The callous and probably unworkable plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda reached peak absurdity this week with the resignation of the immigration minister Robert Jenrick. In an act of brazen self-interest, he threw Sunak into the sea. In an emergency press conference, Sunak was forced to back controversial legislation to declare Rwanda a safe place. If he had not done so there was a serious chance of a rebellion. Political dogfighting has proved irresistible to the media. The endless twists and turns are reported ceaselessly. Less attention is paid though to the legislation. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill poses serious threats to UK democracy and Scottish devolved powers.
Culture wars sparked off by Tory strategists have sporadically lit up and fizzled away. Only one has persisted. The ‘Stop the boats’ campaign is the last remaining survivor. It embodies the simple but effective strategy of constructing a wedge issue to divide voters, in this case on immigration. Culture wars are not intended to fix anything. Assuming deportations are sanctioned, Rwanda will only accept a few hundred people. According to the BBC , over 27 thousand people crossed the English Channel in 2023. Deporting asylum seekers will account for a tiny proportion of that number. The real intention is to energise wavering Tory voters and to defend against Reform UK, especially if Nigel Farage returns. The legislation excreted in the wake of escalating cycles of performative cruelty should worry us.
Democracy in name only
On Wednesday, James Cleverly (Secretary of State for the Home Department) announced draft legislation. It declared Rwanda a safe country. This was in response to the unanimous Supreme Court ruling that the government scheme was unlawful because asylum seekers could face refoulement (being returned) to their country of origin. This would breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against Torture and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Rather than accept the Supreme Court ruling, the government formulated new legislation to override those parts of UK national law where the international instruments had been applied. Section 2 begins with, “Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”.
In other words, any decision-maker from the Secretary of State down must accept the government’s view of Rwanda as being safe regardless of any contradictory evidence. As Lord Garnier said, this is nonsensical. It is like saying “All dogs are cats.”
Where UK national law stands in the way of the Rwanda scheme, it is simply disapplied, as in the section titled, ‘Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998.’
The legislation is draconian. It strips the right of asylum seekers to be properly processed. Clearly, this is in contravention of international law. These are people already traumatised by war and other disasters who will be flown to a place that may or may not treat them humanely.
The threat to democracy should be obvious. If a government can assert, without evidence, that a country is safe, what other views might it seek to enshrine in law? Is there anything to stop it, for example, banishing elections? Could it define membership of opposition parties as illegal? There is no obvious way to stop such abuses of power. Parliament clearly stands above the law and parliament can be hijacked if a party is prepared to use its majority. Only the House of Lords stands in the way. This last line of defence is surely not impregnable though.
So much for devolved powers
The definition of Rwanda as a safe country applies within the UK and therefore in Scotland. Just as Scotland had to follow England out of the EU, it has little choice but to accept laws made in England on immigration. Despite being pro-EU and generally outward-looking, Scotland must accept legislation that works entirely in the opposite direction. It can have no meaningful say on the issue. More chastening still, when legislation can turn dogs into cats, how safe are Scotland’s devolved powers? The Rwanda bill tells us they can be removed with the stroke of a pen.
