THE Government’s try to clear a legal path for deporting asylum-seekers to Rwanda is “damaging” — not only to those looking for protection within the UK, but to the country’s status and the rule of law, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned.
The Archbishop was contributing to a debate within the House of Lords on Monday evening on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, during its Second Reading.
The Bill, he said, “obscure[s] the reality that every one people, asylum-seekers included, are of great value. We can, as a nation, do higher.”
The Bill has been drafted by the Government in response to a recent Supreme Court ruling (News, 17 November 2023) that unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal ruling that the policy would depart people sent to Rwanda open to human-rights breaches (News, 7 July 2023). In 2022, the High Court had ruled that the policy was lawful (News, 23 December 2022).
The purpose of the Bill is alleged to be to “prevent and deter illegal migration” — particularly by illegal routes — by “confirming” that the Republic of Rwanda is “a protected third country, thereby enabling the removal of individuals who arrive within the UK under the Immigration Acts”.
The Bill is preceded by a press release from Lord Sharpe on the European Convention on Human Rights, nonetheless, by which he says: “I’m unable to make a press release that, for my part, the provisions of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill are compatible with Convention rights, however the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
Archbishop Welby said that, while the Lords and Commons were “united . . . in agreeing that the boats have to be stopped. . . The right way forward . . . is to enable the unity on ends to be translated right into a unity on means, and that just isn’t happening in the way in which these bills are successively delivered to the home and brought before the country.”
Rwanda was a “wonderful” country, he said, but “the Bill continues to outsource our legal and moral responsibilities to refugees and asylum-seekers — when other, far poorer, countries are already supporting multitudes greater than we are actually — and to in the reduction of on our aid.”
He refused, nonetheless, to vote against the Bill until the Committee Stage, to offer a probability for revisions to be made.
Later in the controversy, the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Revd Paul Butler, said that, based on his experience, Rwanda was not “truly able to delivering the support and opportunities required for every of those refugees and asylum-seekers to rebuild their lives”, including through employment and language training.
He continued: “How can we be sure that Rwanda is protected for people of all faiths to practise their religion? Courts and decision-makers mustn’t be compelled to treat Rwanda as protected and not using a commitment to ongoing scrutiny. Simply put, the Bill just isn’t workable either within the UK or in Rwanda.”
Peers across the parties also expressed reservations concerning the Bill.
Lord Cashman (Labour) said: “The Bill is unacceptable, as we’ve got heard, for a lot of reasons — on legal, constitutional and moral grounds.”
Lord Clarke (Conservative), a former Cabinet minister, described Rwanda as a “dictatorship” with a “dodgy record” on human rights — some extent that was widely picked up in the course of the debate, by the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, amongst others. She said: “The Bill decides who’s and just isn’t entitled to human rights. Has history not taught us the danger of that?”
Referring to Lord Sharpe’s preface, she continued: “It is illogical that the Government are disregarding international law while counting on Rwanda’s compliance with it to guarantee us it’s protected. That just isn’t a mark of world leadership.”
Lord Murray, a Conservative peer, argued, nonetheless, that the statement reflected the probability of a court upholding a legal challenge, and “doesn’t mean that the minister is certifying that the measures within the Bill are incompatible with the human rights convention”.
The Bishop of Edmundsbury & Ipswich, the Rt Revd Martin Seeley, also touched on morality. “This continues to be a deeply immoral solution, treating victims as perpetrators and never providing an actual, just, and sustainable plan for the rapidly changing global refugee situation,” he said.
He continued: “The use of Parliament as decision-maker in these circumstances is impractical and troubling. I see the Government’s approach as constitutionally inappropriate.”
Responding to the controversy, Lord Sharpe, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Home Office, said that the Government valued the value of people and that the Bill was based on an ethical cause. He argued that the partnership with Rwanda was set on this latest treaty, “binding in international law”, and was simply delivering the changes suggested by the Supreme Court. Support can be available for the vulnerable, he said.
The motion to maneuver the Bill on to the Committee Stage was agreed.
During its First Reading, last week, the Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, had warned that any asylum-seekers who were sent to Rwanda wouldn’t be protected “by a number of sheets of paper” — and that it was “remarkable” that the Government was asking Parliament to declare Rwanda protected on the premise of a single treaty that, it claimed, answered all of the concerns of the Supreme Court (News, 26 January).
Peers had voted 214 to 171 in favour of Labour motions to delay its ratification.
The Archbishop of Wales and the Welsh Bench of Bishops were amongst those to criticise the Bill before its Second Reading this week. In a press release, on Monday, the Bishops said that, while the “complex” situation of accelerating migration presented a “uniquely painful dilemma” for politicians and the country, they were deeply concerned by the proposals.
“We note the Supreme Court ruling that asylum-seekers sent to Rwanda would face an actual risk of ill-treatment if sent back to their country of origin. We would further note that we also already award asylum status to refugees from Rwanda. We remain convinced that there’s a strong moral argument that sending human beings to a 3rd country abdicates responsibility.
“Our faith moves us to call on all those involved to be sure that the interests of those that are most in need are never neglected. We urge the federal government to withdraw this laws.”
The director of the Jesuit Refugee Service UK, Sarah Teather, described the Bill as “cruel and risible”, and urged policymakers to “do not forget that this isn’t about party politics pantomime. If enacted, the Rwanda scheme will destroy the lives of people that have already lost every thing.”
The United Reformed Church was among the many ecumenical partners, charities, and civil society bodies to deplore what they described as a “constitutionally extraordinary and deeply harmful piece of laws”.
In a joint statement, organised by the Save our HRA (Human Rights Act) Coalition, they said that the Bill undermined the universality of human rights, was an “attack” on the judiciary and rule of law, was in collision with the European Court of Human Rights, would breach the Good Friday Peace Agreement, and risked “violating the principle of non-refoulement”.
The statement concluded: “Either all of us have human rights, or none of us do. The government must not be allowed to choose and select when our fundamental rights apply, nor to undermine the ways in which we will hold it to account.”
