The Green Party remains utterly opposed to the entire Bill. I greatly regret that we gave it a Second Reading, it is nasty and inhumane. Clause 1(2)(b) says that “this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”. Acts of Parliament are not vehicles for Parliament to express its opinion about issues, so this clause ought to be removed on that basis alone, or else we will start legislating opinions instead of laws. We have not been presented with any evidence to prove that Rwanda is safe, and we have no process to make such determinations.
Why would anyone want a piece of legislation to exist on the statute book with a key provision that “Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”, if Rwanda is not conclusively safe? Rwanda is either conclusively safe or it is not. If it is conclusively safe, why do we need legislation to force decision-makers to treat it as such? If it is not conclusively safe, why would we force decision-makers to treat it as though it is? This clause is either pointless or plainly false.
My first speech to the House on Day 1 of Committee Stage:
This is an absurd Bill. It is nasty. It is inhumane. I do not want any part of it, and Greens have made it clear, along with our friends—on this occasion—the Lib Dems, that we would stop it if we possibly could. In line with that, I support Amendment 3, in the names of Lord Hailsham, and Lady Chakrabarti. It has been claimed that “silly” is not an appropriate term; but it is frankly silly drafting.
Clause 1(2)(b) says that
“this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”.
Acts of Parliament are not vehicles for Parliament to express its opinion about issues, so this clause ought to be removed on that basis alone, or else we will start legislating opinions instead of laws.
But Parliament is not of the opinion that Rwanda is a safe country; we have not been presented with any evidence to prove that, and we have no process to make such determinations. The best we have is a debate on amendments, which we may pass and return to the Commons—to the other end, or whatever we call it. The Government will, of course, disagree with any amendments we pass; they will almost certainly strip them out, and we will be back here debating again, wasting long hours trying to make this Government see sense. This is bad law-making, and a silly precedent.
Is not a Motion, rather than legislation, the correct vehicle for each House to formulate its judgment and express its view on an issue, independent of one another? What future opinions will be voiced in legislation? What views will be forced on your Lordships’ House by the elected House, no matter how wrong or how wicked? This deals with just one small part of this awful Bill, but it is illustrative of the constitutional and moral nonsense that runs throughout. This Bill cannot be amended; it must be stopped.
In answer to the noble (and learned?) Lord Howard, with these amendments we are trying to stop the Government forcing us to lie. That is what we are trying to do.
My following intervention:
Each and every amendment proposed to this Bill shows the sheer nonsense of it. We are being forced by this Government to deny reality. We are being forced to create an enduring piece of legislation that states the proposition that Rwanda is “conclusively” safe, which cannot be rebutted even by conclusive proof to the contrary. This is Alice in Wonderland; it is complete and utter nonsense.
I have signed Amendments 6, 20 and 26 in the name of Lord Hope of Craighead. I have tucked myself under his coat-tails because they are incredibly sensible amendments. They at least require the Rwanda treaty to be given effect and to remain fully implemented for the Act to have effect.
However, even with that, I am not sure that we can legislate that Rwanda is conclusively safe, so my Amendment 93 would go further. It would require the whole Act to be scrapped on the day that the Secretary of State is presented with evidence that Rwanda is not conclusively a safe country. The Lords might call this a wrecking amendment; I would call it a huge dollop of sanity in the mad world of this Bill. Surely the Minister and all other noble Lords should support this.
Why would anyone want a piece of legislation to exist on the statute book with a key provision that “Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”, if Rwanda is not conclusively safe? Rwanda is either conclusively safe or it is not. If it is conclusively safe, why do we need legislation to force decision-makers to treat it as such? If it is not conclusively safe, why would we force decision-makers to treat it as though it is? This clause is either pointless or plainly false.
I struggle to see how this Bill was ever written. Did lawyers really write this Bill? I cannot believe that anyone is going to defend it when it is so patently stupid.
Read the whole debate here: Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill – Hansard – UK Parliament
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb 