MPs and peers from the cross-party joint committee on human rights have delivered a critical analysis of the safety of Rwanda bill, which is progressing at speed through parliament.
The aim of the bill is to counter the judgment of the supreme court last November that found Rwanda was not a safe country to which UK asylum seekers could be forcibly removed.
The report is the latest of many from legal and human rights experts condemning the UK government’s Rwanda plan and raising questions about whether the policy is safe, viable and compliant with national and international law.
“The bill’s near total exclusion of judicial scrutiny seeks to undermine the constitutional role of the domestic courts in holding the executive to account,” it states.
The committee asked whether Rwanda was now a safe country to send asylum seekers to simply because the bill says it was, and the majority of its witnesses concluded that the answer was no.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are committed to tackling this major global challenge with bold and innovative solutions, and the Rwanda scheme is doing just that.
The original article contains 605 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
MPs and peers from the cross-party joint committee on human rights have delivered a critical analysis of the safety of Rwanda bill, which is progressing at speed through parliament.
The aim of the bill is to counter the judgment of the supreme court last November that found Rwanda was not a safe country to which UK asylum seekers could be forcibly removed.
The report is the latest of many from legal and human rights experts condemning the UK government’s Rwanda plan and raising questions about whether the policy is safe, viable and compliant with national and international law.
“The bill’s near total exclusion of judicial scrutiny seeks to undermine the constitutional role of the domestic courts in holding the executive to account,” it states.
The committee asked whether Rwanda was now a safe country to send asylum seekers to simply because the bill says it was, and the majority of its witnesses concluded that the answer was no.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are committed to tackling this major global challenge with bold and innovative solutions, and the Rwanda scheme is doing just that.
The original article contains 605 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!