Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Geddes
Main Page: Lord Geddes (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)Department Debates - View all Lord Geddes's debates with the Home Office
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I do not want to take up time by going over the issues all over again, but I want to pick up two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
First, I think the noble Lord suggested that my amendments were treating Rwanda as a country that is untrustworthy; I absolutely refute that. When I introduced the amendments in Committee, I made it absolutely clear that I do not, for a moment, question the good faith of Rwanda, and I remain in that position. I absolutely understand that both parties to the treaty are treating each other on that basis. I am certainly not, in any way, questioning the good faith or commitment of Rwanda to give effect to the treaty; what I am talking about is implementation.
Secondly, I think the noble Lord said that my amendment would make the Bill unworkable. I simply do not understand that. I cannot understand why relying on the word of the monitoring committee in any way undermines the effectiveness or purpose of the Bill. For those reasons, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
I must advise the House that, if Amendment 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 5, due to pre-emption.