RIGHTS groups hit out today at government attempts to “reinterpret” international law to justify its much-criticised asylum reforms.

The United Nations refugee agency UNHCR has repeatedly warned that policies in the government’s Nationality and Borders Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, are “fundamentally at odds with the Refugee Convention and Britain’s obligations under it.”

But, in an apparent shift in the government’s position, Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford declared last week that the government disagrees with UNHCR, the custodian of the Refugee Convention.  

She said: “As a sovereign state, it is up to us to interpret the 1951 convention.”

But rights groups have rejected her claims, with Amnesty International UK hitting back today: “It’s foolish, dangerous and entirely wrong to suggest the UK can simply adopt its own interpretation of international human rights law.”

The group’s refugee and migrants’ rights director Steve Valdez-Symonds said: “Breaking their word to protect people seeking asylum will have serious and damaging consequences because it will give greater licence to other countries to also refuse to meet their obligations to refugees.”

Freedom from Torture’s director of policy and advocacy Steve Crawshaw said it was an insult that the government is seeking to “suggest it understands the Refugee Convention better than the UN.” 

He said: “These are the desperate actions of a government which knows it has already lost the moral and legal argument and has nowhere to turn.

“Cruelty must be confronted, rules to protect the vulnerable cannot be trampled.”

Baroness Williams made the comments during a debate on the Bill in the House of Lords on February 1 in response to questions about government claims that asylum-seekers should claim asylum in the “first safe country” they reach. 

Commenting on her claims, a UNHCR spokesperson reiterated that there is no requirement under international law for the “first safe country principle.” 

“Requiring all refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country reached would be unworkable and undermine global humanitarian and co-operative principles,” they said. 

Under the Refugee Convention, members are required to co-operate with UNHCR and “in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this convention.” 

This limits the ability of states to interpret the convention as they see fit, and ensures that any interpretations of the convention are done in a way that respects international law. 

The government has previously claimed that the Bill is “fully compliant with our international obligations,” and that it remains committed to the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Campaigners say the latest comments are a marked departure from this position and suggest the government is prepared to defy international law to push through its reforms.

The Home Office said: “Under the Bill, we also are clarifying the UK’s interpretation of some of the key concepts of the Refugee Convention and putting it into law so that they are applied accurately and effectively amongst decision-makers.”

Lawyers have also warned against government attempts to reinterpret the Refugee Convention.  

A briefing by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and Order said a series of clauses proposed in the Bill “purport to interpret the Refugee Convention,” but “the way in which they do so is not in compliant with the Convention.”

“They are contrary to the spirit and intention of the Refugee Convention. They are not a good faith attempt to define these terms, but an attempt to recast international law," it reads.