Illegal Migration Act: Northern Ireland

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we do not believe that this will induce people to go to Northern Ireland. The cohort we are detaining has been considered under existing legislation, so those who are part of that cohort can and will be removed to Rwanda. There would be no benefit to their going to Northern Ireland to avoid this removal. The NABA cohort is anyone who arrived in the UK on or after 1 January 2022 and who received a notice of intent prior to 29 June 2023, which informed them that their asylum claim may be considered inadmissible and that they may be removed to Rwanda.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, until any appeals in relation to the Northern Ireland cases are concluded, will the Minister undertake not to commence Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act, concerning age assessment, which has now been disapplied in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot make that commitment. I will come back as and when I have more to say on the subject.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That this House regrets that provisions in the Statement of changes in Immigration Rules (HC 590), laid before the House on 14 March, will initially increase the minimum income requirement for family visas from £18,600 to £29,000 without consultation or sufficient justification; will cause family separation, contrary to respect for family life, the best interests of children, and community integration; and will have a discriminatory impact; and regrets the Government’s failure to publish an impact assessment or equalities impact assessment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has produced an excoriatingly critical report of the Home Office’s handling of these regulations, which introduce what it describes as a “substantial increase” in the minimum income required—MIR—to bring a partner to the UK, from £18,600 to £29,000, with further increases to £38,700 planned by early next year. Indeed, it was so dismayed by this

“further example of the Home Office failing to provide adequate information to Parliament to allow informed scrutiny”

that it held a special evidence session with the Minister. But this did not assuage its

“doubts about the appropriateness of the Home Office’s overall approach to policymaking, which too often”

fails to proceed from

“rigorous analysis … supported by evidence”

and, where appropriate, consultation.

The committee declared “unacceptable” the failure to publish an impact assessment and equality impact assessment, even though the Explanatory Memorandum states that a full IA has been prepared. In its follow-up session with the Minister, the latter acknowledged that the situation was “regrettable” and publication was “urgent”. Yet, seven weeks later, it still has not appeared. The committee pointed out that this has implications not only for Parliament’s ability to scrutinise legislation but for the development of policy itself, saying:

“That the Home Office may still have no accurate idea of the expected impact of its policies, even after they have come into force, is alarming”.


In response to written questions from the committee, the Home Office blamed the “complexity of analysis” for the failure to publish the IA as planned and assured the committee that it was

“working at pace to ensure this is published promptly so the impact of changes can be assessed”.

That was in March. It is now well into May and we still are not in a position to assess impact.

The same goes for the EIA, yet it is obvious that the impact is likely to be indirectly discriminatory, as submissions received by the committee warned. Whether we are talking about gender, ethnicity/race, disability, age or region, any EIA worth its salt would demonstrate the unequal impact of such a high earnings threshold. The response to a petition to the Commons on 11 March said that the EIA would be published “in due course”, which smacks more of indifference than urgency.

In the Commons, the Minister for Legal Migration simply did not answer the questions about the failure to provide either an IA or EIA. Will the Minister please explain now why, despite the SLSC’s criticisms, they still have not been published? I cannot believe the analysis is that complex. If it is, surely the policy should have been paused until it was clear what its impact would be. Call me a cynic, but my suspicion is that the impacts revealed by the assessments were so damaging that it was decided it was safer to keep them under wraps.

The committee’s concerns were

“compounded by a lack of consultation … which might have helped to shed light on the real-world impact”.

It was dismissive of the Home Office’s argument that consultation

“would be disproportionate given the nature of the changes”,

and noted that advice had not even been sought from the Migration Advisory Committee. Why was advice not sought from MAC, which, in its 2020 annual report, had advised that it was now time to look again at the MIR? Perhaps the Home Office preferred not to hear its views, given that it had suggested that, hitherto, too much weight had been placed on fiscal arguments and not enough on the benefits to families and society from partner migration. I hope the Minister can give a more lucid response to the question than that offered in the Commons to my right honourable friend Sir Stephen Timms MP.

As if that was not all damning enough, the SLSC criticised the lack of any coherent overall rationale for the increase and what it is trying to achieve. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the MIR

“is being amended as it has not been increased for over a decade and no longer reflects the … income required by a family to ensure they are self-sufficient and do not need to rely on public funds”.

Where to start? First, the point about public funds simply does not make sense, given that anyone allowed entry by this route would have no recourse to public funds for five or 10 years anyway, and the proportion for whom the condition is lifted is tiny.

Secondly, there is no real attempt to justify linking the level of the MIR to the skilled worker visa requirement if the key objective is a family’s self-sufficiency. On that basis, half of UK employees would not meet the current self-sufficiency test, and as many as seven out of 10 would not do so when the MIR is raised again next year.

Thirdly, can the Minister explain how the salary of the sponsoring partner represents a test of the contribution that the migrating partner would make to the economy and the public finances, another element of the supposed rationale, given that no account can be taken of the latter’s current or prospective earnings, even if they had a job offer in this country?

As it is, the policy is likely to cause hardship and heartbreak, even more so than it already does. Reunite Families UK reported in 2020 that the consequences

“included not just emotional impacts of separation”

from partners, and of children from parents,

“but financial, mental and physical hardship”.

The stress created by this situation often had a serious impact on both mental and physical health. One woman said she was scared of her own desperation, and another affected had attempted suicide.

In this context, the Minister’s statement in a Written Answer that

“family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense”

reads as distinctly callous and misleading, given that those seeking to bring partners here are themselves taxpayers and, by the time their partners had recourse to public funds, family life would already be well established. For the once self-styled party of the family, it would seem that only some families count. Indeed, the previous Children’s Commissioner, after the introduction of the original MIR, commented that

“the UK’s family migration Rules are among the most family-unfriendly of any of the developed countries”.

Can the Minister tell us whether the Government’s family test was applied to the MIR increase? If yes, what did it conclude, and if no, why not?

Where there are children, the state is in effect creating lone-parent families, who are more likely to have to claim social security support because of sole responsibility for looking after those children, and the abolition of the child element of the MIR does not change that. The Explanatory Memorandum advises that

“the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”

continues to apply. Can the Minister explain how the welfare and best interests of children, as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are promoted by splitting up their parents against their will?

In a recent study by Reunite Families UK, even on the original MIR, two-thirds said that their child received a formal diagnosis of a mental health condition. The earlier study on behalf of the former Children’s Commissioner also found children suffering distress and anxiety as a result of separation from a parent, compounded by the stresses faced by some lone-parent families. She concluded:

“If the price of the public policy is interference with children’s rights that impact on their emotional and mental well-being, sense of stability and security, and ultimately happiness and development, then the interference is disproportionate and is not in their best interests”.


The situation will be much worse now than when she wrote that warning.

The Minister’s Written Answer also stated that

“family migrants must be able to integrate if they are to play a full part in British life”.

Will he please explain exactly what he meant? Since when is integration measured by the size of your partner’s pay packet? If anything, keeping families apart is likely to reduce integration overall. To quote from one of the submissions to the SLSC:

“The MIR makes it harder rather than easier for mixed nationality families to participate fully in society”,


given the sacrifices that they have to make to survive. It warns that

“marginalising these families fosters societal division and tension”.

The Home Office’s response to many of the criticisms has been to point to the possibility of an exceptional circumstances application, such as under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but such an application is far from straightforward and the price for the few who succeed is a 10-year path to settlement, which carries its own problems and insecurities. Moreover, the Home Office has acknowledged that it has no idea how many successful applications there might be, so we do not even know how likely the increase is to meet its own objectives.

The SLSC asked the Home Office for its response to suggestions for the mitigation of the rules, in particular through how other sources of income are treated. Its answer was simply to say that there was no flexibility and that it was “right and fair” that the rules be

“consistently applied in all cases”,

but no one is asking for inconsistency, as potentially the mitigations could apply to anybody, nor is it explained why there is inconsistency between this group and the Armed Forces and those who are called “high potential individuals”.

My Motion to Regret was partly prompted by an email I received from the mother of a young woman in a long-term relationship with an American who had recently got a new job which meant she would finally meet the MIR after six months, only for the goalposts to be moved under her feet. Not surprisingly, the family are upset and angry about what in their view is the very opposite of a fair approach, as the Home Secretary described it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I cannot but, for now, at least means at least.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I start with an apology; I should have said that I too am an associate of RAMP. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke: all more or less in favour of the Motion, apart from the Minister.

I am conscious that colleagues want to carry on with the discussion on the Bill but, frankly, I felt as if I was listening to Alice through the looking glass. Between us, we demolished the arguments that have been put forward, and the Minister simply repeated them—without convincing anybody, I think. He did not explain why the Migration Advisory Committee has not been consulted. He did not even have the courtesy to address the point I made at the end: now that there is a pause, they should now be consulted, and so should experts by experience.

I cannot believe that we were told the impact assessment will come forward. This is the scrutiny, so when are we going to scrutinise this again? What is the point of an impact assessment that comes after it has been scrutinised in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords? Will we have a chance to have another go when the impact assessment is finally published? I hope so because, otherwise, it is beyond belief.

I asked a question about the family test. Government departments are supposed to apply the family test to every policy that might affect families; this is a policy that is cutting families down the middle. Did the department apply the family test? I do not know, because the Minister did not answer the question.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

With respect, I did. It is all very well to lob accusations of a lack of courtesy, but I do not think that is entirely fair. I think I dealt with the House with a great deal of courtesy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Sorry, I am not saying that the Minister did not show courtesy—although he did not have the courtesy to address the soft-cop option that I offered at the end, and actually I think that was discourteous. I am sorry if I missed his answer on the family test. I will read Hansard and see what it says; if he did not answer it, I will follow it up in Written Questions.

I will leave it there because, as I said, colleagues want to carry on with the other business. Those who are affected by this, who have been listening, who will read it or who are watching will be very disappointed that the Minister was not able to answer any of the questions that we asked. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Asylum Claims

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister does not claim any credit at all for removing the backlog, but I applaud the department for having done so. The situation, as the noble Lord will be aware, has changed very dramatically in the world over the last 13 years.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the sacked chief inspector has expressed concern that clearing the legacy backlog at all costs has led to perverse outcomes. This includes a soaring in the number of claims deemed to have been withdrawn but counted as outcomes without proper quality assurance, which he declared was not acceptable. Will the Government now publish data showing the reasons for this big increase in the number of claims deemed to be withdrawn, as called for by the British Red Cross?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I remind the House that the previous inspector was let go because he broke the terms of his contract, so I would argue that he has been somewhat discredited. Withdrawals can happen for a number of reasons, for example where somebody has already left the UK before their claim was concluded or where they fail to comply with the asylum process. There is a large number of reasons why withdrawals are made.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 7B in lieu—

7B: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Age assessment of unaccompanied children
In section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Decisions relating to a person’s age), insert after subsection (6)—
“(6A) If a person is to be removed to the Republic of Rwanda, subsection (6) does not apply and in this section “relevant authority” means a local authority, within the meaning of Part 4 (age assessments) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which has conducted an age assessment of the person under section 50(3)(b) of that Act.”””

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my starting point is the treaty, which makes it clear that it does not cover unaccompanied children, as emphasised by the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration on Monday. My sole purpose has been to ensure that, in so far as it is possible, this treaty intention is upheld: that no unaccompanied child is removed to Rwanda because they have been mistakenly assessed as an adult. Wrongful age assessment happens all too frequently, given that the only safeguard, referred to repeatedly by the Minister, is that two immigration officers independently determine age on the basis of a brief assessment of physical appearance and demeanour, which the Home Office itself concedes is notoriously unreliable.

The original amendment would have ensured the status quo ante: that no age-disputed child would be removed to Rwanda until any legal challenge through domestic courts and tribunals was exhausted, and it would have enabled such a challenge to be made on the basis of the facts, not just the law. This amendment in lieu is much more modest and in effect meets the Commons’ formal objection to the original amendment. It would permit an age-disputed child to be removed to Rwanda with a pending challenge on a limited basis, but only if a proper age assessment has first been carried out by a local authority. This would ensure that a Merton-compliant assessment is undertaken, and it is only at this point that so-called scientific methods would come into play.

It was clear that MPs including Dame Priti Patel and Mrs Elphicke, who argued against the original amendment by lauding scientific methods, did not understand that age-disputed children would be sent to Rwanda without any use of scientific methods, never mind the existing Merton-compliant methods. Yet as the Minister in the other place himself acknowledged on Monday,

“assessing age is inherently difficult”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 666.]

In this House, the Minister stated on Report that this is “a challenging task”, and that a

“combination … of … methods will deliver more accurate age assessments”.—[Official Report, 6/3/24; col. 1584.]

However, without this amendment, there could be no combination of methods, just a brief, visual assessment that belies the challenging and difficult nature of the task.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish to intervene in this little local argument. I thank noble Lords who have supported my Motion E1 with very strong arguments. I thank the Minister for reading into the record Article 3(4). I did not do that because I wanted to save time, but he makes my case for me: the treaty makes it clear that we should not send underage or age-disputed unaccompanied children to Rwanda. That is what this amendment is about.

However, the Minister has shifted his ground, because in previous iterations, he talked just about the two independent immigration officers who were going to provide the assessment based on appearance and demeanour. Now, he is talking about social workers, but how many of those poor children get that far? I do not know whether he can answer that question; I suspect that he cannot. I have not heard anything from the Minister that undermines the case that I and others have made on behalf of these children. I therefore wish to press my Motion and seek the opinion of the House.

Former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration: Reports

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, since the two ICIBI inspections, in 2022 and 2023, we have closed all seven hotels used to accommodate unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It goes without saying that the safety and welfare of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is a priority. The multidisciplinary wraparound care provided in the hotels, including access to nurses and social workers, ensured that children were supported around the clock.

On whether they were of primary school age, I am afraid I do not recognise those numbers. I can update the House: as of 5 March, 118 children are still missing; 104 of those are Albanian, all of them are male, and the vast majority were aged 16 and 17 when they went missing. Only about 18 are still under the age of 18. It is not quite the picture that my noble friend painted.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the chief inspector was due to start an inspection on the age assessment of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children shortly. What will happen to this now that he has been sacked? If an interim inspector is appointed, as was suggested by the Minister in the Commons, could he be encouraged to look at this, given all the accumulating evidence of the wrongful age assessment of children?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

This is obviously a subject to which we will return a bit later, but as I said, a new chief inspector will be appointed following a full and proper process in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The Home Secretary is considering appointing an interim chief inspector to cover the period of recruitment. What his remit will be I do not know, but of course we will come back in due course.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has said, as well as, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti; I signed her Amendment 19. This House should try to insist that, if the facts change, a mechanism is provided to the courts to reassess the situation. Anything else is profoundly unjust. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, moves his amendment, I will support him.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, as well as supporting the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I rise to speak to Amendment 16, which seeks to minimise the risk of torture arising from the Bill and to safeguard torture survivors. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and my noble friend Lord Cashman for their support. They will speak to the first part of the amendment, while I will focus on the second. We brought it back because of our dissatisfaction with the response from the Minister in Committee. We hope that we might do better now, given the existential importance of torture, which represents one of the most serious of human rights violations.

We know from the work of organisations such as Freedom from Torture and Redress, whose help I am grateful for, that a good number of the asylum seekers in line to be sent to Rwanda will have survived torture. We also know, including from a recent report from the Mental Health Foundation, of the high incidence of mental health difficulties among asylum seekers, the risk of which is increased by traumatic experiences such as torture. These difficulties can only be exacerbated by removal to Rwanda.

In Committee, the Minister pointed out that an individual could challenge removal on the grounds of their “individual circumstances”. But Freedom from Torture warns that providing, in the time available, the necessary “compelling evidence” to meet the exceptionally high bar set by the test means that this does not offer torture survivors an effective safeguard. Indeed, the Minister himself admitted that successful claims on this basis are expected to be “rare”. That might have implications for some other amendments.

In response to my questioning about what mental health support will be available to torture survivors in Rwanda, the Minister referred me to Article 13 of the treaty, but that refers only to the special needs of victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. I can find no reference to the needs of torture survivors.

My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws interjected that the mental health situation in Rwanda is very poor, with high levels of mental illness but very few suitably trained medical professionals. Since then, I have been referred to WHO’s 2020 mental health profile for Rwanda. This confirms the low level of provision and seems to show that there are no out-patient mental health facilities. If this continues to be the case, would traumatised torture survivors have to be admitted to a mental health unit to obtain any support? As was noted in Committee, civil society remains weak and therefore is unlikely to be able to step in.

More recently, last October, a press release from Interpeace, while commending the efforts that the Rwandan Government have made in this area, warns that

“the country still faces challenges such as the scale of mental health needs that outstrips the capacity of available professionals, low awareness and knowledge of mental health issues”

and “poor mental health infrastructure”.

From the Minister’s responses, it would appear that the Government simply do not know what support will be available and have made no attempt to find out, yet they are happy to condemn this highly vulnerable group to a life in a country that, with the best will in the world, is ill placed to provide that support. Of course, ideally, I would want the Government to accept the case for not sending torture survivors to Rwanda. At the very minimum, I ask the Minister to take this issue back to the Home Office—although I am not quite sure which Minister will respond—and give an undertaking that he will ask his colleagues to talk to the Rwandan Government about support for torture survivors and, if necessary, provide the necessary resources to ensure that support is available, perhaps earmarking part of the enormous sum to be paid to Rwanda identified by the NAO.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, what needs to be said about the risk of torture and inhumane treatment has already been set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I simply emphasise the credibility of the reports of ongoing torture of even mild political dissenters, which continues to this day in Rwanda. Nor do freedom of expression and association exist there, however narrowly the terms are defined. However, the genocide ideology law is broadly defined and now carries criminal sanctions. The criminal code has recently been expanded to include

“creating a hostile … opinion of Rwanda”

by criticising the Government. These irrefutable reports indicate that Rwanda does not comply with the international obligations under various UN conventions, including the convention against torture. This can only add to the evidence that, at present, Rwanda cannot be regarded as a safe country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question. I will find out and come back to the noble Lord on whether it has been agreed and where we are.

We therefore believe that there is no need for this to be considered when making individualised assessments as to the safety of Rwanda.

The treaty also enhances the role of the independent monitoring committee, which we discussed on the previous group. The monitoring committee will provide real-time, comprehensive monitoring of the end-to-end relocation and asylum process, ensuring delivery against the terms of the agreement and in line with both countries’ international obligations. This will prevent the risk of any harm to relocated individuals, including potential refoulement, before it has a chance to occur.

Rwanda is one step closer to ratifying the treaty, as discussed, which has passed through its lower house in Parliament. Once ratified, the treaty will become law in Rwanda. It follows that the Government of Rwanda would be required to give effect to the terms of the treaty in accordance with its domestic law, as well as international law. Those in genuine need of safety and security will be provided with it in Rwanda.

Turning to Amendment 16 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, we do not accept that individuals relocated to Rwanda would be at risk of torture or any other form of inhumane or degrading treatment. The Government’s assessment is that Rwanda is a safe country that respects the rule of law. Rwanda is a signatory to the United Nations convention against torture, the convention on refugees and other core UN human rights conventions. It has also signed the treaty with us which guarantees the welfare of all those relocated under the partnership. The enhanced monitoring committee will be in place to robustly monitor adherence to these obligations. Should somebody with a particular vulnerability be relocated to Rwanda, there will be the necessary treatment and specialist support available, with safeguarding processes in place.

Furthermore, Clause 4 preserves the ability of individuals to challenge removal due to their particular individual circumstances if there is compelling evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country for them. That is the appropriate mechanism to ensure that an individual’s circumstances have been considered.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt. What investigations have the Government made of whether that support is available in Rwanda? This is not a criticism of Rwanda but an acceptance of the fact that it is a country that has poor provision, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and others. On being able to say that it is not safe for an individual, as the Minister’s colleague said in Committee, the Government expect this to be successful very rarely, so that is no safeguard, really.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I was about to answer the noble Baroness’s questions, because safeguarding arrangements are set out in detail in the standard operating procedure on identifying and safeguarding vulnerability, which states that, at any stage in the refugee’s status determination and integration process, officials may encounter and should have due regard to the physical and psychological signs that can indicate that a person is vulnerable. The SOP sets out the process for identifying vulnerable persons and, where appropriate, making safeguarding referrals to the relevant protection team.

Screening interviews to identify vulnerability 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. Where appropriate, the protection team may refer vulnerable individuals for external support, which may include medical and/or psycho-social support or support with their accommodation. Where possible, this should be with the informed consent of the individual.

As regards capacity, of course it will be in place. The policy statement sets out at paragraph 135:

“In line with our obligations under the Refugee Convention and to ensure compliance with international human rights standards, each Relocated Individual will have access to quality preventative and curative primary and secondary healthcare services that are at least of the standard available to Rwandan nationals. This is provided through a comprehensive agreement between the Government of Rwanda and medical insurance companies for the duration of 5 years and through MoUs with hospitals in Kigali”.


I also say at this point that it would be in the best mental health interests of those seeking asylum who are victims to seek asylum in the first safe country that they come to. Why would they risk their health and mental health crossing the channel in much more grave circumstances than they need to?

Noble Lords will know that over 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers have already successfully found safety in Rwanda. International organisations including the UNHCR chose Rwanda to host these individuals. We are committed to delivering this partnership. With the treaty and published evidence pack, we are satisfied that Rwanda can be deemed a safe country through this legislation. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words to this debate on the Human Rights Act. I point out that this is the first time that I have spoken in this group. This amendment seeks to return the responsibility of interpreting the law to the courts and specifically underlines the unacceptability of a law on the statute book that is incompatible with domestic law, which of course includes the UK Human Rights Act. Unless and until the courts affirm that the Act conforms with the strictures of the Human Rights Act, it must not have any effect; to do otherwise would be to reject the rule of law, which is one of the pillars of the UK constitution.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I wanted to make a couple of brief points in support of Amendments 20 and 21. In Committee, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, quoted at length the Lord Chancellor’s submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to justify breaching the universality of human rights. Clearly, the Lord Chancellor did not convince the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its majority report concluded that the provision

“threatens the fundamental principle that human rights are universal and should be protected for everyone”.

I still do not understand, given the concerns expressed by the JCHR, as well as the EHRC, the Law Society and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, why this Government continue to try to argue that disapplication does not affect the principle of universality, which the noble and learned Lord waxed lyrical about in his speech.

Secondly, the noble and learned Lord promised to write to me in response to my concerns about the implications for the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement—following on from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—and the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ request for a full explanation before Report as to why the Government consider Clause 3 to be consistent with these agreements. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his letter but, to echo what the noble Lord, Lord German, said earlier, I gently point out that it was sent at 3.24 pm this afternoon, after Report began. That really is not good practice, and it does not meet the JCHR’s request that a full explanation should be published before Report. It seems that the actual full publication will not be until some time on Wednesday, when we will be finishing Report.

I am not convinced that the answers to my questions would satisfy the JCHR, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or the Human Rights Consortium of Northern Ireland. I am also not clear why the letter was not copied to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, given that she originally challenged the Minister on this point at Second Reading. I am not going to pursue the matter here, except to point out that I do not think we yet have a satisfactory explanation of the interactions with and the implications for these agreements.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21 in my name and also link that with Amendments 20 and 18. If Amendment 20 had had any space, I would have signed it as well, because it makes the same case. I will address Amendment 17 later and look forward very much to seeing how the Government deal with it in their response.

At the moment I will just repeat the universality issue of human rights—they are for all. I read once again the response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, about legitimacy and I am sure we will hear it again today. But the underpinning of the Human Rights Act is that the protections should not be disapplied just to some people. Human rights are for all; if they become qualified, they are no longer human rights but only rights for some people. This violates the principle of the universality of human rights, which is why this amendment is in place.

It does not matter that this is directed at illegal migrants: once the Government do this for one group, they will choose—or could choose—to use it for other groups such as protesters.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to the register of interests for support from RAMP. I start by simply noting rather than repeating the concerns I raised in last week’s debate: the incompatibility of the treaty and Bill with our international obligations, the treatment of LGBTQI+ asylum seekers and of children, and the widespread scepticism about claims of a supposed deterrent effect.

Today, I will focus on Clause 3’s disapplication of the interpretive and remedial provisions of the Human Rights Act, in part because of this clause’s contribution to the Bill’s incompatibility with our international obligations, as advised by the UNHCR, with implications for the Good Friday agreement, as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission points out in its very critical advice on the Bill, and because of what it means for human rights and for how asylum seekers are seen and treated. Here I echo some of the points made by the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Durham.

A briefing paper from the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights warns of the significance of disapplication:

“Human rights are meant to offer a fundamental level of protection for every person on the basis of their humanity alone. As … noted in a previous report, if those protections are disapplied when they cause problems for a policy goal they lose the fundamental and universal quality that characterises them. This is arguably particularly the case when they are disapplied in respect of a particular group”.


While the Government are beginning to make a habit of disapplication to marginalised and unpopular groups, as has just been said, the briefing points out that the disapplication of Section 6, which places

“the obligation on public authorities to act compatibly with human rights, has never before been attempted and represents a significant inroad into human rights protections”.

These concerns are echoed in numerous briefings, including from the EHRC, the Law Society and Amnesty.

Let us stop and think what this breach of the universality of human rights means. In effect, it is saying that asylum seekers are to be treated as less than human—as, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon,

“a lesser form of life”.—[Official Report, 4/12/23; col. 1276.]

Their humanity is not worthy of human rights protection.

“Stop the boats” is the Government’s mantra, but what about the human beings in those boats? Do they somehow stand outside the universality of human rights? The Government have paved the way with the dehumanising language they have used to talk about asylum seekers—the language of “invasion”, “breaking in”, “cannibalise”—language which has helped induce the public concern that the Government cite to justify their policy, a point made by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees when speaking to the BBC last week.

Words matter, as the Migrant Rights Network stresses. Their significance is brought home by Erfan, an asylum seeker who writes how he came to realise

“these are not just words. They build a completely new identity, which then justifies how you will be treated, seen and talked about. The language that dehumanises people makes it seem acceptable to place them in inhumane conditions and cut off from society”.

This language now makes it seem acceptable to deny human rights protection.

A statement from MIN Voices, a group of refugees and asylum seekers, some of whom are from Rwanda or neighbouring countries, ends:

“We are human beings, wanting and seeking a safe future”.


By King, a young client of Freedom from Torture who fled persecution, asked in a recent Big Issue piece about the Rwanda plan:

“Why is the UK government refusing to treat refugees like human beings?”


Perhaps the Minister could give her an answer. Instead of an approach which, to quote the British Red Cross’s VOICES Network of those with lived experience,

“disregards the wellbeing and dignity of vulnerable individuals seeking refuge”,

we need, in its words,

“a more humane and compassionate asylum policy”.

I hope we can help achieve such a policy, because if the current Bill passes unamended, I will feel nothing but shame.

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.

Immigration Detention: Brook House Inquiry

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I will stick to the question at hand, and will happily provide some statistics on the number of people in immigration detention as of 30 September last year. That number was 1,841, including those detained solely under immigration powers in prisons. That was 11% lower than at the end of September 2022, when there were 2,077 people in detention. I think that those numbers are encouraging and heading in the right direction.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, another of the inquiry’s findings was that vulnerable people in detention are not being afforded the appropriate protections that the safeguards recommended by Stephen Shaw are designed to provide, because of their dysfunctional operation. The latest report of the independent monitoring boards and new clinical evidence from Medical Justice—a core participant in the inquiry—show that the safeguards are still failing, including not identifying people at risk of self-harm or suicide, with serious and sometimes tragic consequences for mental and physical health. What steps are the Government therefore taking, as a matter of urgency, to ensure a more consistent and robust application of the safeguards, as called for in the inquiry report?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I have said, the detailed recommendations remain under review, but a lot of these issues were dealt with in response to Stephen Shaw’s report of 2016, which was then updated in 2018.