Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: ECHR

Thursday 1 February 2024 · 3 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Chris Stephens asked about the compatibility of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill with the European convention on human rights.
  • Chris Stephens inquired about recent media reports of Rwandan refugees granted status in the UK despite the Government's stance on Rwanda's safety.
  • Patricia Gibson raised concerns about journalists and bloggers facing arrest and threats in Rwanda, citing reports of torture and disappearances by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Chris Stephens SNP
Asylum & Refugees
Context

The question arises from concerns about the compatibility of a bill concerning asylum seekers sent to Rwanda, in relation to international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Question

What recent assessment she has made of the compatibility of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill with the European convention on human rights?

Answer from Victoria Prentis

I would like to assure the House that the Government respect their international obligations. The Law Officers convention prevents me from disclosing outside Government whether I have given advice or even what the context of any such advice might be. The Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers is currently in the other place, and will, I am sure, be discussed very fully there.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The MP asked for an assessment of compatibility but received assurances about government respect without specific details on legal compliance or analysis provided.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q2 Chris Stephens SNP
Asylum & Refugees
Context

Media reports have indicated that some Rwandans were granted refugee status in the UK, citing well-founded fears of persecution, while the Government claims Rwanda is a safe country.

Question

Just this week, we heard media reports that four Rwandans had been granted refugee status in the UK in the past four months, citing well-founded fears of persecution. At the same time, the Government would like us to accept that Rwanda is a safe country, despite the Home Office accepting that those individuals face a real threat of persecution. Can the Attorney General tell us how we can send asylum seekers to Rwanda under those circumstances?

Answer from Victoria Prentis

We are asking Parliament to look at the matter afresh—not just to look at the facts as they were before the Supreme Court, but to look at new circumstances. Evidence was published on 11 January to assist Parliament in those deliberations. We have assurances from the Government of Rwanda that the implementation of all measures within the treaty will be expedited, and we will ratify the treaty when we are ready to do so.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The MP asked for an explanation on sending asylum seekers but received general reassurances without addressing threats of persecution directly.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q3 Patricia Gibson SNP
Democracy & Elections Standards & Ethics
Context

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have reported issues such as arrests, threats, and allegations of torture against journalists and bloggers who criticize the Government in Rwanda.

Question

Journalists and bloggers who criticise the Government are arrested, threatened and put on trial, with allegations of torture, disappearances and suspicious deaths. Those are just some of the issues that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have reported on in Rwanda. When asking Parliament to disregard established legal principles such as the burden of proof and the need for evidence, is the Attorney General genuinely comfortable in passing the Rwanda Bill?

Answer from Victoria Prentis

It is constitutionally proper for Parliament to legislate in response to a decision of the Supreme Court. We do it all the time in the finance and tax space. Lord Reed was careful to point out to the Constitution Committee in the other House that we did it following the Burmah oil case in the War Damage Act 1965. In this case, I urge the hon. Lady to look hard at the evidence that the Government put before the House on 11 January. If the Bill passes, everyone must treat Rwanda as generally safe for the transfer of individuals under the treaty.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The MP asked about comfort regarding legal principles and human rights but received a constitutional argument without addressing specific concerns directly.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email