Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to the register of interests for support from RAMP.

We are indebted to the International Agreements Committee for its carefully argued report which, as we have heard, makes a clear recommendation to your Lordships’ House. Having read much of the evidence to the committee and other expert commentaries, including from the Law Society, I am satisfied that this recommendation is well based. The consensus among them is that, despite improvements in the treaty compared with the original memorandum of understanding, the treaty cannot of itself guarantee that the concerns raised by the Supreme Court will be met and that they are unlikely to be so in the short to medium term, as the committee concludes. The kind of improvements sought by the Supreme Court to make it safe will take time. To quote from the updated analysis provided by the UNHCR, referred to by my noble and learned friend:

“Even with the injection of additional resources, and sustained capacity development efforts, the transfer of an unspecified number of asylum-seekers from the UK to Rwanda will inevitably place additional pressure on a nascent and already overstretched system for receiving and adjudicating individual asylum claims”.


This is a system that, according to the Government’s own supporting evidence, has considered only 421 cases in the past five years, rejecting three-quarters of them despite many of the asylum seekers coming from countries such as Afghanistan and Syria that have high acceptance rates in the UK, as we have heard. The UNHCR states:

“As of January 2024, UNHCR has not observed changes in the practice of asylum adjudication that would overcome the concerns”


set out in its original analysis and evidence to the Supreme Court. It therefore continues to have concerns that asylum seekers transferred to Rwanda

“would not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status”.

Based on its own extensive experience of capacity building, which emphasises system thinking, it warns of the limitations of training without the

“necessary legal framework and implementation capacity”.

Drawing on the evidence it received, the committee underlines the weaknesses of the commitments on training and monitoring, welcome as they might be. It reminds us of the Supreme Court’s point that, however good the monitoring proves to be, it does not help those it identifies as having been turned down wrongly. To quote the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants,

“it would be far too late for the individuals whose lives would already be irreparably and irreversibly harmed”.

At the heart of the UNHCR’s concerns is the belief that, despite all the treaty’s claims, it, like the Bill,

“is not compatible with international refugee law”.

The JCHR observes that:

“The Supreme Court decision relied on evidence that Rwanda had previously failed to comply with international human rights treaties. It is hard to see how turning an agreement into a treaty can answer serious underlying concerns about Rwanda’s compliance with its international treaty obligations”.


Those concerns are hardly assuaged by the recent revelation, already referred to, that six people from Rwanda have been granted asylum in the UK since the original agreement was signed in April 2022. According to the i newspaper, at least one of these decisions was based on sexual orientation. Given Rwanda’s worrying record on LGBTQI+ people, outlined in the Public Law Project’s evidence to the committee, there is very real concern, among groups such as Rainbow Migration and the British Red Cross VOICES Network, about the implications of the treaty and the Bill for LGBTQI+ people seeking asylum in the UK who could be sent to Rwanda.

The treaty is full of assurances about both countries’ commitment to their international obligations with regard to refugees. Survivors of the Illegal Migration Act’s proceedings might recall that our concerns—based on the UNHCR’s unequivocal analysis that that and the earlier Nationality and Borders Bill did not comply with the refugee convention—were dismissed as simply one interpretation of that convention’s requirements. So, in true humpty-dumpty fashion, there is nothing to stop the Government asserting that these obligations are met under this treaty and the accompanying Bill when the experts say they are not, because, for the Government, words mean what they say they mean.

Apparently, according to the Foreign Secretary, as we heard, this represents

“out-of-the-box thinking”.—[Official Report, 16/1/24; col. 316.]

But legitimate asylum seekers, whom the Government wrongly call and treat as illegals, would be safer if thinking remained within the box of the official UN statement of these obligations. The committee is thus right to charge us with the need to consider carefully whether the treaty fundamentally changes the Supreme Court’s assessment regarding Rwanda’s international obligations. I believe all the evidence suggests that it does not.

One of the issues of substantive concern to the committee was the treatment of children. Needless to say, I have not seen any child rights impact assessment—can the Minister tell us whether there will be one before we consider the Bill itself? The committee’s report notes:

“The Treaty envisages that unaccompanied children might be removed to Rwanda if their age is in dispute. If subsequently determined to be children they would be returned to the UK. This might result in children being placed in unsafe situations”.


The potential unsafe situation raised in the ILPA/Justice evidence concerns sleeping arrangements. Can the Minister assure us that no age-disputed child would be required to share a sleeping area with adults?

The report cites witnesses’ arguments that the treatment of age-disputed children would be contrary to our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to prioritise the best interests of children and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s recommendation to the UK to

“ensure that children and age-disputed children are not removed to a third country”.

Instead, there is a very real possibility that they will be removed to Rwanda and, if subsequently found to be under 18, sent back to the UK in a cruel human pass the parcel, which is likely to be very distressing for children who almost certainly have gone through considerable trauma.

Last year, a Written Answer to me gave the assurance that, under the MEDP, established by the original memorandum of understanding,

“No one undergoing an age assessment, or legally challenging the outcome of an assessment, will be relocated until that process is fully concluded”.


Can the Minister please explain why the treaty indicates otherwise? Given the chief inspector’s description of the age-assessment process for those arriving by small boats as “perfunctory”, and given plenty of other evidence, there is a very real danger of a significant number of unaccompanied children being earmarked for removal to Rwanda, despite the treaty’s assurances.

As your Lordships know, there are very real concerns about the introduction of so-called scientific methods in the age assessment of children. I realise that even if age assessment is completed in the UK, unless there is a legal challenge, the assurance I was given last year would not ensure that no child was erroneously relocated—but it would at least provide some protection. Nor would it cover children in families for whom, according to Barnardo’s,

“Forced removal has devastating impacts on mental and physical health and will blight the development and futures of these children”.

Finally, I will say a word about deterrence, which is presented as the treaty’s overarching objective in Article 2. In response to a recent Written Question asking what evidence there is of a deterrence effect, the Minister replied:

“We set out the evidence covering this in the published impact assessment for the Illegal Migration Act”.


Veterans of the passage of that Act may remember that the impact assessment said that:

“The academic consensus is that there is little to no evidence suggesting changes in a destination country’s policies have an impact on deterring people from … travelling without valid permission, whether in search of refuge or for other reasons”.


Refugee Council research supports that conclusion. Moreover, it suggests that, rather than being deterred from travelling, asylum seekers will take even more dangerous journeys to reach the UK and, once here, will be more likely to go underground, as have nearly 6,000 asylum seekers already according to the Home Office. The expert organisations the Refugee Council contacted believe that this will increase rather than remove the power of traffickers and others out to exploit desperate asylum seekers. Journalists from the Times and the i who spoke to asylum seekers in Calais were told that they would not be deterred by the threat of removal to Rwanda.

The Refugee Council research also found a consensus among organisations that the scheme and the state of perpetual limbo it would create for so many would have a very detrimental impact on the mental health of those seeking asylum. This is also emphasised in briefings from the BMA, Médecins Sans Frontières and Doctors of the World. They cite existing evidence of the detrimental effect on mental health of the prospect of removal to Rwanda, where they fear the healthcare will be inadequate because of a critical shortage of skilled health workers. We are talking here about extremely vulnerable people who have already often suffered trauma and even torture.

The latest report of the independent monitoring board expressed concern about the “deep anxiety”, “distress” and

“the increase in self-harm observed during the period when men were being detained for removal to Rwanda”.

On this point, can the Minister explain why, according to the i newspaper, the first 47 asylum seekers selected for relocation to Rwanda more than 18 months ago are still being kept in limbo given that the rules state that applications deemed inadmissible should be considered if relocation is unlikely within a reasonable period of time?

In his oral evidence to the committee, the Home Secretary conceded that

“None of us has an interest in rushing the fence and getting it wrong”,


and that

“If the elements of the treaty are not in place, obviously we will not be able to rely on the treaty for the purposes of asylum process”.


While he expressed confidence that the elements of the treaty will be in place, his confidence is not shared by a wide range of experts nor by the International Agreements Committee. I therefore believe it would be irresponsible of us to call for the ratification of the treaty now, and I hope that your Lordships will support the second cross-party Motion in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

If the noble Lord will indulge me, I have a long way to go and I hope to get to all of his questions.

To question the treaty’s effect is to question both parties’ commitment to the rule of law, so I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Howell, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson, who made some very good points on this. I was sorry, but not particularly surprised, to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, cast aspersions in the direction of Rwanda.

Again, I thank the IAC for its report, to which we will respond in writing as a priority; but I must be clear that the Government intend to see the conventional Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process through to the end, as normal. The Government recognise the intent behind the Motion, but we believe it is unnecessary and misguided. The Motion in question is completely unprecedented, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, noted, and, with all due and sincere respect to the noble and learned Lord, a mischaracterisation of the process. It is unnecessary as it is completely usual for Parliament to complete its scrutiny of a treaty and for the CRaG process to end before a treaty has been implemented. In just one example of this, the free trade agreements that the UK signed with Australia and New Zealand in 2021 and 2022 were laid before Parliament for scrutiny, and in both cases legislative changes were required to implement the obligations in the agreements; those changes were introduced in parallel. The scrutiny debates happened and the CRaG process ended long before those treaties were implemented. The implementing primary and secondary legislation measures were put in place and the treaties were brought into force in early 2023.

It is for any Government to decide, ahead of ratification of any treaty, whether the implementation required for the UK to be legally compliant with its treaty obligations has been duly put in place. I do not believe that the two debates should be confused, as they have been. We urge noble Lords to support the Government in their plans for the treaty to be implemented and ratified by both countries in due course. We have been clear throughout the development of this partnership that Rwanda and the UK must place the utmost importance on the safety of all those who are relocated. The mechanisms in place will ensure that both parties adhere to the obligations under the internationally legally binding treaty. It is vital that we stop the boats as soon as possible. The British people clearly do not want to see any further delay.

It would be remiss of me not to mention at this point the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which will reach this House next week and ties in closely with what I have just said. This Bill sits above existing statutory provisions to enable Parliament to conclude that Rwanda is a safe country. The supporting evidence pack, which was released on 11 January, and the supporting policy statement, first given on 12 December, go into great detail concerning the information that gives us the confidence to say that Rwanda is safe. I look forward to noble Lords’ support for the Bill at Second Reading next week.

It is true that Parliament is being invited to conclude that Rwanda is safe based on this treaty and other matters, but that is not what is being debated today. We are debating whether there is anything in this treaty that means it should not be ratified, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson noted. The IAC has made some points about the treaty, but fundamentally it has not identified anything objectionable in the treaty itself. A debate on whether Parliament considers Rwanda safe is a debate that should and will happen in depth in the coming weeks as part of the scrutiny of the Bill. The IAC’s report concludes that the treaty might in time provide the basis for such an assessment—that is, that Rwanda is safe—if it is rigorously implemented. The Government’s position is that the treaty provides that basis, so we invite noble Lords to reject the Motion today and recognise that standard procedure should be followed. Once the treaty is ratified and the Bill passed, we can begin to operationalise the partnership.

I will now try to answer some of the more specific questions to do with the deterrence of the partnership. It was never about Rwanda or any other partner country being a hellhole, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, which I find quite offensive. It is about organised criminal gangs not being able to sell the UK as a destination. Only by removing the prospect that illegal migrants can settle in the UK can we control our borders and save lives at sea. By sending the clear message that if you try to come here illegally and have no right to stay here you will be returned home or removed to a safe third country we can break the business model of the trafficking and smuggling gangs.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked me about international comparisons as regards treaty scrutiny. The Government believe that 21 joint sitting days, which in parliamentary terms is likely to be a minimum of five weeks and often somewhat longer, is sufficient for Parliament to scrutinise a treaty. It is difficult to make comparisons between governmental systems, even with other parliamentary democracies, as each has evolved over time in line with its constitutional arrangements, which differ from one state to another. Each system reflects the constitutional make-up and separation of powers in that country. When similar parliamentary democracies are compared with ours, it is clear that our practice is in many respects similar to systems such as those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We consider that in many respects our system is in fact stronger than theirs, not least due to the existence in the UK of a statutory framework for treaty scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to the Supreme Court and Israel and the various comments that have been made about its agreement with Rwanda. We do not agree that it sets a relevant precedent or implies that Rwanda will not adhere to its obligations under our treaty. The terms of the arrangements between Israel and Rwanda are not available for scrutiny, are not transparent and are not monitored in the way that ours are. The scheme referenced was voluntary and open-ended and did not openly commit to guaranteed acceptance or a custodial role on the part of Rwanda. So on the information known, it bears little resemblance to the UK-Rwanda treaty and the lessons there are not directly applicable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked a number of questions about children. Article 3 states:

“The Agreement does not cover unaccompanied children and the United Kingdom confirms that it shall not seek to relocate unaccompanied individuals who are deemed to be under the age of 18”.


The treaty does, however, provide for the relocation of children as part of a family. It should be noted that this does not constitute a policy change and is consistent with the principles of the extant memorandum of understanding. I urge those with family links in the UK to seek to come here via the existing safe and legal routes.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt but I asked specifically about age-disputed children, where the protections seem to be less than they were under the original memorandum of understanding.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I was just getting to that. As regards children where the age-assessment results are not conclusive, the Home Office will treat an individual claiming to be a child as an adult only after further inquiries by two officers, one of at least chief immigration officer grade or equivalent, have separately determined that the individual’s physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest they are significantly over 18 years of age.

The lawfulness of this process was recently fully endorsed by the Supreme Court in the case of BF (Eritrea) from 2021. If doubt remains about whether the claimant is an adult or a child, they are treated as a child for immigration purposes until a further assessment of their age by a local authority or the National Age Assessment Board. This will usually entail a careful holistic age assessment, known as a Merton-compliant age assessment. Only once this assessment is completed could the individual then be treated as an adult if found to be so.

Under the Illegal Migration Act, those wishing to challenge a decision on age will be able to do so through judicial review, although these challenges are non-suspensive and can continue from outside the UK after an applicant has been removed. The treaty provides for the return of anyone who is removed as an adult and later determined to be a child, and appropriate temporary care of such an individual.

A number of noble Lords have referred to the UNHCR report. The first thing to state is that the Government are not abdicating responsibilities, as alluded to by the UNHCR, and as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. This is a partnership with Rwanda, helping to make the immigration system fairer and ensuring that people are safe and enjoying new opportunities to flourish.

As this Government have made clear, tackling the issue of illegal migration requires bold and innovative solutions, and our partnership with Rwanda offers that. Rwanda is a safe country that cares deeply about refugees and currently hosts over 130,000 asylum seekers. Indeed, the UNHCR has signed an agreement with the Government of Rwanda and the African Union to continue the operations of the emergency transit mechanism centre in Rwanda. By temporarily accommodating some of the most vulnerable refugee populations, who have faced trauma, detentions and violence, Rwanda has showcased its willingness and ability to work collaboratively to provide solutions to refugee situations and crises. This agreement has also attracted EU funding, which will support the continued operation of the ETM until 2026.

The Home Office has granted refugee status to nationals from Rwanda, as noted by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. How then can we say Rwanda is safe? People from many different nationalities apply for asylum in the UK. They include nationals from some of our closest European neighbours and other safe countries around the world.

Each case is considered on its individual merits by caseworkers who receive extensive training. All available evidence is carefully and sensitively considered in light of published country information. Asylum decision-makers carefully consider everyone’s protection needs regardless of nationality by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant, in light of the latest available country-of-origin information. Asylum claims made by persons from Rwanda will have an individual assessment made against the background of relevant case law, policy guidance and the latest available country-of-origin information. Paragraphs 339J and 339JA of the Immigration Rules require decision-makers to take into account all relevant country-of-origin information in making their decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked about the Home Secretary and the signing of the Section 19(1)(b) human rights statement. This does not mean that the legislation is incompatible with the ECHR. It means that the Home Secretary cannot say that it is more likely to be compatible than not. That is the consequence of this being an ambitious and novel Bill, which is what is needed to fulfil our commitment to tackle the small boats. There is nothing improper or unprecedented about pursuing ambitious and innovative ways of solving such endemic issues as migration. We believe that it is lawful and we are acting in compliance with our international obligations.

The Supreme Court’s judgment was made on the basis of the facts in June 2022.