Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Etherton

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am advised by my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton that “must” and “shall” both have a mandatory quality, but I will of course write to the noble Lord.

If there is compelling evidence, despite the safeguards in the treaty, decision-makers will be able to consider certain claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual due to their particular circumstances, as we have discussed a number of times. However, I say again that these amendments are unnecessary. On that basis, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment and urge other noble Lords not to press theirs.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that analysis of the speeches made and the Government’s response to them. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has raised some important points about people who are extremely vulnerable.

The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Coaker, articulated the point that all these amendments dealing with exemptions are objectively extremely reasonable and important, and do not involve huge numbers of people such as to undermine the effectiveness of this proposed legislation. Descending to details to say that they are not necessary, when it is plain that they are, shows a certain lack of not only sensitivity to the Chamber but a spirit of humanity which should underlie the Government’s response.

Turning to my Amendment 22 and its consequential amendments, I find it difficult to understand how the Government can justify dropping and effectively disfranchising one of the expressly specified categories of refugee in the convention. There is nothing in the policy statement issued by the Government when the Bill was published or in the Explanatory Notes to say that they would do this. I would have thought that dropping a specific category of refugee defined by this convention which we have signed up to is an extraordinary move.

The justification seems to be that the Government will not permit reference to groups because it would significantly enlarge the number of those entitled to claim. However, if they are entitled to claim by virtue of a convention which we have signed up to, the Government must accept that, like all the other 149 states signed up to it. You cannot simply say, “We’ll ignore this or that category of refugee” or “We’ll just rely on this category of refugee”. There must be an ability, in one way or another, for all those mentioned as refugees to explain why removal would result in persecution and serious harm.

Leaving that matter aside, I will comment on the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, about the situation of LGBT people in Rwanda. I do not want to go through this again, but there are two factors on which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, did not comment, and in fact have never been commented on appropriately by the Government, by way of some sort of excuse in relation to LGBT people and the risk that they face in leading an openly gay life in Rwanda.

First, the travel information provided by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office remains the same as it always has done, as it was at the time of the Illegal Migration Act: there is a danger to LGBT people living openly as such in Rwanda. Secondly, and importantly, no reference has been made to something that I mentioned in Committee: the country report on Rwanda of the US State Department, which was published only one year ago, and which talks about persecution and the possibility of physical harm to LGBT people. The Government have never addressed those points at all, but I am not going to go further into that.

As to the others, I personally strongly support all the other exemptions, which seem to me to be reasonable, humane and entirely appropriate, not designed to undermine the Bill but really rising to the level of morality which we should display as a country in relation to these categories of people. Having said all of that, and having heard the Minister, the best thing that I can do is to leave it to the amendment in the next group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which contains reference to groups. For my part, having had this debate will have been useful in honing the points that will have to be met in relation to that. On that basis, and that basis alone, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Etherton

Committee stage
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as we have previously set out, the purpose of the Bill is to stop the boats and end the perilous journeys being made across the channel as it is the busiest shipping lane in the world. These journeys are overwhelmingly made by young, fit men in search of better job opportunities, who are travelling from a safe country. Males represented 88% of small boat arrivals in the year ending September 2023. This is a similar proportion as each year from 2018 to 2021.

Since January 2018, 75% of small boat arrivals have been adult males aged 18 and over. We need a strong deterrent to stop illegal migration and measures to prevent removals being frustrated; we have therefore taken bold steps. However, to ensure that we are meeting our international obligations, Clause 4 provides that a Home Office decision-maker or a court or tribunal can consider a claim that Rwanda is unsafe based on compelling evidence relating specifically to a person’s individual circumstances.

As the Government have set out, since the partnership was announced, UK officials have worked closely with the Government of Rwanda to ensure that individuals relocated under the agreement will be safe and that their rights will be protected. The Government’s legal position, published on 11 December 2023, further sets out that the treaty, and the evidence pack, provide for compliance with the Government’s substantive obligations under international law. Therefore, no one will be removed to Rwanda if they face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm.

I turn to Amendments 38, 40, 43, 45 and 51 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. These proposed amendments to Clause 4 would undermine one of the principles that the Bill is seeking to address; namely, to limit the challenges that can be brought against the general safety of Rwanda, even with the signed treaty and updated evidence presented by the Government.

The legislation is clear and affords the appropriate safeguards to ensure that decision makers make a decision about the particular circumstances of each case. The Bill already allows decision-makers and the courts to consider certain claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual person due to their particular circumstances, despite the safeguards in the treaty, if there is compelling evidence to that effect.

I of course entirely understand the desire of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, to get clarity and certainty on this issue. For people who identify as LGBT+, that consideration would include any assessment of any compelling evidence reviewed in line with the principles outlined in HJ (Iran)—as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—that being LGBT+ would mean that Rwanda was not safe for them in their particular circumstances.

As in all cases under the provisions of the Bill, individuals will be given the opportunity to provide that compelling evidence that they would be at risk in their particular circumstances if they were relocated to Rwanda. That would include any alleged harm as a result of an individual’s gender or sexuality. As I say, any such claims would be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and in the case of LGBT+ claims, that would include any assessment in line with the principles outlined in HJ (Iran).

I make it clear that the Rwandan penal code does not punish homosexuality or relations between people of the same sex. The constitution of Rwanda includes a broad prohibition of discrimination and does not criminalise or discriminate against sexual orientation in law or policy. As regards the FCDO advice, which I was asked about, paragraphs 173 and 174 of the policy statement deal with this, stating:

“As experts on the bilateral relationship between the UK and Rwanda and its development over the past thirty years, FCDO officials based in the relevant geographic and thematic departments working closely with colleagues in the British High Commission in Kigali have liaised with the Home Office throughout the production of this Policy Statement … Information drawn from their institutional expertise as to the in-country situation in Rwanda, and Rwanda’s history of compliance with its international obligations is reflected as appropriate throughout”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised concerns about the unequal treatment of women in Rwanda during Monday’s debate. The Rwanda country report refers to the National Commission for Human Rights, or NCHR, which is a constitutional commission provided for by the Rwandan constitution. The NCHR is made up of seven commissioners. Each of them has a specific area of focus, including the rights of women. There is a commissioner who is a focal person for or who is in charge of those rights.

The country report concludes that the general treatment of women is good. Women and children’s rights, among those the NCHR monitors, have seen an improvement since the creation of the NCHR. That is reflected in the laws and the constitution, which provides for specific groups’ rights; for example, women, children, and the disabled. The situation is the same for women as for those who are disabled. They are allowed to be elected, and at each administrative level at least 30% of representatives have to be women. In Parliament, more than 60% of representatives are women; the current Rwandan cabinet is 50% women, and five out of the seven commissioners in the NCHR are women.

Women’s rights are respected in every area. Although the NCHR receives some complaints about rights to property, Rwandan family law was amended to allow women to inherit from parents in 1999. The country information note also refers to the police response to victims of gender-based violence and the Gender Monitoring Office, which considers specific issues relating to gender-based violence. The National Women’s Council is represented from village level and at every level above and is a channel for sharing information on anything regarding gender-based violence. It is the responsibility of local leaders to ensure that there are no gender-based violence issues in their area of control. Police monitor what is going on; they can investigate and come up with a report or action.

Furthermore, the rule of law index, which ranks countries on indicators including equal treatment and the absence of discrimination, ranks Rwanda 26th out of 142 countries worldwide and first out of 34 countries in the region. That is a measure of whether individuals are free from discrimination—based on socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity—with respect to public services, employment, court proceedings and the justice system. I add that the 2022 US State Department human rights practices report on Rwanda noted:

“Women have the same legal status and are entitled to the same rights as men, including under family, labor, nationality, and inheritance laws. … The law requires equal pay for equal work and prohibits discrimination in hiring decisions”.


As I indicated at the start, this clause provides the foundations for the Bill as a whole; it is fundamental to the effective operation of the scheme, and the amendments put forward would serve only to weaken its effectiveness. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply and to those who have spoken. What the debate has shown, short as it was, is that the issue of social groups and how they fit into the legislation is very important. Many points were made on various issues that were all extremely valuable, including the wonderful examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to the ongoing discrimination even after decriminalisation took place here; the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, made criticism of the equality impact assessment; and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to Human Rights Watch’s latest report.

In addition to those points, what this debate has teased out—and this fits in with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—is what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to as the “false binary”. It is a critical issue. For this, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Even after the Minister’s reply, it remains unclear how one treats someone who has not personally experienced persecution, because, for example, they have hidden their sexuality, their religious views or their political views, but who is a member of a group that has a well-founded fear of persecution were there to be an honest expression of their sexuality or their political and social views or a display of their ethnicity or race. How would one treat those people? The false binary does not allow one to take into account the effect of being a member of a group, as opposed to—as my noble friend Lord Carlile referred to it—being “about me”.

I ask the Government to consider carefully whether, without any undermining of the Bill and its purposes, the introduction of the amendments that I have tabled would not add an important element of clarity, both for those assessing claims—the Ministers, the Government and immigration officers—and for the courts. Subject to that, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Etherton

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 1st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord has an amendment and he wishes to speak to it.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to speak to my Amendment 41. It is a very specific amendment relating to Clause 11 as it currently stands. Before I turn to that, however, I will take up the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown in relation to providing a legal structure for our discussion here. The first thing, which has been emphasised by a number of noble Lords, though not all, is that Article 31 is central to the discussion. This is because it is obvious that the Government, in relation to Clause 11 and the following clauses, are seeking to interpret and apply their view of Article 31.

It has been suggested that we can ignore the convention because we must have regard to what people think today, but I am afraid that we cannot do that. We are a party to this convention: if we do not like it, the Government will have to recuse themselves from it and try to get other countries to change it. At the moment, however, the convention applies.

Article 31 says that no penalty shall be imposed on account of illegal entry or presence on a refugee who satisfies three requirements. These are the three requirements set out in Clause 11. The first is that the refugee comes directly from the territory of persecution. The second is that the refugee presents themselves without delay to the authorities. The third is that the refugee shows good cause for their illegal entry or presence. That is what Clause 11 is about. However, you cannot read Clause 11 on its own because the subsequent clauses all have some impact on it. In particular, Clause 36 is critical because it seeks to give a definition of coming directly from the territory of persecution.

Noble Lords will see from what I have just described that, although Article 31 says what the Government cannot do—that is, they cannot impose a penalty if those three requirements are satisfied—it does not go on to say that, if they are not satisfied, you can have a differentiation such as that in Clause 11. That is a matter of policy, and I can certainly see the force of the argument for saying that this division that has taken place in Clause 11 is sufficiently inconsistent with the definition of a refugee to make it improper.

There is a more fundamental point: Clause 36, referred to by my noble and learned friend, in seeking to define “coming directly from another country,” says that the requirement is not to be taken as satisfied if the refugee stopped in another country outside the UK, unless they can show that they could not have reasonably been expected to have sought protection under the convention in that country. There is no such qualification in Article 31, and it appears that the Government believe they can, through legislation, elaborate on the meaning of Article 31 in whatever way would best suit the current asylum policy of the day. This, I am afraid, is entirely misguided as a matter of law.

As an international treaty, the convention has the same meaning for each and every member state that signed up to it. It cannot bear different meanings for each member state, according to the policy of the Government of the state for the time being. In England and Wales, the court has, pursuant to its constitutional role of interpreting legislation and written law, held that a refugee may still come directly to a member state, within the meaning of Article 31, even if the refugee passes through one or more intermediate countries, if the final destination of the refugee has always been the state in which the asylum is finally claimed and the halts in the intermediate country or countries are no more than short-term stopovers. My noble and learned friend Lord Brown referred to his judgment in the Adimi case, which decided that very point.

On the global picture, to cut matters short—before I turn to the particular amendment—I am against the division, the separation, between group 1 and group 2 in Clause 11 because it depends on a requirement, or the failure to meet a requirement, which is directly contrary to the convention. Therefore, I certainly object to the division between group 1 and group 2 so long as Clause 36 stays in its present form, with its present definition of coming “directly”, on both logical and legal grounds—quite apart from the matter of general principle, which other noble Lords have mentioned, about the demeaning nature of distinguishing between two different categories.