Watch again: Rwanda policy debate after MPs warn bill flouts human rights law
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Watch again as members of the House of Lords debated Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda asylum bill on Monday, 12 February, after MPs as peers warned it is “fundamentally incompatible” with the UK’s human rights obligations and would flout international law.
The government’s Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill “risks untold damage” to the UK’s hard-won reputation as a proponent of human rights internationally, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights said prior to the debate.
Following a Supreme Court ruling against the plan, the controversial draft legislation and a treaty with Rwanda are intended to prevent further legal challenges to the stalled deportation scheme.
The bill seeks to limit asylum seekers’ ability to appeal against being put on a flight to the east African country.
Under the proposed legislation, judges would be compelled to regard Rwanda as safe and people could therefore be deported there.
However, the crossbench committee of MPs and Lords said they were “not persuaded that Parliament can be confident that Rwanda is now safe. In any event, we consider that the courts are best placed to resolve such contested issues of fact.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments