The legislation, which deems Rwanda a safe country and restricts the ability of courts to block deportations on human rights grounds, was drafted following the Supreme Court’s ruling to the contrary last year.
However, peers this week passed amendments requiring the Bill to be fully compliant with international law, and preventing deportation flights from taking off until after independent officials confirm the UK-Rwanda treaty has been implemented. Other amendments give courts powers to overrule the presumption that Rwanda is safe if there is ‘credible evidence to the contrary’.
Once the Report stage is completed, the Bill will return to the House of Commons, where MPs will accept or reject the amendments.
Last week, the UN special rapporteurs expressed concern that the Bill may violate the principle of non-refoulement (that no person should be returned to a country where they might be at risk of persecution) and may not provide effective access to asylum.
They expressed concern that the Bill, as currently drafted, ‘would unduly limit judicial independence by requiring judges to treat Rwanda as a safe third country now and in the future, regardless of any evidence to the contrary before them’. Moreover, they warned the Bill ‘could undermine the principles of the separation of powers and the rule of law in the UK’.
Law Society president Nick Emmerson said: ‘The Law Society—alongside scores of parliamentarians and civil society organisations—has repeatedly expressed concerns that the Rwanda Bill profoundly undermines the democratic balance of powers in the UK by sidelining the courts from providing independent, legal oversight. This makes it incompatible with international law and the rule of law.
‘This statement from UN experts shows that these concerns are shared beyond the UK.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=a13edd28_1)
