The Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, criticised the government’s Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in the House of Commons this afternoon (Tuesday 12 December).
The Conservative government won a vote this evening as ministers try to revive a plan to send asylum-seekers to the East African country while their claims are processed.
Caroline Lucas said: “This year is the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights.
“What an irony, and what a shameful indictment of ministers, that our government are marking it by putting in front of Parliament a bill to wave aside our human rights obligations and the judgment of the highest domestic court in the land.
“This insulting and dangerous legislation attacks both human rights and our democratic structures.
“In doing so, it both demeans and disrespects the role that the UK has played in helping to shape the international rules-based order, including its contribution to the drafting and early ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the aftermath of the horrors of World War Two.
“It is stated on this shameful bill’s very cover that the government cannot say that it complies with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR – a terrible admission of this government’s willingness to violate the principle that human rights are universal and belong to all of us by virtue of our humanity.
“As others have noted, the bill overturns an authoritative, unanimous Supreme Court judgment based on extensive evidence and made just three weeks ago.
“Our highest domestic court ruled that by sending refugees to Rwanda, the UK could breach its obligations under the ECHR and other international laws such as the refugee convention, the UN convention against torture and the UN international covenant on civil and political rights, as well as domestic law.
“In seeking to oust the jurisdiction of our domestic courts by forbidding them from making assessments of fact and disapplying the Human Rights Act, the bill is constitutionally exceptional and provocative.
“It explicitly disapplies multiple sections of that landmark act, including basic minimum standards that protect us all, leaving barely any room for judicial scrutiny.
“Courts would be barred from considering whether removing an individual to Rwanda could result in removal to a country where they would face torture or inhuman and degrading treatment.
“What kind of government would want the courts to ignore that and undermine the separation of powers that is fundamental to UK democracy?
“This ugly bill also attacks interim measures: a vital human rights tool under international law issued on an exceptional basis in extreme circumstances where individuals face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm.
“It both enables UK ministers to decide unilaterally whether the UK should comply with interim measures and prohibits UK courts from having regard to them when considering any case relating to a removal decision to Rwanda.
“To try to justify this cynical and sinister attack on the highest court in the UK, the Prime Minister has started to say that ‘Parliament is sovereign’.
“Obviously, Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants but we have courts so that everyone, including this government, acts with respect for the laws that Parliament has passed.
“As others have said, this bill simply will not work. Its so-called deterrent is not a deterrent to someone fleeing torture or persecution, who has already put their life at risk by taking to one of the busiest shipping lanes in dangerous inflatable boats.
…
“The bill has nothing to do with that, in any case. It is a performative piece of cruelty by a dying administration and a grotesque waste of money that is neither practical nor strategic.
“Most important of all, the outsourcing of our human rights obligations to a third country is downright immoral. To immorality we can add absurdity.
“Seeking to legislate by assertion that Rwanda is safe is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. The government cannot sign a quick treaty one week and legislate the next to make a country safe, when the highest court in the land has said just the opposite.
“The facts on the ground are what matter. It feels bizarre to have to say it but apparently necessary: legislation to say that Parliament believes something to be true does not make it so.
“Fixing the facts on which the law is to be applied is the kind of thinking that dangerous conspiracies are based on.
“As Tom Hickman KC said in a paper for Institute for Government: ‘If the government considers that the treaty has eliminated the real risk of refoulement then it should seek to persuade the courts of that, not Parliament.’
“It should not need saying that when the UK government sign a treaty, they should stick to it.
…
“They now have the embarrassment of being schooled by the Rwandan government who, despite their poor human rights record, are sending out warning shots that even they will pull out of this shoddy deal if the UK government breach international law to implement it.
“I will vote against Second Reading tonight because there is no tweak or amendment that can improve something that is rotten to its core.
“The bill is a doomed and draconian attempt to reassert the Prime Minister’s fragile claim to a non-existent authority but it has serious consequences and sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
“These are deeply dangerous times in this country and they are made more dangerous by this government.
“We have already seen the suppression of the right to strike and to protest – and other democratic principles and standards seriously eroded.
“Now we have this flagrant attack on human rights, on our courts and on the separation of powers in this country.
“I call upon this government to abandon their cruel, immoral and unworkable Rwanda plan and to re-establish the UK’s good standing as a member of the ECHR and international community.”
I can hear a fiddle, and can see smoke from her two houses, is one in Rome?
What exactly in that concise and factual statement do you not agree with?
Middle-class boomer that seems to be fairly sensible, on a higher-than-average salary for most of her life, owns two properties?
That sound you hear isn’t a fiddle, Russell, it’s the pearls that you’re clutching.
The no borders situation enables all-purpose human trafficking and undermines British democracy. All for the sake of cheap exploited labour and mass extra votes. It is not what I pay taxes for or the national security our country fought two world wars for.
This scheme is unworkable nonsense Barry – so far we’ve sent £340 million to Rwanda which might as well have been burnt on a large bonfire. Do you think that’s a worthwhile use of your taxes?
First of all, I thought she resigned? Second, I don’t think it will make any difference to the numbers. State paid lawyers will defend these young working age men based on other human right laws.
Don’t worry Coraline. This bill will make no difference to the numbers thanks to people like you who are responsible for overcrowding this small country, but I guess it’s not you who has to live with the competition. It’s the working class.
Mass majority of these men are NOT refugees Caroline! They’re a economic migrants. They know they’re not refugees. Everyone knows they’re not. It’s just a poker game to them and they know how to play it. The human traffickers (which by the way goes against ECHR and other human rights too) train them up for it. So, stop going on about this bill breaching ECHR because the whole human trafficking system is no different and you are condoning it.
You are also supporting human traffickers by supporting open borders. How about you open your own doors to some of the economic migrants and show that action not words start at home.
“Grotesque waste of money” and the money spent on the legal procedures, accommodation, food on the thousands of migrants each year isn’t a waste or grotesque?
The only thing I found slightly unsettling is that they overturned the supreme courts ruling though. I don’t dislike Coraline. I think she is a genuine person at heart with good intentions but we can’t help the whole world forever!
Lucas is not running for re-election at the next GE, but remains an MP until then.
Personally, I think if this bill gets through parliament, this sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the legal arm of society and gives the executive unchecked power to do what they want.
I don’t think I have to explain why that is a disaster should that ever come to pass.
All that is happening is showing just how weak the executive is. The decisions here are being taken by the legislature (parliament) and backbench MPs as a group have more power than the PM or cabinet.
The bill isn’t good, but the other options seem worse. I haven’t yet seen anything else practical which would stop the boats (and the lives lost in this). Opposition parties just seem to say, “we’ll stop the people trafficking gangs”. Well, we all know that won’t work – governments around the world have been trying to stop the drug trafficking gangs for decades without success – so how could people smugglers be stopped? Methods change (eg. lorries to small boats), but the demand and pull remains. This is one proposal that dents the “pull”
Camps should be built on the ISLE OF SKYE where the local MP Ian Blackford would welcome them. They could then be processed and any that are deemed a threat deported. If they don’t have ID they shoyld be the ones investigated heavily as footage has shown some throw ID into the sea.
Correct – Labour’s notion that there will be no people smugglers as they will all be in jail and nobody will dare take their place is for the birds. Even those countries with the death penalty for drugs trafficking still have drugs traffickers and there’s always plenty more people willing to take the risk. A few years (if that) in a UK or European prison is hardly likely to deter them.
If you think a single Green MP, and not the governing party, is “responsible for overcrowding this small country”, you’re barking mad. The issuance of visas is solely the remit of the government and Home Office.
Evidence of asylum claim results shows that the majority are successfully granted and are therefore both refugees and here legally.
Perhaps if the government didn’t indulge in performative politics and spend millions on schemes that have no cost benefit, solely for the purpose of pandering to their ignorant base, and instead did their job of processing claims quickly, there would not be so much spent on legal procedures, accommodation, and food.
So you are supporting people traffickers by your comment. If MP’s got together and provided a safe passage and processed them rapidly traffickers will then be just left with immigrants that should not be here such as criminals. terrorists etc. Its because MP’s won’t work together and people like you that support the traffickers the situation can’t be resolved. I do think sending them abroad won’t work we should process them here perhaps on camps on the ISKE OF SKYE why the local MP supports the traffickers.
Yawn. Typical braindead response, any dissent from the headbangers’ point of view is “supporting people traffickers”.
Try an original thought, and perhaps start to try to understand nuance and reason.
Where did I mention Caroline alone was entirely to blame for this? Track back to my comment please.
“Evidence of asylum claim results shows that the majority are successfully granted and are therefore both refugees and here legally.” You mean the people crossing from over France are in danger and being persecuted over there. How they even have a base for a claim is beyond questionable including the rogue state paid lawyers who defend them. The whole thing is bonkers.
How long is “processing claims quickly?” a day, a week, a month?” How does the government process claims quickly? Do you have practical plan how to execute this or is processing claims quickly just a dream theory in your head? It’s easy to tell someone to do the job better but tell them how to do it better please.
So, are you in support of the human trafficking network and the millions it makes without paying tax, not to mention the lives it puts at risk!
Your words are “thanks to people like you (Ms Lucas) who are responsible for overcrowding this small country”. Clearly this is nonsense – as I have explained, a Green MP with a single seat in Parliament is not responsible for the issuance of visas, the elected government is.
“People crossing over from France….how they even have a base for a claim…” And there it is, the abject and wilful lack of understanding of international law and treaties.
“Rogue state paid lawyers” A weak attempt at a slur but this is simply legal representation, which every person is entitled to. Take away other people’s rights and you take away yours.
The increasing backlog in claims processing together with the reduction in claims processed is common knowledge to anyone that looks. How to do it better? Increase the funding and support for the Home Office and the direction to actually do their job back to what it was 10 years ago – the current backlog is a deliberate sabotage of the process by the government, and removing the politics from the process is the simplest way of improving it.
Am I in support of a human trafficking network? Here we go again, are you related to Robert+Pattinson by any chance? The same tired attempt at slurs.
“A weak attempt at a slur but this is simply legal representation, which every person is entitled to.” So people crossing over are crossing over legally therefore should get legal representation even though they broke the law before setting foot in the country AND have chosen to leave another safe country before landing here? Again, bonkers.
“Take away other people’s rights and you take away yours” I haven’t funded criminal networks to cross over multiple safe borders illegally.
“Increase the funding” What from the magic money tree? Councils are going bankrupt. Where do you get the funding from? Tax you more? If increasing funding was so simple, why haven’t they done that?
“Support for the Home Office and the direction to actually do their job back to what it was 10 years ago” What when the number of illegal crossing were much lower? You never answered: Are you in support of human trafficking?
Leaving a “safe country” is not relevant, do try to stick to the law. It’s because of ignorant and uninformed comments like yours that people need legal representation, to ensure that those who don’t know the law are represented by people who do.
It’s clear that you don’t understand that removing anyone’s right to legal representation, no matter where they have come from or what they have done, has the potential to open yourself up to the same removal of that right.
You don’t even understand that Councils do not fund the processing of claims, the central government does via the Home Office.
Really, in light of the level of ignorance you display in every comment I see no point in continuing this with you, you’re like a pigeon strutting on a chess board.
She is supporting people traffickers, MP’s could easily resolve this matter but its to take eyes away from legal immigration numbers. House these illegal immigrants for rapid processing on the ISLE OF SKYE where the local MP Ian Blackford would welcome them. All resources could then be in one place to process them.
If MP’s got together instead of supporting these people traffickers the situation could be resolved. Can Lucas guarantee that the illegal immigrants and the people traffickers she is supporting are not a threat to our safety?
They are not illegal. Hope this helps, but I doubt it – the cognitive dissonance between you saying they are “illegal” and the lack of arrests (because they are not illegal) is not something you will easily overcome.
So people trafficking and entering the country via boats is not illegal? why have passport controls at airports etc. Every immigrant that arrives by these boats are illegal immigrants.
People trafficking is illegal, clearly.
Entering a country without documentation is unusual but not illegal. If the right to entry can be established through other means then the entry is legal, and the evidential statistics shows that initial decisions – the first decision, before any appeal – are successful in over 75% of asylum applications.
Immigration applicants between the time that they land and the time that the application has been processed are not “illegal” due to a Home Office loophole; while the applications are being processed, the applicants are deemed not to have entered the U.K. and therefore they cannot be here illegally because, technically, they have not yet ‘entered’ the U.K.
There is a very small percentage of immigrants that do not present themselves to an immigration control officer and go on the run; those on the run are illegal if they are suspected of being required to present themselves and fail to do so.
Oh Robert, you REALLY would benefit from reading up on the law. There are a lot of fundamental flaws in your comments highlighting a lack of knowledge on the subject.
Stick them on the Isle of Wight or possibly the Channel islands. Cheaper, controlled and not too far if their claim is approved.
Do you not realise the damage done to our country the racial tensions no homes for our children can’t get hospital appointments can’t see a doctor 90% of prisoners are from a different country all what our grandparents went through to win the war there be spinning in there graves now we’re a disgrace to have allowed this to happen not a English taxi driver not a English barber high streets taken over by non English people this country is ruined it’s a disgrace to our ancestors and it’s the poor who have to live around them our children in the schools have to learn a dozen or more faiths languages it’s so so sad what you do Golders have done to our wonderful country I hope you all rot in hell