UK’s Rwanda bill ‘incompatible with human rights obligations’
The UK government’s controversial Rwanda legislation that deems the African country as a safe place to deport people to is fundamentally incompatible with Britain’s human rights obligations and places it in breach of international law, according to a damning parliamentary report.
MPs and peers from the cross-party joint committee on human rights have delivered a critical analysis of the safety of Rwanda bill, which is progressing at speed through parliament.
The aim of the bill is to counter the judgment of the supreme court last November that found Rwanda was not a safe country to which UK asylum seekers could be forcibly removed.
The bill states Rwanda is in fact a safe country and that anyone sent there by the UK government will not be forcibly removed to an unsafe country. The report finds it is unclear whether this can be guaranteed in practice.
The report is the latest of many from legal and human rights experts condemning the UK government’s Rwanda plan and raising questions about whether the policy is safe, viable and compliant with national and international law.
Following line by line scrutiny of the bill, which reaches its committee stage in the House of Lords on Monday the report finds that the bill is fundamentally incompatible with the UK’s human rights obligations, erodes the protections laid down in the Human Rights Act, contravenes parts of the European convention on human rights and falls short of the UK’s commitment to comply with international treaties.
It goes beyond concerns about the Rwanda policy and warns that the actions the government is taking to disapply certain laws places the UK’s hard-won reputation for the rule of law and human rights “in jeopardy”.
“The bill’s near total exclusion of judicial scrutiny seeks to undermine the constitutional role of the domestic courts in holding the executive to account,” it states.
The human rights organisation Liberty gave evidence saying that even if a court heard evidence that Rwanda is unsafe it would have to ‘stick its fingers into its ears and pretend it was.”
The committee took evidence from legal experts, academics and NGOs. The overwhelming majority said that the bill was not compatible with human rights laws.
The committee asked whether Rwanda was now a safe country to send asylum seekers to simply because the bill says it was, and the majority of its witnesses concluded that the answer was no.
The committee observed that, for the second time in the space of a year, when introducing a bill ministers were unable to confirm that it was more likely than not that the bill would comply with the UK’s international obligations under the European convention on human rights.
The committee’s chair, Joanna Cherry MP, said: “This bill is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court. Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it.
“This isn’t just about the rights and wrongs of the Rwanda policy itself. By taking this approach, the bill risks untold damage to the UK’s reputation as a proponent of human rights internationally."
India targets net-zero carbon emissions by 2070, says Modi
India’s economy will become carbon neutral by the year 2070, the country’s prime minster has announced at the COP26 climate crisis summit in Glasgow. The target date is two decades beyond what scientists say is needed to avert catastrophic climate impacts. India is the last of the world’s major carbon polluters to announce a net-zero target, with China saying it would reach that goal in 2060, and the United States and the European Union aiming for 2050.
COP26: What climate summit means for one woman in Bangladesh
China's carbon emissions are vast and growing, dwarfing those of other countries. Experts agree that without big reductions in China's emissions, the world cannot win the fight against climate change. In 2020, China's President Xi Jinping said his country would aim for its emissions to reach their highest point before 2030 and for carbon neutrality before 2060. His statement has now been confirmed as China's official position ahead of the COP26 global climate summit in Glasgow. But China has not said exactly how these goals will be achieved.
Why China's climate policy matters to us all
China's carbon emissions are vast and growing, dwarfing those of other countries. Experts agree that without big reductions in China's emissions, the world cannot win the fight against climate change. In 2020, China's President Xi Jinping said his country would aim for its emissions to reach their highest point before 2030 and for carbon neutrality before 2060. His statement has now been confirmed as China's official position ahead of the COP26 global climate summit in Glasgow. But China has not said exactly how these goals will be achieved.
Deliver on promises, developing world tells rich at climate talks
A crucial U.N. conference heard calls on its first day for the world's major economies to keep their promises of financial help to address the climate crisis, while big polluters India and Brazil made new commitments to cut emissions. World leaders, environmental experts and activists all pleaded for decisive action to halt the global warming which threatens the future of the planet at the start of the two-week COP26 summit in the Scottish city of Glasgow on Monday. The task facing negotiators was made even more daunting by the failure of the Group of 20 major industrial nations to agree ambitious new commitments at the weekend.