Member's statement: Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Member's statement by Mr Jim Allister KC on .
- MLA
- Mr Jim Allister KC
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 23 April 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4485032
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Last night, the Parliament of the United Kingdom completed the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. I do not think that it will deliver the stopping of the boats, but the issue of primary concern to me is in respect of Northern Ireland. That question is this: will the Bill even apply in its full reach to this part of the United Kingdom? I raise that question because of the fact that, under the protocol, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights continues to apply to this part of the United Kingdom and this part alone. We have already seen how the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 was struck down by our High Court because of incompatibility with the protocol. The logic and legal pathway that gave rise to that would equally apply to the provisions of the Rwanda Bill vis-à-vis Northern Ireland and the special arrangements that exist under the charter of fundamental human rights. Of course, the legacy Act case is under appeal, but, subject to that, it seems to me that, by virtue of the fact that article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights has a special protection for asylum seekers, we are on course for the distinctly unacceptable possibility that the Rwanda Bill's ability to remove asylum seekers will not apply with the same force and effect to Northern Ireland, creating a further border, this time an asylum immigration border, and underscoring the iniquity of the Union-dismantling nature of the protocol. It is something that one will watch with great interest, noting that the Rwanda Bill purports to disapply portions of the European Convention on Human Rights but does not disapply any portions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which, of course, applies here. Hence my conclusion that we are likely to see great disparity in the approach and great detriment to our supposed position as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
324 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.20 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.86 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.13 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:03 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.