Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill — 12 Dec 2023 at 18:41

“EU Council Directive 2005/85/EC is caught by Article 2(1) of the Protocol, therefore can be relied upon in NI (but not GB).”

“confers the right to remain in the territory”

“creates additional ‘rights’ in NI”

“expressly frustrates the core intent of the Rwanda Bill from applying in NI”.

“to which persons may be removed…in compliance with all of the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law”.

“It is for a Minister of the Crown…to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.”

“may be removed from the United Kingdom in compliance with all of the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law”-

“that are relevant to the treatment in that country of persons who are removed there.”

“any other international law, or convention or rule of international law, whatsoever, including any order, judgment, decision or measure of the European Court of Human Rights.”

“this House, while affirming support for securing the UK’s borders, reforming the broken asylum system and ending dangerous small boat crossings, declines to give a Second Reading to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill because the Bill will not work to tackle people smuggling gangs, end small boat crossings or achieve the core purposes of the Bill, will lead to substantial costs to the UK taxpayer every year whilst applying to less than one per cent of those who claim asylum in the UK, threatens the UK’s compliance with international law, further undermines the potential to establish security and returns agreements with other countries and does not prevent the return of relocated individuals who commit serious crimes in Rwanda back to the UK.”

“both legally and operationally fundamentally flawed.”

Of course, if the Government manage to send people to Rwanda, they will have to spend further money, probably around £200,000 per person-perhaps the Minister could also confirm that figure. That is more than twice as much as it costs here in the UK, so can the Government confirm that by the time they have finished, close to half a billion pounds will have been paid to Rwanda for just a few hundred people, around 1% of those arriving in the country? The Court of Appeal has said that there is only capacity in Rwanda for around 100 people; even the judge who agreed with the Government said that talk of thousands is “political hyperbole”. The asylum system in Rwanda is also limited: it has only processed an average of 100 people a year for the past three years, so at most, it will be a few hundred people. Some 56,000 people are in hotels, 100,000 applied for asylum last year and 160,000 are waiting in the backlog, so potentially less than 0.1% of those people will be covered by the scheme. It is no wonder that the permanent secretary said yesterday:

“We don’t have evidence of a deterrent effect”.

“if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed…to a safe third country, such as Rwanda”-[Official Report, 7 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 152.]-

“deter illegal entry into the UK”-[Official Report, 24 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 922.]

“to the country they arrived from or a safe third country”,

“a country to which persons may be removed…in compliance with…international law”.

“Every decision-maker must…treat…Rwanda as…safe”,

“the court should not shrink from applying the fiction created by the deeming provision”.

“The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries”.

“one or two symbolic flights off before the next election with a handful of illegal migrants on them”.

“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”.

“tie the hands of every court in the UK while also abandoning the UK’s international commitments”.

“sends a devastating signal to the world about the UK’s reliability as an international partner”.

“Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.”

“domestic legislation cannot immunise the Government from the enforcement of international law. To claim it can is disingenuous”.

“clear and serious breach of international law.”

“intentions and aspirations do not necessarily correspond to reality: the question is whether they are achievable in practice.”

“the fight against human trafficking is, in practice, no longer a priority for the UK Government”.

“Of the almost 2,000 people who have been relocated to the transit camp in Gashora since it was set up in 2019, none opted to stay in Rwanda when given the option, preferring instead to move to another country.”

“Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can legislate contrary to the UK’s obligations under international law.”

“the principle of legality does not permit a court to disregard an unambiguous expression of Parliament’s intention such as that with which we are concerned”.

“the Convention is an international treaty and the ECtHR is an international court with jurisdiction under international law to interpret and apply it. But the question…is a matter of English law. And it is firmly established that international treaties do not form part of English law and that English courts have no jurisdiction to interpret or apply them…Parliament may pass a law which mirrors the terms of the treaty and in that sense incorporates the treaty into English law. But even then the metaphor of incorporation may be misleading. It is not the treaty but the statute which forms part of English law. And English courts will not (unless the statute expressly so provides) be bound to give effect to interpretations of the treaty by an international court, even though the United Kingdom is bound by international law to do so. Of course there is a strong presumption in favour of interpreting English law…in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of an international obligation”-

“The sovereign legislator in the United Kingdom is Parliament. If Parliament has plainly laid down the law, it is the duty of the courts to apply it, whether that would involve the Crown in breach of an international treaty or not.”

“The Government risks undermining its own ambitions and the UK’s international standing if it cannot demonstrate that proposed policies…such as the Rwanda partnership now being legally challenged, are compatible with international law and conventions.”

“It’s rather like a bill that has decided that all dogs are cats.”

“It is recognised that…the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign, and…the validity of an Act is unaffected by international law.”

“cloy the hungry edge of appetite

By bare imagination of a feast”.

“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”

“as though they were made by Act of Parliament.”

“must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”,

“compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances”,

“The problem here is worse than anywhere else in Europe because of Labour’s mismanagement. The Government has presided over massive delays in processing applications and admits that thousands of those whose cases are rejected simply disappear and never leave.”

“We will ensure that those whose claims are rejected are quickly deported by a new Removals Agency. Conservatives will restore common sense to Britain’s asylum procedures.

“We will ensure that only skilled workers are allowed to settle long-term in the UK, with English language tests for everyone who wants to stay permanently and an end to chain migration.”

“People need to know that immigration is controlled, that the rules are firm and fair,”

“take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s-tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.”

“to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.

“the toughest piece of…migration legislation ever put forward by a UK Government”,

“The study of law is sublime, and its practice vulgar.”

“guarded by freedom and sustained by law”.

“the executive enjoys no constitutional prerogative”

“If the Government considers that the treaty has eliminated the real risk of refoulement then it should seek to persuade the courts of that, not parliament.”

“It is consistent with the rule of law, going as far as it can, but no further, within the bounds of our international treaty obligations.”

“LGBT individuals can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities.”

“Some men think the earth is round, others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?”

“I believe that immigration has brought significant benefits to Britain...this is our island story: open, diverse and welcoming, and I am immensely proud of it-”

“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute. It is no longer right to say that its freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever.”

“will not work to tackle people smuggling gangs, end small boat crossings or achieve the core purposes of the Bill…whilst applying to less than one per cent of those who claim asylum”.

“ready, and willing, to take in as many people as the UK is able to send”.

“a further betrayal of Tory voters”.

Debate in Parliament |