Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am not sure what the noble Baroness’s question to me is, but, as a great Francophile, I am sorry to hear her abuse the French nation in that way.

My noble friend said that this was different because the Supreme Court has expressed an opinion. Amendment 5 says that a purpose of the Bill should be to uphold the rule of law. As I understand it, the rule of law in this country for 1,000 years has meant that laws made and approved by our elected representatives are partially implemented by the courts, and all of us—citizens, public officials, Ministers and police, and even lawyers and bishops—are subject to those laws. If we do not like the law, we can try to persuade our elected representatives to change it. If Parliament feels that the courts have interpreted laws in a way that Parliament did not intend or that is out of line with the values and interests of the public who elect it, Parliament can change the law. That is what we are doing. We have a perfect right to do so as long as Parliament remains sovereign.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I was in Rwanda last Thursday. More particularly, I was in the Rwandan Parliament. I can confirm to your Lordships’ House that, on Wednesday last week, the Rwandan Chamber of Deputies ratified the treaty by 64 votes to two. Rwanda is a monist country, unlike this country, which is dualist. That means that the international obligations of Rwanda are enforceable in domestic courts. Once ratified by the Senate of Rwanda, the treaty will have effect legally within Rwanda.

Noble Lords will recall that the basis upon which the Supreme Court found Rwanda to be unsafe was particularly set out in the judgment. Each and every paragraph of the treaty obtained by the United Kingdom Government with the Government of Rwanda was targeted at the decision of the Supreme Court. Noble Lords will notice that, with the approval and ratification of the treaty in Rwanda, there is simply no basis upon which it can be said Rwanda is unsafe. These amendments are unnecessary.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

If that is so, why or how is it that a number of refugees from Rwanda have been given asylum protection in this country?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Lord will be well aware, the treaty is directly reflective of all the Supreme Court’s concerns about the safety of Rwanda. The fact that there are refugees from a certain country does not mean that that country is of itself always and everywhere unsafe.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, at this stage of the debate on this group, we are looking at two distinct things. One is the question of whether Rwanda is safe. If, as the noble Lord just said, it is unquestionably safe, it seems to me that these amendments are not a problem because, at that point, the Secretary of State can easily say, “It’s safe”, and they will have evidence of that, for this and future Governments.

However, the object of this group is the rule of law, which is the main subject we are looking at. Going back to the development of international human rights law, particularly in the period after 1945, there is a difficulty in totally separating domestic and international law. The rise in international human rights law grew out of the horrors of the 1940s. In 1933, the German Government were legally and properly elected, and passed horrific laws that did terrible things, starting from within a few weeks of the election of Adolf Hitler. That continued, and most historians agree that the first two elections gave the Nazi Party a legitimate majority.

Winston Churchill’s advocacy of the European Court of Human Rights after the Second World War grew up in order to give a fallback where domestic law was not doing the right thing, by linking it to international law and ensuring that there was a stop that said, “You can do this perfectly legitimately domestically, but that doesn’t mean it’s always right and always the right thing to do”. Let us be clear: we are not in a situation remotely like that. The Government are not doing something on the scale of what we saw at that stage. But they are challenging the right of international law to constrain our actions.

The point of international law is to stop Governments going ahead with things that are wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, made two very good points, particularly in his questions. But one thing I was brought up believing and even, believe it or not, something I was told when I was trained as a clergyman—we do get trained, although that may sound surprising from time to time—was that it is a basic rule of ethics and morality that two wrongs do not make a right. So the fact that we have done the wrong thing in the past does not automatically make it right today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for sponsoring Amendments 9 and 12, to which I have added my name. They take up matters that I and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised in Committee. This evening, Rwanda might be the safest country in Africa for all I know, but over the last few years we have seen a number of military coups and takeovers across African countries. To enshrine in legislation the notion that Rwanda will remain safe whatever seems to beggar belief. Who knows in what state that country might be in six to 12 months’ time? Who knows how safe it will be then? The courts need the ability to take new facts into consideration, to recognise that Rwanda may not be the same in a certain number of weeks, months or years as it was on this evening at the beginning of March 2024. We must have that flexibility. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will press these amendments to a Division. I will support him in the Lobby if he does.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, as a member of the JCHR delegation, I had the benefit of visiting the very hospital in Kigali that will provide mental health support to relocated individuals. It was an impressive experience. That hospital has very capable psychiatric and psychological care. This is perhaps unsurprising given the context in which Rwanda finds itself. This is a country that, 30 years ago, was caused mass trauma as a consequence of the genocide against the Tutsi, which cost 800,000 lives in Rwanda. You can imagine the impact that has on relatives and those who knew those 800,000 people. Mental health is a widely understood and widely acknowledged issue in Rwanda. The community schemes to work on mental health are abundant. This is a country that understands mental health. The points raised against Rwanda on the basis of mental health are, in my view, unfounded. I do not accept the contentions advanced by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady D’Souza.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and his trying to portray mental health provision within Rwanda. To use his words, the understanding of the illness may be there, and he says that the provision is significant. I point out that there are 13,170 psychiatrists in the UK, which equates to one for every 5,200 citizens. What the noble Lord, Lord Murray, did not tell the House is that there are only 15 psychiatrists in the whole of Rwanda, which equates to one for every 953,000 people. Clearly, the provision is not on the ground. The number of clinical psychologists is not known, but the latest evidence is that it probably runs to fewer than 200. The people who are vulnerable and critically scarred mentally will need the use of psychologists and psychiatrists. The fact is that they are not there. When the noble Lord, Lord Murray, presents his views of what he has seen, they are important, but they must be put into context of exactly what provision there is in Rwanda. Even though the Government may wish to see mental health provision as important, it is not on the ground to treat people already in Rwanda, never mind people who will be going because of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21 in my name and also link that with Amendments 20 and 18. If Amendment 20 had had any space, I would have signed it as well, because it makes the same case. I will address Amendment 17 later and look forward very much to seeing how the Government deal with it in their response.

At the moment I will just repeat the universality issue of human rights—they are for all. I read once again the response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, about legitimacy and I am sure we will hear it again today. But the underpinning of the Human Rights Act is that the protections should not be disapplied just to some people. Human rights are for all; if they become qualified, they are no longer human rights but only rights for some people. This violates the principle of the universality of human rights, which is why this amendment is in place.

It does not matter that this is directed at illegal migrants: once the Government do this for one group, they will choose—or could choose—to use it for other groups such as protesters.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Is the logic of the noble Lord’s point therefore that the Government would be better to repeal the Human Rights Act completely and revert to the pre-1998 situation?

[Lord German (LD)]

No, we simply keep the Human Rights Act, which does the job we are seeking here. Naturally, of course, if the Government want to move and create a special group, as here—what they call “illegal migrants”—what about the other groups that might follow from it? It is very clear that there may well be an issue with protesters—groups that are not in vogue with the Government. It is a very dangerous precedent and this is a warning sign. Fundamentally, what we are seeing here is a chasing of short-term headlines that will have a significant consequence for people’s rights in this country.

Not content with arguments that they are having with the views of the ECHR and the UNHCR, the Government in the last seven days have now drawn swords with the United Nations Human Rights Council. Published last Friday, the council’s report said:

“Prohibiting courts and tribunals in the UK from applying and interpreting principles of domestic human rights law and international law would undermine the ability of the courts to protect all those under UK jurisdiction from violations of their human rights as provided under international law”.


It goes on to say that the Government should look at this matter again and the United Nations has offered to work with the UK Government on this matter. So, when he responds, will the noble Lord tell us whether the Government have read the United Nations Human Rights Council’s review and whether they are prepared to meet the council and discuss this matter further?

There is also a logical inconsistency in what the Government are doing; they cannot have it both ways. They want to rely on the international convention and jurisprudence in justifying the disapplication of the Human Rights Act, but they are then seeking to disapply the findings of that same court in relation to the same international convention with respect to the consideration of interim orders. You cannot have it both ways and the Government need to be clear on that matter.

All the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made about Amendment 17 are absolutely accurate, but one thing worries me completely and that is the part of the amendment that basically takes away every law that this country might apply in this direction—domestic law and common law. For goodness’ sake, with common law as interpreted by the courts, I do not know how you find which parts of it you want to disapply. You have to be specific in what you say if you want to disapply anything of this nature. Amendment 17 looks to me like a complete wiping out, blanking out and blindfolding of every single possible piece of legislation that might stand in the way of this Government’s view, and that absolutely must affect the balance of the rule of law in this country.

I look forward to seeing how the Government will deal with that amendment, but I suggest they might need to consider how they move forward with no further disapplication of the Human Rights Act.

--- Later in debate ---

To put it in context, following the genocide, the abiding principle followed by the Rwandan Government is that of countering what is known as divisionism, ensuring that groups do not arise and are not pitted one against the other. The genocide informs their approach to governance, and that, in effect, means conformity. If you do not conform, it can be and regularly is represented as creating divisionism that would have further consequences and is punishable by law.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The characterisation of the mentality in Rwanda that the noble Lord asserts does not reflect that of the community representatives whom the JCHR met last week. It is clear from the evidence that they gave us that Rwanda is very much a leading light in east Africa, being an open and tolerant home for LGBT+ people. Indeed, it is very much felt in the region that gay people are at home there. Therefore, I do not accept the characterisation that the noble Lord sets out. I encourage him to think again about the welcoming nature of society in Kigali, particularly given what is going on in neighbouring east African states—for example, Uganda and the DRC.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that considered intervention. I can speak only according to my direct experience in Rwanda, from 2008. As I said earlier, in discussion on another group, I worked in Rwanda for several months as the chief election observer for the 2008 elections. At that time, I had to intercede on behalf of activists who were directly experiencing discrimination. I have not given up on that. I recognise what is going on in Uganda and other countries, but comparisons are not always helpful—indeed, they are somewhat odious when it comes to the lived experience of people with whom I am in direct contact. This is not academic; I am talking about what is reported to me, as the noble Lord is referring to what was reported to him and other parliamentarians on a parliamentary visit.

Following on from my previous references to divisionism and the consequences caused by one group being pitted against another, I therefore assert that LGBT people could not live openly. To do so would be a challenge to others that would not be accepted. It would and could be portrayed as divisionism.

This is in direct contrast to the protections that arise from the judgment referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in HJ (Iran) from the Supreme Court of 2010. It affects characteristics that come from belonging to a particular social group. Again, I refer to my intervention in Committee, where I represented some of the concerns of LGBT activists. I will not repeat them, but if Members of your Lordships’ House request me to do so, I would be more than happy to oblige.

At the end of last week, I again made contact with LGBT activists, and asked again what the situation was like for LGBT asylum seekers in Rwanda. The reply was succinct and stark, written in four separate messages so that it could not be connected or traced:

“Rwanda is not a safe place for LGBTQ asylum seekers at all.


Though there are no laws

Community is facing

So much violence and discrimination”.

They are not my words, but the words of people living in that region. That is the reality of life for the LGBTQ people that we send to Rwanda, and sadly not the representations made to visiting parliamentarians.