The Safety of Rwanda bill returns to the Commons today. The Conservative majority remains sufficiently large to ensure the Lords’ amendments, voted on last week, are rejected and the bill will then return to the Lords for their (expected) approval later.
Lords’ amendments to the Safety of Rwanda bill
After much debate and ‘ping-ponging’ between the Lords and the Commons, the Lords have stuck with two amendments, one of which is for independent oversight of the safety of Rwanda and the other to exclude Afghans who supported the UK in Afghanistan from being sent to Rwanda. Lord Browne of Ladyton has proposed that “agents, allies and employees of the UK overseas” and their families are exempt from removal to Rwanda.
There is considerable disquiet in parliament, and amongst the public, that the bill allows for the removal of Afghans to Rwanda who have assisted the British army or state building UK institutions in Afghanistan. Many Conservative MPs are putting pressure on Rishi Sunak to allow the Lords’ amendment.
‘Safe’ routes for Afghans fleeing to the UK
The disquiet is understandable. People who have assisted the UK and, consequently, have had to flee the Taliban should be protected and we have a moral obligation to do so. Parliamentarians are also concerned about the impact sending Afghans to Rwanda will have on any future co-operation between the UK and countries with which we are militarily involved. The UK will be viewed as an untrustworthy partner.
The government has argued that Afghans who supported the UK should pursue safe and legal routes to come here – the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) scheme. There are many obstacles to be overcome for this to be a viable route including having access to identity papers and access to a British consulate.
Afghan refugees who have made it to other countries, primarily Pakistan, have been thwarted by the British government at every stage in their application and Pakistan is now returning undocumented Afghans to their homeland and evicting them from refugee accommodation. Many are fleeing Pakistan and attempting to get to the UK however they can.
Breaching our international legal responsibilities to refugees
In 2023, 5,545 Afghans arrived by small boat. At 20%, they were the biggest single group crossing the Channel. Not all worked with the UK government or military, but many did. There seems to be a consensus, across the political divide, that the government has behaved badly towards them. However, this attempt to provide some protection against the government’s asylum policies is misplaced.
The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”. The Nationality and Borders Act and the Illegal Migration Act seek to disallow those who fulfil these criteria – but who have travelled through a third country, or arrived in the UK by irregular means – the right to apply for asylum in the UK and to be deported to any ‘safe’ country that will have them.
The Lords’ (Afghan) amendment should be rejected
Of course, Afghan citizens who supported the UK should be provided with protection, but the amendment to the Safety of Rwanda bill is not the way to do it. The bill is merely the means of declaring an unsafe country safe, so that earlier legislation comes one step nearer to being legal under UK, if not international, law. Exempting Afghans would not render them any less liable for deportation, only that they will not be sent to Rwanda.
The amendment provides only minimal protection for those Afghans who served and an opt out may even negate the need for a properly resourced and supported ARAP scheme. Already, more Afghans have arrived by small boat than the government allowed for under ARAP (10,000).
Afghans who served the UK, by arriving in small boats, have made visible the cruelty of the government’s plans and their deceit about safe routes. However, these plans and absence of safe routes are cruel for all refugees. Legislation should not, as this amendment does, allow for different levels of cruelty according to political expediency.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
