragraph 121) 38 Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill