Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill — Clause 2 — Safety of the Republic of Rwanda — 16 Jan 2024 at 17:30

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to monitor on an ongoing basis whether Rwanda remains a safe country and to report the outcome to the House.

This amendment would require a court or tribunal to consider claims about actions of the Republic of Rwanda.

This amendment would permit courts and tribunals to deal with systematic risk of refoulement from Rwanda.

This amendment would prevent a court or tribunal considering a claim that Rwanda is not a safe country from persons who deliberately tried to put themselves in jeopardy if they were removed to Rwanda.

This amendment specifically excludes the legislation raised in AAA v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42 as potential blocks to removal and excludes from consideration any international law (including the ECHR and anything put out by its court).

This and other amendments to Clause 4 are intended to remove the ability of individuals to block their own removal through suspensive claims and to limit such claims to rare situations where there is bad faith on the part of decision-makers in relation to decisions as to medical fitness to travel.

This amendment is intended to allow the decision-maker to consider whether the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country in general.

This and other amendments to Clause 4 are intended to remove the ability of individuals to block their own removal through suspensive claims and to limit such claims to rare situations where there is bad faith on the part of decision-makers in relation to decisions as to medical fitness to travel.

“expressly permitted to do so by this Act or by the Illegal Migration Act 2023”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State, an immigration officer or a court or tribunal considering a claim that Rwanda was not a safe country for the particular individual circumstances of a person if that person had deliberately tried to put themselves in jeopardy if they were removed to Rwanda.

This amendment limits the ability of courts to review, and restricts suspensive claims that may be made, in relation to the decision to remove a person to Rwanda.

This Amendment makes the commencement of Clause 2 (Safety of the Republic of Rwanda) subject to a commencement order.

This Amendment makes the commencement order for Clause 2 (Safety of the Republic of Rwanda) contingent on the Secretary of State being satisfied with the implementation by Rwanda of its domestic obligations under the new Treaty.

“The reason I came to England was that I knew I will be safe in the UK, and also, I was trapped by the smugglers…When I received the news”-

“it felt like death again to me.”

“with international refugee law.”

“If you re-elect me and Rwanda persists…I will request the Parliament and Congress to authorise a declaration of war. We will march on Kigali. Tell Kagame those days of playing games with Congolese leaders are over.”

“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda”

“does not permit a decision-maker to consider any matter, claim or complaint to the extent that it relates to the issue of whether the Republic of Rwanda will or may remove or send the person in question to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations (including in particular its obligations under the Refugee Convention).”

“in any event, 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 in the present case.”

“dualist system is a necessary corollary of Parliamentary sovereignty…it exists to protect Parliament not ministers.”

“complementary to the national laws of individual states and in no way antagonistic to them”.

“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… 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... 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.”

“There is no evidence to suggest that they desire this power, nor that the public wish them to have it.”

“diverge from obligations agreed by the Government under an international treaty, and ratified following the CRAG”-

“procedures... And parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament could legislate to ensure that domestic law differed from the requirements of a treaty.”

“Parliament having enacted legislation that is not compliant with the UK’s international obligations, the courts are bound to apply that law.”

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

“The general rules of public international law are an integral part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the laws, and shall directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the federal territory.”

“a fundamental change of circumstances”

“prisoner voting was a particular political issue”.

“While Parliament is ultimately responsible for the form of any legislation passed, the preparation and introduction of Government legislation is an Executive action for which Ministers, collectively, are accountable.”

“disquiet about the constitutional desirability of Parliament legislating in violation of the UK’s international obligations”

“an overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations”,

“Detailed, evidence-driven, fully costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change”.

“undermining its own ambitions and the UK’s international standing if it cannot demonstrate”

“compatible with international law and conventions.”

“significant reputational risk for the UK”.

“not compatible with international refugee law.”

“independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3”.

“on when the classification of Rwanda as ‘safe’ can be suspended in accordance with material conditions and/or non-compliance with obligations”.

“extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture”.

“their removal, rather than a direct consequence of mass protests and economic downturns, was the culmination of ripened factionalism, which had blossomed after the leaders’ attempts to centralise power.”

“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it…the very existence of external reality…was tacitly denied by their philosophy.”

“not compatible with the international refugee law.”

“undermines the universality of human rights, has implications for the rule of law both domestically and internationally, and sets an acutely troubling precedent.”

“if that requires us to update our laws and lead an international conversation to amend post-war frameworks around asylum, then we must do that. Because if we don’t fix this problem now, the boats will keep coming and more lives will be lost at sea.”

“crucial life-saving initiative to evacuate people facing major threats and inhumane conditions in Libya to safety in Rwanda. It is a significant example of African solidarity and of partnership with the European Union.”

“We are grateful to the Government of Rwanda for hosting these men, women and children until such time, durable solutions can be found.”

“If we do not tackle this problem, the numbers will only grow…If that requires us to update our laws and lead an international conversation to amend the post-war frameworks around asylum, then we must do that. Because if we don’t fix this problem now, the boats will keep coming”.

“a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm”.

Debate in Parliament |