RISHI Sunak has been urged to abandon his Rwanda scheme by a United Nations human rights watchdog.
The Prime Minister hopes to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda this spring, but the legislation is still held up in Parliament.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) called on the UK Government to abandon the scheme and repeal measures already in legislation as part of Sunak’s plan to “stop the boats” crossing the English Channel.
But UK Government sources told the PA news agency the UN was guilty of "double standards" because the international body already sends refugees to Rwanda.
UN refugee agency the UNHCR has evacuated people from Libya to Rwanda, but that is a temporary and voluntary scheme.
The Government’s plans would see people who arrive on small boats deported to Rwanda to claim asylum there, with no right to come back to the UK.
The international panel was “deeply concerned about the introduction of legislative initiatives containing elements that discriminate against migrants and that seek to limit access to rights for asylum seekers, refugees and migrants”, such as the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
The committee said the law, which is intended to stop people who arrive in the UK illegally from being able to stay here, effectively amounts to an “asylum ban”.
READ MORE: Cheaper to fly people to space than send an asylum seeker to Rwanda, MPs told
The human rights body said it “regrets” the Rwanda plan and the Government’s efforts to adopt the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill “despite the ruling of the UK Supreme Court that the arrangement would not be compliant with international law”.
The legislation, which is due to return to the Commons when MPs come back to Westminster following the Easter break on April 15, is designed to make the Rwanda plan legally watertight following the Supreme Court defeat.
The Safety of Rwanda Bill and a treaty with Kigali are aimed at addressing concerns about the scheme and the potential for people sent to the African nation to be removed to another country – a process known as refoulement – where they could face persecution.
The UN body said the Government should pull the legislation, or repeal it if passed by Parliament, “with a view to strictly upholding the principle of non-refoulement in both law and practice”.
The report published on Thursday was issued by the Human Rights Committee, which monitors countries’ compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Its 18 members are independent human rights experts drawn from around the world.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel