Nick Emmerson is President of the Law Society of England and Wales
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is one of the most damaging pieces of legislation to the rule of law brought forward in recent history. It corrodes the independence of the judiciary, removes basic human rights, and could potentially do great harm to the UK’s international standing.
While amendments made in the House of Lords remove some of the Bill’s worst excesses, the Government looks set to ignore these concerns, despite their cross-party support.
It is therefore left to the MPs who care about British principles of the rule of law, judicial independence, and the rules-based international order to push the Government to consider the concerns of the Lords and look to improve the Bill.
Even on the Government’s own terms, the Rwanda plan is in a state of disarray. The number of people who would be removed under the agreement would not make a dent in the mounting backlogs of asylum cases. The eyewatering costs of the scheme are racking up, with it being admitted in drips and drabs that the price tag to the UK taxpayer will be far higher than originally touted. A much-overlooked term of the Treaty itself requiring the UK to accept “a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees” exposes an irreconcilable incoherence between the Government’s purported aims and the actual outcomes.
The latest revelation of the Rwanda scheme’s failure on its terms can be found tucked away in Hansard records of debates on the Bill from the House of Lords.
The Government has promised both Parliament and the public that they can rest assured that Rwanda is a safe country because of protections put in place through the Treaty. Yet, in debates, Ministers could not confirm whether these are, in practice, actually in place or if they even might be by the time the Bill is passed and the scheme is operationalised.
Peers questioned whether vital elements of the assurances given have actually been implemented by Rwanda – including setting up new courts, training asylum decision-makers and judges, and putting protections into Rwandan law. The answer they received was that these elements are being “work[ed] towards”.
When pressed as to whether this means the safeguards are not currently in place, Lord Stewart, the Advocate General for Scotland, gave the telling response: “It must do.” If these elements are not in place, this could result in people being removed to Rwanda before any of the Supreme Court’s concerns have been addressed.
Whether the protections provided for in the Treaty will even be sufficient when fully implemented is another question and one which the Law Society has serious reservations about. However, as it stands, even those minimum safeguards provided for have not been secured. Therefore, the very basis on which the Government has justified ignoring the Supreme Court and calling on MPs to do the same by voting through its Bill has been removed.
The issue of safeguards dominated debates in the House of Lords and, subsequently, the amendments have been made to the Bill. Mindful of their limits as a scrutiny and revision chamber, peers were at pains to make clear that, despite the ardent opposition felt by many, the purpose of amendments voted through are to regain some balance in its measures – not to undo them.
So, what do the changes made by the Lords achieve and does the Government need to fear them?
Firstly, the amendments made require that the terms and protections in the Treaty are fully implemented before removals to Rwanda begin. This should be a given and was surely the Government’s intention in signing the Treaty, so should cause no great alarm.
Looking ahead, the changes also seek to ensure that there is ongoing parliamentary oversight. With this Bill the Government is asking Parliament to set in stone that Rwanda is a safe country. They have also staked this ‘safety’ on Rwanda’s adherence to the Treaty – but what happens if it fails to meet those obligations? What if there is a change in circumstances, such as the outbreak of war or civil unrest, which means they are simply unable to uphold their end of the bargain even if they want to?
It is surely in keeping with parliamentary sovereignty that, if Parliament is being asked to make a judgement with profound consequences such as this, there is also a means provided for it to change this judgement, should it need to.
Other changes ensure that the ‘individual circumstances’ challenge mechanism lives up to its promise as a safeguard. In early Commons debates several Conservative MPs made clear that they are only supportive of the Bill because of the existence of this mechanism, limited though it was and still is.
What’s more, it was previously reported that the Rwandan government themselves have insisted that the scheme be compliant with international legal obligations. Ensuring that the individual claims mechanism works effectively is key to this and the amendments made should therefore be seen as helping aid the scheme’s overall workability, not a hindrance.
These amendments attracted widespread support and were each carried by large majorities. Notably, this support was not limited to the opposition benches, with peers of all parties giving their enthusiastic backing – including several prominent Conservatives, such as Kenneth Clarke.
We at the Law Society believe that the Rwanda Bill remains, at best, seriously ill-advised and, at worst, an affront to British constitutional principles. However, the revisions made to it go some way in reducing the negative impact on the rule of law and our balance of powers, while still giving the Rwanda policy the green light to go ahead.
It is right, if the Rwanda policy is to proceed, that this is done with some semblance of checks and balances. We cannot sacrifice our values, our constitutional integrity, and our international reputation in the hope of short-term political gain.
MPs and peers alike now have an important job to do in working together to keep the improvements that have been made and ensure there are appropriate safeguards, at least on our end. If, as the Government says, the terms of the Treaty are enough to secure safety in Rwanda then it will have nothing to fear from these amendments.
Nick Emmerson is President of the Law Society of England and Wales
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is one of the most damaging pieces of legislation to the rule of law brought forward in recent history. It corrodes the independence of the judiciary, removes basic human rights, and could potentially do great harm to the UK’s international standing.
While amendments made in the House of Lords remove some of the Bill’s worst excesses, the Government looks set to ignore these concerns, despite their cross-party support.
It is therefore left to the MPs who care about British principles of the rule of law, judicial independence, and the rules-based international order to push the Government to consider the concerns of the Lords and look to improve the Bill.
Even on the Government’s own terms, the Rwanda plan is in a state of disarray. The number of people who would be removed under the agreement would not make a dent in the mounting backlogs of asylum cases. The eyewatering costs of the scheme are racking up, with it being admitted in drips and drabs that the price tag to the UK taxpayer will be far higher than originally touted. A much-overlooked term of the Treaty itself requiring the UK to accept “a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees” exposes an irreconcilable incoherence between the Government’s purported aims and the actual outcomes.
The latest revelation of the Rwanda scheme’s failure on its terms can be found tucked away in Hansard records of debates on the Bill from the House of Lords.
The Government has promised both Parliament and the public that they can rest assured that Rwanda is a safe country because of protections put in place through the Treaty. Yet, in debates, Ministers could not confirm whether these are, in practice, actually in place or if they even might be by the time the Bill is passed and the scheme is operationalised.
Peers questioned whether vital elements of the assurances given have actually been implemented by Rwanda – including setting up new courts, training asylum decision-makers and judges, and putting protections into Rwandan law. The answer they received was that these elements are being “work[ed] towards”.
When pressed as to whether this means the safeguards are not currently in place, Lord Stewart, the Advocate General for Scotland, gave the telling response: “It must do.” If these elements are not in place, this could result in people being removed to Rwanda before any of the Supreme Court’s concerns have been addressed.
Whether the protections provided for in the Treaty will even be sufficient when fully implemented is another question and one which the Law Society has serious reservations about. However, as it stands, even those minimum safeguards provided for have not been secured. Therefore, the very basis on which the Government has justified ignoring the Supreme Court and calling on MPs to do the same by voting through its Bill has been removed.
The issue of safeguards dominated debates in the House of Lords and, subsequently, the amendments have been made to the Bill. Mindful of their limits as a scrutiny and revision chamber, peers were at pains to make clear that, despite the ardent opposition felt by many, the purpose of amendments voted through are to regain some balance in its measures – not to undo them.
So, what do the changes made by the Lords achieve and does the Government need to fear them?
Firstly, the amendments made require that the terms and protections in the Treaty are fully implemented before removals to Rwanda begin. This should be a given and was surely the Government’s intention in signing the Treaty, so should cause no great alarm.
Looking ahead, the changes also seek to ensure that there is ongoing parliamentary oversight. With this Bill the Government is asking Parliament to set in stone that Rwanda is a safe country. They have also staked this ‘safety’ on Rwanda’s adherence to the Treaty – but what happens if it fails to meet those obligations? What if there is a change in circumstances, such as the outbreak of war or civil unrest, which means they are simply unable to uphold their end of the bargain even if they want to?
It is surely in keeping with parliamentary sovereignty that, if Parliament is being asked to make a judgement with profound consequences such as this, there is also a means provided for it to change this judgement, should it need to.
Other changes ensure that the ‘individual circumstances’ challenge mechanism lives up to its promise as a safeguard. In early Commons debates several Conservative MPs made clear that they are only supportive of the Bill because of the existence of this mechanism, limited though it was and still is.
What’s more, it was previously reported that the Rwandan government themselves have insisted that the scheme be compliant with international legal obligations. Ensuring that the individual claims mechanism works effectively is key to this and the amendments made should therefore be seen as helping aid the scheme’s overall workability, not a hindrance.
These amendments attracted widespread support and were each carried by large majorities. Notably, this support was not limited to the opposition benches, with peers of all parties giving their enthusiastic backing – including several prominent Conservatives, such as Kenneth Clarke.
We at the Law Society believe that the Rwanda Bill remains, at best, seriously ill-advised and, at worst, an affront to British constitutional principles. However, the revisions made to it go some way in reducing the negative impact on the rule of law and our balance of powers, while still giving the Rwanda policy the green light to go ahead.
It is right, if the Rwanda policy is to proceed, that this is done with some semblance of checks and balances. We cannot sacrifice our values, our constitutional integrity, and our international reputation in the hope of short-term political gain.
MPs and peers alike now have an important job to do in working together to keep the improvements that have been made and ensure there are appropriate safeguards, at least on our end. If, as the Government says, the terms of the Treaty are enough to secure safety in Rwanda then it will have nothing to fear from these amendments.