Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments and Reasons

16:00

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.

1C: Because the Commons consider that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with domestic and international obligations, and that it is therefore not necessary to refer expressly to having due regard for domestic and international law when setting out the purpose of the Bill.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions A1, C and C1. Motion A1 relates to Lords Amendment 1D, which seeks to ensure that the eventual Act has due regard for international law, the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

As set out on many occasions during the passage of this Bill, the Government take their responsibilities and international obligations seriously. It was said in the other place that they take them “incredibly” seriously. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with our international obligations. Relocating migrants to safe third countries to process their asylum claims is, in principle, compliant with the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention, as confirmed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It is a model that other countries are also exploring. Furthermore, the Bill is predicated on both Rwanda’s and the United Kingdom’s compliance with international law in the form of a treaty which itself is underpinned by wider international legal obligations by which the United Kingdom and Rwanda are bound.

As the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration set out in the other place yesterday, we must bring to an end the dangerous, unnecessary and illegal methods that are being deployed to enter the UK. We must break the people smugglers’ business model. We must stop the exploitation of vulnerable people. We must protect our borders. Most importantly, we must save lives at sea. Our systems are being overwhelmed and our resources stretched.

We need to be ambitious in how we tackle this issue, and our partnership with Rwanda provides an opportunity for just such ambition. This Bill provides the legislative means through which we can pursue this policy, while having due regard to our domestic and international legal position. However innovative our partnership with Rwanda, as I reminded the House during our last debate, this is not the first time legislation has been used to determine that a country is safe. The Government are clear that we assess Rwanda to be a safe country, and we have published detailed evidence that substantiates this assessment. This is a central feature of the Bill, and many of its other provisions are designed to ensure that Parliament’s conclusion on the safety of Rwanda is accepted by the domestic courts.

The Bill strikes the appropriate balance of limiting unnecessary challenges that frustrate removal, while maintaining the principle of access to the courts where an individual may be at real risk of serious and irreversible harm. This balance creates the strong deterrent that is needed to prevent perilous and unnecessary journeys, while also ensuring that we have due regard for domestic and international laws.

Although some of the provisions in the Bill are novel, the Government are satisfied that removals to Rwanda will be implemented with due regard to international and domestic law. It is therefore not necessary to set this out in the Bill. The treaty sets out the international legal commitments that the UK and Rwandan Governments have made, consistent with their shared standards associated with asylum and refugee protection. Article 10 of the treaty in particular sets out the assurances for the treatment of relocated individuals in Rwanda, including abiding by the refugee convention in relation to those seeking asylum. The enhanced monitoring committee will be in place to monitor robustly adherence to these obligations.

Lords Amendment 6D runs counter to the core purpose of the Bill and would eliminate its key provision. The Bill’s purpose is to invite Parliament to agree with the assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been properly addressed and that Rwanda can be deemed a safe country, and to enact the measures in the Bill accordingly. The Bill reflects that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit, including, if it be Parliament’s judgment, requiring a state of affairs or facts to be recognised.

Rwanda is a signatory to key international agreements protecting the rights of refugees and those in need of international protection, including the United Nations convention against torture, the refugee convention and other core UN human rights conventions. Rwanda’s obligations under these international agreements are embedded in its domestic legal provisions. The Rwandan constitution ensures that international agreements that Rwanda has ratified become domestic law in Rwanda. Article 28 of the Rwandan constitution recognises the right of refugees to seek asylum in Rwanda.

In light of this, from the evidence we have provided and the commitments made by the United Kingdom and the Government of Rwanda in the internationally binding treaty we have signed, our assessment is that Rwanda is generally a safe country that respects the rule of law. Our view of Rwanda’s safety has been further reinforced by the progress being made on the treaty’s readiness for implementation. To make it clear, we will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with their obligations under the treaty.

On Thursday 21 March, after our last debate on 20 March, the Rwandan Senate passed its legislation ratifying the treaty. Domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system has been approved by its Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. The new Rwandan asylum law will strengthen and streamline key aspects of the end-to-end asylum system, in particular decision-making and associated appeals processes. A complaints process has been set up and will continue to be developed as we progress with the partnership. This, plus the wider assurances around trading and process that we have been given, will ensure quality of decision-making and build capability in the Government of Rwanda’s asylum system. All this simply reinforces our confidence in Rwanda’s commitment to delivering this partnership and its status as a safe country.

The treaty will ensure that those relocated will be safe and fully supported, and that they will not be removed to another country other than, in very limited circumstances, the UK. They will have their asylum claims processed fairly, with access to free legal representation at all stages of the asylum process. Those who are not granted refugee status or humanitarian protection will get equivalent treatment and will be granted permanent residence. Therefore, it is right to ensure that relocations to Rwanda are not frustrated and delayed as a result of systemic challenges on its general safety, and that the Bill’s provisions limit challenges on the basis that Rwanda is generally not a safe country or that there is a risk of individuals being removed from Rwanda to their country of origin or to another country, in contravention of Rwanda’s obligations under international law, including—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I think the noble and learned Lord is talking about Article 10(3) of the treaty. He will know what I am going to ask, because this is the fourth time I have asked it. Article 10(3) commits the parties—us and Rwanda—to

“cooperate to agree an effective system for ensuring”

no refoulement. That system clearly did not exist when the treaty was signed. The signatories of the treaty, rightly, in my view, thought it necessary to create such a system. Has that system been created now and when will we see it here?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

As I said, the point is that the treaty will not be ratified until such time as that protection is in place.

It is right to ensure that relocations are not frustrated as a result of general systemic challenges based on the general safety of Rwanda. The Bill’s provisions therefore limit challenges on the basis that Rwanda is not generally a safe country, or that there is the prospect of the refoulement to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago.

We are satisfied that the Bill, in Clause 4, explicitly protects access to justice by ensuring that courts can continue to consider the safety of Rwanda for an individual where there is

“compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances”,

except where the individual circumstances claim relates to refoulement. This underpins the principle that no one should be put in a position where they would face a real risk of harm and is in line with the United Kingdom’s international legal obligations, including under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I therefore cannot accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1D in lieu—

1D: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert “while having due regard for—
(a) international law, and
(b) the following Acts—
(i) the Children Act 1989;
(ii) the Human Rights Act 1998;
(iii) the Modern Slavery Act 2015.””

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I was interested to listen to the Minister’s remarks, and I thank him for the introduction, but let me say why we think that the amendment that I have put forward to your Lordships now is still so necessary.

The Minister just asserts that domestic law will be obeyed, along with international conventions and laws. The last time this was before your Lordships’ House, we debated at great length some of these domestic and international law issues. They were dismissed in a sentence by the Minister in the other place—not by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart—with an assertion that we comply with domestic and international law. Nowhere did the Minister in the other place address the fact—I go back to a point that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has made, at great length—that the Bill explicitly lays out that international law can be disapplied. It states that, when an Act, it

“is unaffected by international law”,

and then lays out all of the various treaties that can be ignored by the Government in the pursuit of their Rwanda policy—a policy that disintegrates before their eyes. Hundreds came across in small boats at the weekend, and thousands since the beginning of the year. Where is the Government’s announcement about that? When the figures go down, the Government announce it all the time; when the figures go up, there is radio silence from 10 Downing Street about whether or not the policy is working.

I say again to the Minister, in order to be reasonably brief, that it simply is not good enough for a Government to assert that domestic and international law will be applied when this Bill is passed. That is why we pushed this. We want something that persuades us that the Government take this seriously. All this amendment seeks is that there be due regard; it does not say any more than that. It is softened significantly to that extent. There is a necessity for the Government to have due regard to international law, and I have laid out some examples of the various legislative Acts that have been passed by this Parliament, of which we are all proud.

I come to international obligations. We have just had the Foreign Secretary explain at great length the importance of convention and international law, and of abiding by the things that we have signed up to. That is why we take action with respect to the Middle East. That is why take action with respect to what we quite rightly call the illegal war in Ukraine. That is why we take action with respect to the Houthis in the Red Sea. We take action with respect to all of that because our country proudly stands up for international convention and international law. It respects those conventions; it expects other countries to respect those conventions.

That is the whole point of what I am putting before your Lordships’ House. What on earth does it do to the credibility of His Majesty’s Government when, in international conventions across the globe, they stand up and lecture other countries on the importance of adhering to international law and convention and then pass a law that explicitly states that, with respect to the Rwanda Bill, they do not have to? Where is the integrity of the Government? I want His Majesty’s Government to be able to stand up in all the citadels of the great and good, where countries of the world meet together to solve common problems. The last time I spoke, I said to the Minister that the Prime Minister of Pakistan had used the Rwanda Bill as a legitimate reason that he could send people back to Afghanistan. He used the British Government as an example of the fact that he could ignore international conventions.

16:15

What has it come to when we read about another problem that we cannot go into? The Government cannot get anybody to fly these refugees and migrants—they cannot persuade anybody. Even the RAF is refusing, though I guess if it were ordered to, it would have to. We read that AirTanker is the latest airline. We cannot find an airline to fly the migrants back—the thousands who are waiting, queueing up at the airports. I found one airline that decided, at great length, that it was not going to ruin its brand by flying migrants back to Rwanda; it decided that that was something it could not bring itself to do. What has it come to when we read that the Rwanda state airline has rejected the UK proposal to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda because it is worried about the impact it will have on its reputation? Why on earth are the British Government not taking a cue from the Rwanda state airline, in saying that this will risk the global brand that Britain proudly has across the world? The Government should take a cue from the Rwanda state airline and say that they want to conform to international law and make sure that they will not be undermined in the courts of the world. There we have it, as an example to us all.

The amendment before us is simple. It simply asks the Government to have due regard to domestic and international law—the Acts that this Parliament has passed, the international conventions we have signed, and the law of nations which prevent anarchy in our own country and across the world. How on earth has it come to this for the great Conservative Party—the party that has always said that it treasures the rule of law and will always stand up for it, and that has for generations lectured the party to which I belong on the importance of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, both internally and internationally? It is unbelievable that the Minister has just dismissed this with a swish of the hand, as did his colleagues in the other place. Something as important as this has been just dismissed: “We’re going to do it. Don’t worry about it. There’s no need for us to explain how on earth it’s possible”. Something as important as this has just been swept away. This Motion should be agreed as one more effort to say to our Government, “Be true to the traditions on which the democracy of this country has been based for centuries, something of which we have all been proud”.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Coaker. My Motion C1 very much a dovetails with his Motion A1. With his support, I will seek to test the opinion of the House in a little while, after the debate on Motion B1 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I very much hope that he will test your Lordships’ opinion as well.

Why my Motion dovetails with my noble friend’s Motion is that we cannot observe the international rule of law by defenestrating our domestic courts. This Motion seeks to restore the jurisdiction of His Majesty’s judges and their ability to give appropriate scrutiny to these most vital of human rights decisions.

The Minister was quite right earlier when he said that this is not the first time in legislative history that a country has been deemed presumptively safe for refugees and asylum seekers—but there is a world of difference, I suggest, between a country being presumptively safe and being conclusively safe for all time, with no avenue for challenging that safety, even as facts change.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

There is another difference too. The Supreme Court, just a few months ago, held that Rwanda is not safe.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

As always, I am so grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, whose father famously coined the phrase “elective dictatorship” in his Dimbleby lecture of 1976.

The fundamental problem with the Bill, unamended by the proposed new Clause 4, is that it allows the Executive to dictate the facts. It allows the Executive to defenestrate domestic courts—not international or, some would say, foreign courts but domestic courts—including in their ability to grant in extremis interim relief.

The amendment turns the conclusion for all time that Rwanda is safe into a rebuttable presumption based on credible evidence. It therefore incorporates the earlier work of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. It also incorporates earlier amendments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Cashman in including a person’s membership of a persecuted social group in the examination of whether they would be safe—not just their most particular individual circumstances but their membership of a social group, which is probably the basis for most refugee claims in the world.

As I have said, it restores that vital ability in extremis to grant interim relief. In understanding of some concerns on the Benches opposite and of the Government, a court or tribunal under this measure, as amended, would have to have heard from the Secretary of State or taken all reasonable steps so to do, and to grant such an injunction only where the delay would be

“no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case”.

This does not prevent a policy of transportation to Rwanda, no matter how much I loathe that policy in its utility, morality and expense. It is a reasonable compromise to which the other place has given no serious respect or attention and, therefore, it has given no serious respect to your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I want to extend—

[A noble Lord]

No.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Yes. I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the Benches opposite, because I know there are many people there who are very unhappy about this Bill. It is an absolutely vile Bill, and part of that is the fact that the Tory Government are abusing not just human rights, and not just the rule of law, but democracy itself. The fact is that they have wasted this House’s time over these weeks—many hours and many days—and then taken everything out in the other place. That is an abuse of democracy. What is the point of your Lordships’ House if it can simply be ignored by the Government?

Shame on the Government. If they think the public support this Bill, they should call a general election. I think they will be unpleasantly surprised that they do not. Let us have a general election now, please.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests. I am supported by the RAMP project. I looked carefully at the House of Commons Hansard report about this first amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, looking for some rationale as to why the Government would not accept it. It was a single sentence, in which the Government said:

“We have a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international obligations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; cols. 80-81.]


On the basis of that sentence, they rejected the amendment that this House passed about seeking to observe national and international law. If that sentence stands on its own, and that is the only reason why we are being asked to change our minds, what dangers, exposures or difficulties do the Government believe are in the amendment—which is even more restrictive and tightly specified than the last—that stand in the way of anything they wish to do? Why can they not simply accept it?

If the concern is the ECHR, I am sure the Government will have seen that the threshold for granting interim injunctions has been considerably raised to a level described by former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland last night as

“vanishingly small—in fact, non-existent”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; col. 99.]

So why do the Government not accept the amendment? We will certainly support it.

We will also support the other amendment. That one does the job of dealing with part of the problem that people have seen with the Bill, which is that it changes the balance in our country between our judiciary and the Executive. That balance is what we are trying to maintain, even in the very limited circumstances. This does not take away from our belief on these Benches that the Bill is entirely wrong, cruel and inhumane and will not work, which is clearly demonstrated by the numbers we have seen so far. It seems to us that the Government have no rationale, and have not given one, for refusing these amendments.

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, particularly the detail of the inclusion in it of the Modern Slavery Act 2015; it is a detail except for those who have been, or may well have been, trafficked. There are as many as 4,000 people in the national referral mechanism whose cases are currently to be determined. That is absolutely right and proper under current legislation, and that legislation should be taken into account as part of the implementation of this Bill.

The Modern Slavery Act is a world-beating piece of legislation that we disregard at our peril, yet it is being undermined in many changes to other legislation. In this case, there will be not only a negative impact on victim care but significant law enforcement issues in not paying due regard to the Act. Not identifying victims, or sending them to another country before their claim has been properly assessed, will set back our efforts to bring the perpetrators of modern slavery to justice. Victims are often the only witnesses to this crime, so perpetrators will be more likely to escape detection and conviction.

The amendment that the Government have brought forward on a report on modern slavery to be made to Parliament is a concession that I hope will make it easier for Members of both Houses to scrutinise the effects of this legislation on some of the most marginalised people in our society, but it does not go far enough. There must be a general exemption for people who are suspected or confirmed victims of modern slavery. That is the very least we should do for survivors of a terrible crime. I am grateful for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. I have no doubt that they are inspired by appropriate feelings of concern for people caught up in, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol mentioned to us a moment ago, the disgraceful practice of modern slavery.

16:30

None the less, these amendments are not necessary. In particular, in relation to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, they undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to invite Parliament to agree with its assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been properly addressed and to enact the measures in this Bill accordingly. Each of the measures in the Bill as originally drafted is necessary to enable us to create a deterrent that will stop the boats. That deterrent will work only when there is an end to the cycle of spurious legal challenges that seek to do nothing more than frustrate removal and prevent us having control of who can stay in the United Kingdom.

Opening for the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, deplored a series of steps in the Bill which he said undermined domestic and international law. The measures to which the noble Lord referred are entirely consistent with the status of a sovereign Parliament. The Bill reflects that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit, including, if that be its judgment, requiring a state of affairs or facts to be recognised. The principle that Parliament should be able to address any determination by the courts of incompatibility, rather than having primary legislation being quashed by the court, is part of the fundamental basis of parliamentary sovereignty. The example the noble Lord put forward—a citation by a head of state or a Prime Minister in a different country—is, of course, an example of precisely that refoulement which is forbidden in terms of the treaty.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, speaking to her Motion, said that the handling of the point of your Lordships’ amendment in the other place showed the other place to be guilty of a serious lack of respect to your Lordships’ House. What we could say instead is that it demonstrates that the other place identified that the noble Baroness’s amendment, however well intentioned, cuts straight to the heart of the policy that the Government have set out.

I think that addresses the points made respectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord German, to whom I would say that, as we set forth in earlier stages of this Bill, there are examples across the world of where a similar approach has been successful and has now gained approval across most of the political spectrum.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham said that the Supreme Court held that Rwanda was not a safe country; that is not the case. That is not what the judgment said. In any event, the Supreme Court’s assessment was based on a situation long since superseded, as your Lordships will hear in more detail from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom later.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the Minister said that the Bill will not be brought into force until the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is safe. The noble Lord was referring to the network of agreements required to ensure refoulement. Can the Minister describe to the House and to the country the process the Government are going to use to determine that Rwanda is a safe country? Obviously, the Minister accepts that it is not a safe country at the moment because the refoulement arrangements are not in place. Indeed, the last time we were here, he told us there was a Bill going through the Rwandan Parliament, or its equivalent, that was not yet through. So how will the Government know—because they say they are going to decide—and what is their process?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, if I referred at an earlier stage to the Bill as opposed to the treaty, I apologise to your Lordships’ House. The treaty will not be ratified until such time and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.

As to the measures to which he refers, anent their adoption by the Rwandan Government, I think I touched on that in my speech. In any event, in treating with later amendments my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom will go back in detail over the measures being carried out by Rwanda. In relation to the interaction between our state—His Majesty’s Government—and their state, again the House will hear later about the operation of the monitoring committee and the other bilateral bodies established to check on the ongoing safety of persons relocated to Rwanda.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I apologise for pressing this, but the Minister is saying that the Government are going to make a judgment. Can he tell us how they will make that judgment?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, it will be by the implementation of these steps by the Government of Rwanda and the establishment of the very processes to which I have referred your Lordships.

It is not right or fair to allow our asylum and legal systems to be misused in the way they are being. The public rightly expect us to remove those who have entered illegally and do not have a right to be here. This Bill, which forms part of a wider programme to assess rising numbers in illegal migration, will enable us to deliver on that priority. To the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I spoke from this Dispatch Box in some detail, as did my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, in relation to the interdiction of criminal operations elsewhere in the world, including the seizure of engines and equipment and the increased co-operation with the criminal authorities in France and elsewhere.

The country is entitled to expect of its Parliament that it takes urgent steps to address the problems which have concerned us during the passage of the Bill. The other place has now considered and rejected amendments similar to these on several occasions. It is time to restore the original Clause 1 to the Bill, with its clear statement of purpose. I respectfully submit that it is time to respect the clearly expressed view of the elected House by endorsing Motion A.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but it does not satisfy me. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

16:36

Division 1

Ayes: 258

Noes: 233

16:49

Motion B

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 3B and 3C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3D.

3D: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary to refer expressly to the arrangements in the Rwanda Treaty being, and continuing to be, implemented and adhered to; the Bill is clear that it comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force and it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion B I will also speak to Motions D, D1, E, F and F1. At this late stage in the Bill’s passage through both Houses, it has been made unequivocally clear, here and in the other place, that it remains the Government’s priority to stop the boats. As I have stated before, the deterrent will work only if we apply the same rules to everyone. We need to take swift action now to put in place the policy that will enable relocations to Rwanda to take place, to create that deterrent and stop the boats. We have seen the deterrent effect work for Albania and we need to replicate it for everyone else.

I turn to Motion B and Amendment 3E. We have made it clear that the Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under it. Clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Furthermore, the Government maintain periodical and ad hoc reviews of country situations, including Rwanda, and this will not change. The published country information notes include information from a wide range of sources, such as media outlets, local, national and international organisations, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

The treaty also sets out clearly in Article 4.1 that it is for the UK to determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under the terms of the agreement and the number of such requests made. This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further considerations.

The Government of Rwanda’s commitment to the partnership and their obligations under the treaty has been demonstrated by the progress they are making towards implementation. The recent steps taken were set out by my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart in the last group. On Thursday 21 March, the Rwandan Senate passed the legislation ratifying the treaty. The domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system has been approved by the Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. A complaints process has been set up and will be further developed as we progress further into the partnership.

Motion D1 and Amendment 7D would result in the provisions of Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions on age made by a designated person or local authorities under Section 50(3)(b) of the 2022 Act where the removal is to Rwanda, and would prevent Section 57 of the 2023 Act from applying to decisions on age taken by the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) where the removal is to Rwanda—for example, initial age decisions of immigration officers at the border. The initial decision on age is an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or a child being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment.

As part of this process, on arrival individuals will be treated as an adult only where two immigration officers assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest they are significantly over 18. This is a deliberately high threshold and the principle of the benefit of the doubt means that, where there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child pending further observation by a local authority, usually in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment. This approach has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case BF (Eritrea) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021, UK Supreme Court 38.

We know that assessing age is difficult, but it is important that the Government take decisive action to deter adults from knowingly claiming to be children. Unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults under the 2023 Act, and there are obvious safeguarding risks of adults being placed within the care system. It is therefore crucial that we take steps to safeguard and swiftly identify genuine children, and avoid lengthy legal challenges to age decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. This amendment would simply open the floodgates for more abuse within the system and encourage adults to knowingly claim to be children to avoid being relocated to Rwanda, placing genuine children at risk of being disadvantaged.

Furthermore, this amendment would give rise to differential treatment. The amendment would result in Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions by local authorities and the National Age Assessment Board if the person is to be removed to Rwanda. That would result in treating differently those who are to be removed to Rwanda under the 2023 Act from those removed to another country under the 2023 Act. Decisions of immigration officers and the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) would therefore not fall within Section 57 if removal is to Rwanda. In judicial reviews to these decisions suspensive appeal rights could apply, and the judicial review could be heard on a matter-of-fact basis. There is simply no justification for that differential treatment.

I turn to Motion E and Amendment 9. As I have previously set out, under the internationally binding treaty the Government of Rwanda will have regard to information provided by the UK relating to any special needs that an individual may have that may arise as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. Rwanda will take all the necessary steps to ensure that those needs are accommodated. Safeguarding arrangements are set out in detail in the standard operating procedures on identifying and safeguarding vulnerability, dated May 2023, which state that

“At any stage in the refugee status determination … and integration process, officials may encounter and should have due regard to the physical and psychological signs that can indicate a person is vulnerable”.


The standard operating procedures set out the process for identifying vulnerable persons and, where appropriate, making safeguarding referrals to the relevant protection team. Screening interviews to identify vulnerabilities will be conducted by protection officers who have received the relevant training and are equipped to competently handle safeguarding referrals. The protection team may trigger follow-up assessments and/or treatment, as appropriate. In addition, protection officers may support an individual to engage in the asylum process and advise relevant officials of any support needs or adjustments to enable the individual to engage with the process.

Victims of human trafficking and human slavery will receive the necessary support that they need in Rwanda, as they would in the UK. The Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence. To that end, the government amendment in lieu—Amendment 9C—requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of this legislation as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the treaty.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House how far the scope of the annual report will go beyond what the monitoring committee will be doing, so that both the Government and Parliament are able to scrutinise exactly what is going on?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I do not know how far it will differ—or not, as the case may be—from the monitoring committee, so I will have to write to the noble Baroness on that subject.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. Can the Minister confirm that, before the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is a safe country, they will seek the views of the monitoring committee?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in the last group my noble and learned friend discussed how the Government will be made aware of whether or not treaties should be ratified and so on. That is also dealt with in considerable detail, as we have rehearsed from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, in the agreement that was published in January of this year—starting, I believe, at paragraph 101—so I will not go through it all again.

I turn to Motion F and Amendment 10D. As we have set out before, the Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us, and we will not let them down. Once again, I reassure Parliament that, once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that they receive the attention that they deserve. For now, I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 3E as an amendment in lieu of Amendment 3C—

3E: Clause 1, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) The Republic of Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country for the purposes of this Act until the Secretary of State has obtained and laid before Parliament a statement from the independent Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 that the Objectives referred to in Article 2 of the Rwanda Treaty have been secured by the creation of the mechanisms listed in that Article.
(8) The Republic of Rwanda will cease to be a safe country for the purposes of this Act if a statement is made to Parliament by the Secretary of State, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the Rwanda Treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.””

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I asked for this amendment in lieu to be put down because I believe that Lords Amendment 3C—to which I propose Amendment 3E in lieu—raised important issues to which further thought still needs to be given by the other place. If I do not receive a satisfactory reply, it is my intention to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

My amendment as now phrased seeks to add two provisions to Clause 1. That clause states, as we know, that the Act

“gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”.

In other words, it is a country from which persons who are sent there will not be removed or sent to another country in contravention of any international law, and, further, their claims for asylum will be determined and treated in accordance with that country’s obligations under international law as well. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, said on an earlier group, that provision is central to the entire provisions in the Bill—it is a crucial provision on which so much else depends.

17:00

The Act will come into force on the day on which the Rwanda treaty enters into force, which means that your Lordships are being asked to say, as a matter of judgment, that as from that very moment and without more, Rwanda is a safe country. I do not believe that, despite the assurances given by the Ministers, your Lordships have been told enough to enable that judgment to be made.

Moreover, as the Bill stands, the assumption seems to be that Rwanda will continue to be safe for evermore, for ever after, come what may. That is because the decision-makers referred to in Clause 2 are under an obligation to make the assumption conclusively that Rwanda is a safe country without any qualification whatever as to what may happen in the future. Surprisingly, no provision is made anywhere in the Bill for what should happen if the facts change and everyone can see that Rwanda is no longer safe.

I want to make it clear, as I did last time, that I do not for a moment question the good faith of the Government of Rwanda when they entered into the agreement which is enshrined in the treaty, nor in the carrying forward of the obligations which it contains, and I do not question their determination to do everything they can to make the treaty work as it is intended to do. That is what my amendment is about.

My first point is that before Rwanda can be judged to be a safe country the mechanisms in the treaty that provide for this must be put into practice. Ratifying a treaty is an important step, but it is not enough; it must be implemented before Rwanda can be considered to be safe. Under sustained cross-examination by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, questions have been asked repeatedly as to what is going on in Rwanda, and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that “progress” is being made and that further developments are taking place. However, that is not good enough, and the assurances that we are given are in themselves not enough for us to make the judgment we are required to make.

That is why I am asking that Rwanda be not treated as a safe country until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement from the independent monitoring committee that the key mechanisms that the treaty provides for its implementation have been created. The monitoring committee exists; communications have been taking place between the Government and that committee. I cannot see that my amendment is placing any difficulty on the Government if their assurances to us are soundly based. It is very strange—I simply raise this as a question for your Lordships to consider—that I have been asking for this amendment for some time now, the Government know perfectly well what my point is, and yet we have still not had a statement from the monitoring committee that the treaty is being implemented. That raises a serious issue as to where we really stand on this crucial issue.

My second point is that surely there must be some way of dealing with the situation without resorting to primary legislation if for whatever reason Rwanda is no longer safe because the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice. Anything may happen in the future; we cannot be sure of what is going to happen three years, five years or 10 years on from now. My amendment provides that Rwanda will cease to be a safe country for the purposes of the Act if the Secretary of State, on the advice of the monitoring committee, makes a statement to Parliament to that effect. Where that will lead to is for the Government to work out if they accept my amendment. The extraordinary thing is that, without that amendment, there is no way of curing the problem without primary legislation, with all the complications that gives rise to. What I am seeking the Government to face up to is to get some mechanism in so that the matter can be dealt with without resorting to primary legislation.

When my original amendments were considered in the other place before Easter, they received support from three very experienced lawyers speaking from the Conservative Benches—Sir Jeremy Wright, Sir Bob Neill and Sir Robert Buckland. They directed their remarks specifically to my second point. Sir Bob Neill said:

“Facts change, and if Parliament sets itself up as an arbiter and decider on fact, it must have a means of changing its decision if the facts change … Can we find a way forward?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 679.]

Sir Jeremy Wright said

“it is simply not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently, save through primary legislation, if the facts were to change”

and that the Government

“should give some thought to the situation of the Bill … it must be right for Parliament to retain the capacity to reconsider and if necessary revise it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; cols. 679-80]

Sir Robert Buckland said that

“there is force in their Lordships pursuing that point, so that we marry up the reality with what we want to achieve legally”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 717.]

Indeed, when my revised amendments were debated yesterday, Sir Robert Buckland said that he still commended them. I am grateful to him for understanding what I am asking for and for supporting me.

The Commons reason set out in the Marshalled List states that my amendments are not necessary, first, because the Bill comes into force when the treaty comes into force and, secondly, because it is not appropriate to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its treaty obligations because its ongoing adherence to its treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the treaty. That fails to face up to the points that I am making on both the issues that I raise. The coming-into-force of the treaty is not enough, despite its ratification. We need confirmation before Parliament that it has been implemented before Rwanda can be considered to be safe. As for the second point, as Sir Jeremy Wright said, if the facts were to change then it is simply not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently save through primary legislation. The other place needs to think again. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I support Motion B1, moved by the noble and learned Lord. I support both proposed new subsections within his amendment, subsections (7) and (8), but I want to focus exclusively on subsection (8), because it addresses directly what will happen in the foreseeable circumstances that Rwanda ceases to be safe. It lives in a fragile and volatile part of the world. It does not have a long tradition of democracy. The president has been there for an awfully long time. I do not regard that as a good sign. Therefore, there is a foreseeable risk that Rwanda will cease to be safe. As the noble and learned Lord said, this Bill not only does not address that point but requires future decision-makers to assume that it is safe when the rest of the world knows that it is unsafe. That is a nonsense. It is unjust and it is bad government. I am glad to say that there were distinguished voices on the Conservative Benches yesterday and when the matter was last debated, cited by the noble and learned Lord, who made these points.

I recall also the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when the matter was debated in this House a few weeks ago. He told your Lordships that on that very morning he had heard the Lord Chancellor, Mr Chalk, say that in the event of the monitoring committee holding that Rwanda was no longer safe, there would be a parliamentary occasion. He did not specify whether the occasion would be a social one to which we would or would not be invited, nor did he tell us about the parliamentary process. I asked my noble friend the Minister whether he would be good enough to tell us what the parliamentary occasion would be. He said that he could not tell us. Well, he has now had four weeks to find out.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I apologise for intervening, but I have not heard, either, from the Lord Chancellor as to what the parliamentary occasion would be. Can the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, help us? Has he heard what the parliamentary occasion would be?

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

No. I have been speculating on whether we will be asked to a party, to which we might or might not be invited, or whether there will be a parliamentary Statement or whether the Government will bring forward a Bill to repeal this Bill. There are a number of possibilities, but we have not been told and, so far as I am aware, the Minister has not been told either—though he could go and take advice from the Box, if he so chose, because he has officials in this Chamber who could doubtless advise him.

So we have a real problem, and it is addressed by the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. The amendment has advantages, in that it does not deny parliamentary sovereignty and it retains the accountability of the Secretary of State, but it has one disadvantage in that it is silent as to what happens if the Secretary of State makes a statement to the effect that Rwanda is not a safe country. I am not quite sure what happens in legal terms at that point, but I am certain that it is an important step forward. We would be making progress if we accepted this amendment, and if the noble and learned Lord tests the opinion of the House, I shall be supporting him.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might respond to the noble Viscount. The provision in proposed subsection (8) simply states that, if the Secretary of State makes such a statement to Parliament, Rwanda will not be safe for the purposes of the Bill. I think that is as far as one can go, but if there is anything wrong with it, it is up to the Government to sort it out.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D1. In the last round of ping-pong, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti described her amendment in lieu as an “olive branch”. Well, this amendment is more of an olive tree, such is the compromise it represents on the original amendment passed by your Lordships’ House. In the case of an age-disputed child, the amendment would require a proper Merton-compliant age assessment to be made either by the local authority or by the National Age Assessment Board before they could be removed to Rwanda. If the assessment decided that the person was an adult, they would then be removed.

In response to the previous amendment in lieu, the Minister made much of the role of the National Age Assessment Board, spelling out in detail why it should be involved in any age assessment. The present amendment takes on board what he said and includes the board as one of two possible safeguards to prevent a child erroneously being sent to Rwanda. As such, it would help to ensure that the Government’s own intention that no unaccompanied child should be removed to Rwanda is fulfilled. The Minister emphasised this, reading out the treaty’s clear statement to that effect. He stated that,

“if an age-disputed individual requires a Merton assessment, they will be relocated to Rwanda only if determined to be an adult after that Merton assessment”.—[Official Report, 20/3/24; col. 259.]

The problem is that, under the current provisions, it is all too likely that an age-disputed child will be sent to Rwanda without any possibility of a Merton assessment, so the age assessment board will be redundant. As it stands, the Bill allows for the decision to be made by immigration officers on the basis of a quick visual assessment of physical appearance and demeanour, acknowledged to be unreliable by the Home Office—not a high threshold, as the Minister claimed. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium warns that

“we continually see immigration officers deciding a child is an adult on arrival and placing that child in the adult system. It is only after that age decision is challenged and a further determination is made that the child is correctly assessed to be a child”.

That is the same practice that the Minister has repeatedly said will act as a safeguard against wrongful assessment and removal.

I dealt with the other arguments put forward by the Minister at the previous stage. The key issue facing us today is whether we are prepared to ensure a genuine safeguard against a child being removed to Rwanda because of the failure to provide a proper, holistic, social work led age assessment that is as accurate as possible.

17:15

Given that it is government policy that no unaccompanied child should be removed and the further concession the amendment represents, I had hoped that the Minister might have been able to accept it. As he refuses this olive branch—or olive tree—would he at least be willing to give an assurance, on the record, that no age-disputed child will be sent to Rwanda on the basis of an initial age assessment of appearance and demeanour alone, or to accept his colleague David Simmonds MP’s urging of the Minister yesterday that the decision be made on the basis of

“a Merton-compliant age assessment that is the gold standard for determining whether a young person is an adult”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; col. 94.]

or, I would add, a child? This would provide a helpful basis for the meeting that the Minister kindly agreed to on Report. It would be really helpful if we—Peers who signed the original amendments, and key stakeholders on the ground—could sit down with the Minister and officials in a less polarised and contested space to discuss how current safeguards could be strengthened by non-legislative means so as to minimise the risk of a child wrongly being sent to Rwanda or anywhere else, which is a goal we all share.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, since the Minister spoke about Motion E, I should like to respond to the government amendment. I am co-chair of the parliamentary group on modern slavery and a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. The government amendment on modern slavery or human trafficking is entirely inadequate to deal with a group of people who are victims of a crime, suffering very often serious trauma, and without control of their destiny—they arrive here without the choice to be here. They are a specific and completely different group from any other group that your Lordships have been considering. They are then sent to Rwanda or to another country.

This Government, and I praised them at the time, passed a brilliant piece of legislation: the Modern Slavery Act, which is admired across the world. It has been made, if I may say so, almost entirely without any effect by subsequent legislation. For the Government to rely on the Modern Slavery Act as the legislation that is taken account of is laughable. The idea the Government make, that the Modern Slavery Act provides a protection for those victims who are covered by the existing legislation, is equally laughable. I did not table again the amendment that I put at the first ping-pong, but I must say that I deplore the Government’s approach to victims of a heinous crime that is widespread across this country.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion F1 and Amendment 10D in lieu. Your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to rehearse the moral case for this amendment in any detail. Frankly, if I have not persuaded the House of that on any of the previous occasions that I have spoken to a variant of this amendment, then I will not do so today. Instead, I shall focus briefly on yesterday’s proceedings in the other place and the reasoning of the Minister and others in refusing to accept it in its earlier version, Amendment 10C.

First, I must dispute any suggestion that mine, in any of its versions, is a wrecking amendment. Indeed, I argue that, far from being a wrecking amendment, it is calculated to improve this legislation in a very specific way and, in so doing, to protect our international reputation and our credibility as an ally in future conflicts while leaving the central policy entirely unchallenged—although I do not agree with the central policy or support it.

I take this opportunity to express my thanks to 13 senior military and security figures, many of whom are Members of your Lordships’ House, for their letter in support of Amendment 10C, which was published in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday. As they said in this letter, without this amendment, the legislation we are considering will

“do grave damage to our ability to recruit local allies in future military operations”.

I will be grateful if, when he responds, the Minister explains why several noble and gallant Members of this House—former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and others with direct senior experience in national security issues—are wrong in that assessment and that his Government are right. If the Government simply feel that our future credibility as an ally is less important than other considerations, perhaps he could just say so openly.

Ours is a revising Chamber; this is what we are here to do. Given that we have already seen objective reality defined by governmental fiat in relation in Rwanda, I am less surprised than I otherwise might have been by the Government’s determination to construe Amendment 10C as in some way disruptive or hostile. It is neither. After all, as I have explained before, it affects only a small number of people who have given service to this country when we have asked it of them. This is a measured, limited and proportionate amendment, calculated to achieve justice for a relatively small number of people who have risked death and injury at our behest and in our interests.

As I have also explained before, in many cases it has been our own bureaucratic sclerosis, administrative shortcomings and wrongful refusal of the status that would have awarded visas to these very people, enabling them to escape certain death, that compelled these brave men to take irregular routes here in the first place. To then use the fact of their irregular arrival—the need for which is a consequence of our own failure—as a justification for their removal to Rwanda is not merely illogical but disgraceful and immoral.

The Government have offered two principal lines of argument in refusing to accept the principle of exempting this group from deportation. First, they have argued that the deterrent value of the Rwanda policy requires absolute consistency: there should be no statutory exemptions from deportation, however deserving. In response to Conservative Back-Bench voices outlining support for the principles underlying my amendment, the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration argued that it was unnecessary, given that the Home Secretary had discretionary powers under Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act to exempt individuals in certain circumstances.

Justifying the refusal of my amendment by arguing simultaneously that clemency may hypothetically be exercised and that the deterrent effect must be adamantine is completely incoherent. The Government have had more than a year’s notice of this and of the identity of some of the people affected by the amendment. The Times, the Independent, Sky and Lighthouse Reports have all exposed the failures of our approach to the people affected. If the Government wished to offer certainty and comfort to these people, they have had ample time so to do. What faith can we possibly be expected to repose in the Government’s possible future gratitude to these brave men, given the way in which they have been treated to date? Of course, I welcome the relocations and assistance policy review, but why not simply accept the moral case, add this amendment to the Bill and relieve this and any future Home Secretary of the burden of exercising discretionary power by enshrining this exemption into law?

As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has claimed, the Government’s new amendment on modern slavery reporting is inadequate. It undermines their own contention that this Bill must be passed unamended to preserve its deterrent effect. In making this concession, they have also—albeit tacitly—conceded the value of the scrutiny of this House. I therefore propose both to test the opinion of this House once again and to ask the other place to consider whether it is really in our moral or national interest to expose those brave men who have served with us to further uncertainty. I continue to believe—as all the time I have been advancing this amendment I have believed—that it is now the time to give them the sanctuary their bravery has earned.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make one point in support of Motion F1. I yield to no one in my commitment to the democratic legitimacy of the House of Commons, but this House does have a constitutional role to play and this Bill is an example of it. We have a constitutional right and duty to make amendments to a Bill—even a bad Bill such as this Bill, which was in no manifesto—to try to improve it.

The noble Lord who just introduced his amendment referred to yesterday’s debate, from which I will read one sentence:

“My abiding concern remains for a class of people who served our country, who endured great danger in Afghanistan, who still find themselves in danger in a third country—namely Pakistan—and who may well fall foul of an entirely unintended consequence as a result of this legislation, however well intentioned it may be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; col. 100.]


That was said by the distinguished Conservative Member Sir Robert Buckland. If we vote in support of Motion F1, we can give Members in the other place another opportunity to think again and accept this improving amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it was interesting to hear the statement from the Minister in the other place last night that, in the first amendment we are discussing in this group, Amendment 3E, we had confused arrangements between what the treaty required and what the Bill required. However, the House is absolutely clear that the Bill and the treaty are in lockstep. They are locked together not only by Clause 1(2) but by the Minister’s claims that the Government could, through

“this internationally binding treaty, show that Rwanda is a safe country, and enable the Bill to deem Rwanda a safe country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; col. 81.]

It is quite clear that the treaty and the Bill are in lockstep. Therefore, what we do and say about the treaty is just as important, because the Bill flows from it.

This House has already made a determination on the treaty. A vote of this House said that Rwanda is not safe unless certain conditions are met. The Government have already told us that they are working towards the implementation of the issues required to make the treaty operational. However, despite sustained questioning from many Members of this House, we have not been able to identify where those issues are, who has put them forward and at what point they will be operational.

Given that this House—Parliament is in the Bill and that is us, as well—has to declare that Rwanda is safe as a result of the treaty, clearly we must be satisfied that the treaty is operational in the way that has been described. That is why Amendment 3E from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is so important. Among the issues that we now know have yet to be resolved are those on training, the implementation of appropriate systems and—I venture to say—what system there is for refoulement. We have heard no answers to those questions and there have been many more from other Members during discussions on the Bill.

The amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will provide Parliament, including this House, a mechanism for ensuring that these conditions are in place to ensure that Rwanda is safe. That is all the first part of this amendment states; we now need to know that the conditions, which the House has determined by its vote on the treaty, are in place so that proceedings on the treaty and Bill can move forward. I therefore encourage all Members of the House to support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.

Clearly, we give the other amendments great support. On the amendment—it is almost like a thorn in the side—that is required about Afghan supporters, it is amazing to me that the Government cannot find a way of giving action to it. The Government have made no concrete proposal, other than to look at this matter sometime in the future or by some form of special treatment by a Secretary of State. Surely the moral imperative here is to help those who have helped us. Letting them down will not help us in the slightest when we might have need of support in other areas of the world. I encourage people to support this amendment too.

17:30

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne. This has been worrying many of us for a long time, and I am one of the signatories to the letter to which he referred. There is just one additional point, which has been made before but I think is worth bearing in mind. That is what the impact would be on individuals whose support we would need on some future occasion, if they felt that they would not be treated as well as they should be, and as well as we have tended to treat those who have already taken part in helping our Armed Forces on operations.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to say how much I support the remarks of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with respect to slavery, and my noble friend Lady Lister’s comments with respect to children. We will also support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on his amendment, should he test the opinion of the House. We think it is a very sensible amendment; it simply seeks reports saying that the things that are required to be implemented have actually been implemented. One has only to look at the International Agreements Committee report, which lists out 10 things in particular that it feels should be implemented before you can say that Rwanda is safe. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, there has been no answer from the Government, other than some vague platitudes as to progress being made and steps being taken to ensure that these things will happen, rather than that they have happened.

Similarly, we support the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made with the second part of that amendment: to actually reflect on what happens in the future should, for whatever reason, changes happen in the environment with respect to Rwanda—political or whatever—that would require Parliament to reconsider its original decision that it was safe. We very much support the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has put before us.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Browne on his amendment, and say how much we support it. The case was made in the Sunday Telegraph, as my noble friend pointed out, with 13 military and diplomatic leaders putting forward the case for exempting those who have served this country from the provisions of the Bill. This is something that we as a country should embrace without any debate or controversy at all. I say that because it is important that we support my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment, but also that the size of the majority is such that the other place is forced to reconsider the bland statement it made: “Don’t worry. We’ll revisit this at the end of the deliberations we are having”. There is no certainty in what the Government are saying.

It is so important that my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment is in the Bill. What it requires, and what the people of this country want, is not some reconsideration of the policy in future but a certainty that those who have served with our Armed Forces, or served us in whatever circumstances, can be assured that the promises made to them are adhered to and kept.

I cannot believe that we as a country would turn our back on those who have served with us. It is unbelievable that we should be in this situation. I say to the Minister and others who may feel it important that they vote with the Government that we are talking about men and women who have served our country, stood alongside our Armed Forces and served with us to deliver the objectives of His Majesty’s Government. How on earth can we think it appropriate that the provisions of this Bill and the treaty should apply to them? It is simply unacceptable. As such, my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment gives us a way of saying to the Government: “Think again. We believe it should be on the face of the Bill”. I hope that noble Lords will support my noble friend when he tests the opinion of the House.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. To restate for the record, the Government’s priority is obviously to stop the boats. Although we have made progress, more needs to be done. We need a strong deterrent; we need to operationalise this partnership with Rwanda. Only by applying this policy to everyone without myriad exceptions will the deterrent work. We are not diminishing our responsibilities to provide support to those who are vulnerable, and we have ensured that the necessary support will be provided in Rwanda. We are sending the clearest signal that we control our borders, not the criminals who charge migrants exorbitant amounts to come here via illegal routes on unsafe small boats.

I will endeavour to deal with all the points that have been raised. I turn first to the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I restate for the record that as part of the process, upon arrival individuals will be treated as an adult only where two immigration officers assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18 —I emphasise “significantly”. This is a deliberately high threshold, and the principle of the benefit of the doubt means that where there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child, pending further observation by a local authority, which will usually be in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment.

I turn to Amendment 3E from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. As he correctly pointed out, Clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force. The treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Furthermore, the Government maintain periodical and ad hoc reviews of countries’ situations, including Rwanda’s, and that will not change.

One of the things we have discussed in previous debates on this subject is that there will be a real-time enhanced monitoring phase by the monitoring committee. The enhanced phase will ensure that the monitoring and reporting takes place in real time, so that the monitoring committee can rapidly identify, address and respond to any shortcomings, and of course identify any areas of improvement or urgently escalate issues that may place a relocated individual at risk of real harm. This enhanced phase is dealt with in paragraphs 106 to 112 of the policy statement, and I say to my noble friend Lord Hailsham that, of course, if the facts change, this means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty. That may very well prompt the parliamentary occasion to which he referred. I am afraid I cannot say quite what form such an occasion may take; if I have anything to do with it, it will definitely include alcohol.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will my noble friend give way on that point? My first problem with the Bill is that I am asked to say that something is safe when it is clearly not safe, and the Government have said that it is not. What I am really asked to say is that after all this has happened it will be safe, but the Government do not seem to explain to me exactly what will happen before we get to that.

I have another problem: how can I possibly vote that it will always be safe? I am not very keen on lawyers, but surely it is a very simple matter of saying that if the monitoring committee recommends to the Secretary of State that Rwanda is no longer safe, the Secretary of State can in fact change the situation as regards Rwanda. It seems very simple to me. If I had been the Minister, the first question I would have asked my civil servants is, “What happens if the situation changes?”, and my civil servants would not have left that room until they had given me an answer. How did he allow his civil servants to leave the room?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already stated that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there has been a change, unexpected or otherwise, in the in-country situation in Rwanda.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

The Minister uses the phrase “not be obligated”. That just means they do not have to do it, but it does not alter the legal position.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the definition of the word “obligated”.

The Bill builds on the treaty and the published evidence pack and makes it clear in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country, and it does address the concerns of the Supreme Court. The courts have not concluded that there is a general risk to the safety of relocated individuals in Rwanda. Rather, the Supreme Court’s findings were limited to perceived deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system and the resulting risk of refoulement should any lack of capacity or expertise lead to cases being wrongly decided. My noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton and I have dealt with exactly where Rwanda is in terms of ratification and so on. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court’s finding that a policy of removing individuals to safe third country where their asylum claims would be determined did not breach the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention, and the Supreme Court did not disturb that finding. The Supreme Court recognised that changes may be delivered in future which could address those concerns, and those changes are being delivered.

Turning to Motion F1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and spoken to powerfully, if I may I say so, by other noble Lords, I again reassure Parliament that once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention they deserve. I will go a little further here and say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that there is no intention to turn our backs on those who have served.

Finally, I am sorry to hear that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, does not like the Government’s amendment in lieu, but I am afraid there is very little else that I can say on that subject.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Before my noble and learned friend sums up on his Motion, I say to the Minister that he has not answered the question about what happens if there is a change in Rwanda and it is no longer safe.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to differ from the noble and learned Baroness. I appreciate that it is a difficult place to be, but I think I have answered the question. As I have said before on a number of occasions, the Government are not obligated to send anybody to Rwanda if the facts change.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Picking up immediately on the point the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has just made, he said that if matters change the Government would not be obligated by the treaty to remove people to Rwanda. The problem for the Minister is that Clause 2 states:

“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”.


That is without any limit of time. Furthermore, the Minister might care to read the clause more carefully, because the words “decision-maker” include the Secretary of State himself, so he is obligated by the statute to assume that Rwanda is a safe country. Whatever the treaty may say, the statute binds him to do that. This is a ludicrous situation that the Government, for some strange reason, refuse to address. The situation requires being looked at again by the other place. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

17:44

Division 2

Ayes: 266

Noes: 227

Motion C

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6C.

6C: Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to leave out clause 4 of the Bill and insert the new clause in the Amendment, as the Bill allows decision-makers to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual due to their particular circumstances.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 6D in lieu—

6D: Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new Clause—
“Decisions in individual claims
(1) Where credible evidence displaces the conclusion that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country, section 2 does not prevent—
(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer from deciding (under any applicable provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts) whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which the person belongs,
(b) a court or tribunal considering a review of, or an appeal against, a relevant decision to the extent that the review or appeal is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which that person belongs, or
(c) a decision-maker considering whether there is a real risk that the Republic of Rwanda will remove or send the person in question to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations.
(2) The court or tribunal may having heard from, or having taken all reasonable steps to hear from, the Secretary of State, grant an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of the person to the Republic of Rwanda, providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.
(3) Section 54 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is disapplied for the purposes of this Act.
(4) In this section—
“interim remedy” means any interim remedy or relief however described (including, in particular, an interim injunction or interdict);
“relevant decision” means a decision taking by the Secretary of State or an Immigration officer (under any applicable provision of, or made under, The Immigration Acts) that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question.””

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I beg to move Motion C1, again, already spoken to, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

17:58

Division 3

Ayes: 253

Noes: 236

18:10

Motion D

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7C.

7C: Because the Commons consider that is it not appropriate to amend the age assessment provisions of existing legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) not moved.

Motion D agreed.

Motion E

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9C in lieu.

9C: Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“Report about victims of modern slavery or human trafficking
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare and publish an annual report about the operation of this Act as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty, and
(b) lay a copy of each report before Parliament.
(2) The first report must—
(a) relate to the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force, and
(b) be laid before Parliament and published as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period.
(3) Subsequent reports must—
(a) relate to the period of 12 months beginning with the day after the last day of the period to which the previous report related, and
(b) be laid before Parliament and published as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period to which the report relates.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.

Motion E agreed.

Motion F

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10C.

10C: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the only way individuals should come to the UK is through safe and legal routes.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 10D in lieu—

10D: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK Overseas
(1) Notwithstanding the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, any earlier Immigration Acts and the other provisions of this Act, the following categories of person may not be removed to the Republic of Rwanda—
(a) agents or allies who have supported His Majesty’s armed forces overseas in an exposed or meaningful manner that now affects their claim for protection;
(b) persons who have been employed by or indirectly contracted to provide services to the UK Government in an exposed or meaningful manner that now affects their claim for protection;
(c) the partners and dependent family members of persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above;
(d) persons who were the partners or family members of persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above in a manner that now affects their claim for protection.
(2) The exemption in subsection (1) above includes but is not limited to persons eligible for entry to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”) and Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (“ACRS”).
(3) A person seeking to rely upon the exemption in subsection (1) above shall give the Secretary of State notice as soon as reasonably practicable to allow prompt verification of available records as to allies, agents, employees, contractors and family members.
(4) Failure to give reasonable notice as required under subsection (3) above, may in the absence of available records verifying the claimant’s qualification for exemption under this section, allow a court or tribunal to draw adverse inferences as to the credibility of the claimant’s case for exemption.””

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I beg to move Motion F1.

18:11

Division 4

Ayes: 275

Noes: 218