THE first attempts by bishops and other members of the House of Lords have been made to deal with “significant concerns” over legalising the deportation of illegal immigrants to Rwanda.
The first amendments fell, nonetheless, after the Committee Stage of the Government’s Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill began within the Lords on Monday evening.
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 described as to “prevent and deter illegal migration” — particularly by illegal routes — by “confirming” that the Republic of Rwanda is “a secure third country, thereby enabling the removal of individuals who arrive within the UK under the Immigration Acts”.
The Archbishop of Canterbury was not present within the chamber, but was supporting several amendments from Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour). During its Second Reading earlier this month, Archbishop Welby described the Bill as “damaging” — not only to those in search of protection within the UK, but to the UK’s repute and the rule of law (News, 2 February).
The first of the 2 amendments was to make sure that the Government could remove illegal immigrants to Rwanda provided that two conditions were met: that the UNHCR advised that “Rwanda is now secure; for instance, in consequence of the successful implementation of promised reforms and safeguards to the asylum system there”; and “that this recommendation has been laid before each Houses of Parliament”.
Another amendment, Baroness Chakrabarti said, “replaces the edict that Rwanda ‘is’ secure with that belief that it ‘may turn into’ so”; and her final amendment was intended to make sure that “even clear and positive advice from the UNHCR would create only a ‘rebuttable presumption’ that Rwanda is secure.”
Speaking on behalf of Archbishop Welby, the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, told the House on Monday that “there remain very significant concerns concerning the contents of the Bill, not least about using laws to make a declaration of fact as a way to correct a court that has heard evidence. . .
“The purpose of those amendments is to match the Bill more closely to the necessities of the Supreme Court judgment, in order that it’s more just and fewer open to challenge. For the sake of the people whose lives will probably be affected by yet more upheaval, who, because it stands, won’t even have the chance to have their claim heard on this country, we cannot afford to get this incorrect.”
He insisted that the amendments “don’t wreck the Bill, nor remove the target of deterrence from it” — fairly, they addressed concerns about its compliance with international law.
Supporting the amendments, Lord Coaker (Labour) said: “I’m astonished and astounded and find it unbelievable that His Majesty’s Government must be reminded that we wish our Government to comply with international law.”
Lord Howard (Conservative) argued that the “advice” from the UNHCR can be binding and take away the choice from the Secretary of State.
The creator of the Bill, Lord Sharpe, argued that the Government had done its own research and assessment of the security of Rwanda and was confident within the terms of its treaty with Rwanda.
Without his support, Baroness Chakrabarti withdrew her amendments.
Bishop Chessun also supported an amendment, brought by Lord Hailsham, to make it clear that the Bill replaced the Supreme Court findings.
“A Bill cannot change the actual situation on the bottom in a foreign country; it could actually only mandate that evidence on the contrary is disregarded,” the Bishop said. “Legislating that Rwanda is a secure country doesn’t necessarily make it so for the doubtless vulnerable individuals who is perhaps sent there. However, the Bill’s primary purpose is to disregard the UK’s own Supreme Court’s finding that Rwanda just isn’t a secure country for asylum-seekers.”
The amendment was not moved after the previous one was withdrawn.
The Bishops of Bristol and St Edmundsbury & Ipswich supported in absentia two amendments from Lord Blunkett (Labour), who, in his opening remarks, warned: “Nothing that I say this evening needs to be taken as any endorsement whatever for any a part of the Bill, because I don’t consider that it’s going to work or that it is appropriate when it comes to our international conventions.”
His amendment would mean that “Someone who’s offshored and may justify their asylum claim by showing that they’re a real refugee needs to be allowed back into the [UK].”
In support, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Revd Stephen Conway, spoke of his personal experience of Rwanda. While the people were “wonderful” and the economy had developed, “institutions of civil society remain substantially undeveloped,” he said.
Deportees have to be given the fitting to return and establish a claim within the UK; not to provide them this is able to be “simply immoral” and mustn’t even be contemplated, he said.
“We must look very rigorously again at putting this burden on the people of Rwanda and the way we’d think significantly better about working along with other nations in developing a pattern that may help us, in the long run, deal with huge further migration through climate change, which we now have not even contemplated yet and which can affect us very deeply.”
The amendment was not moved.
The consideration of further amendments will proceed in the course of the next sitting on Wednesday and again on 19 February.
