Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Michael Tomlinson

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

My right hon. Friend might have heard a few words from the Prime Minister in that regard this morning, and that is exactly right. Specifically in relation to the amendment, however, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord Hope. There is no obligation, whether in legislation or in the treaty, to send anyone to Rwanda, as my noble Friend Lord Sharpe has said. Article 4 of the treaty sets out clearly that it is for the United Kingdom to

“determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under this Agreement and the number of requests for relocation to be made”.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves away from the treaty, could he help with some clarity on the relationship, as the Government see it, between the Rwanda treaty and this Bill? Specifically, is an assessment of Rwanda’s safety for the purposes of this Bill the same thing as compliance with the Rwanda treaty on the part of the state of Rwanda? If not, what is the difference? Does the concept of safety extend beyond compliance with the treaty, or is it solely limited to the question of compliance with the treaty?

[Michael Tomlinson]

As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his engagement, both inside and outside the Chamber. He has been a regular attender at these ping-pong sessions. The treaty is the operating legal instrument between the two international bodies, the United Kingdom and Rwanda. That is the status of that treaty. This Bill brings it into effect in law in this country. He knows about dealing with the system of dualism. In fact, he has appeared in the Supreme Court arguing these very points, so he knows in detail the differences between a treaty and an Act of Parliament. As I set out, there is no obligation within the treaty. It is plainly written in article 4(1) that the

“United Kingdom shall not be obliged to make any request for relocation under this Agreement.”

That means that the Government would not be obliged to relocate individuals under the terms of the treaty if, for example, there had been unexpected changes of circumstances. I know that that is something my right hon. and learned Friend has been concerned about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jeremy Wright and Michael Tomlinson

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

As I say, Members on both sides will have the chance to understand what the legal basis for the Government’s proposals will be, but there is a distinction to be made between the Government’s legal basis for action and the precise advice that Law Officers give. For the reasons I have explained, I do not think it sensible in what is undoubtedly an open and transparent democracy to publish that advice.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

In the absence of United Nations Security Council resolution 2249, there are still arguments that airstrikes are legal. Does the Attorney General agree that, in the light of that resolution, the legal case has been strengthened?

[The Attorney General]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that there were legal grounds for action in the absence of a Security Council resolution. Such a resolution is not necessary, in my view, to justify action of this kind. It is, of course, extremely useful that what the UN Security Council resolution clearly does is underline the logic for action in the way that we are setting out today. I agree with my hon. Friend.