Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Commons consider that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with domestic and international obligations, and that it is therefore not necessary to provide expressly that this is the case when setting out the purpose of the Bill.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Motions A1, C, D and D1. Motion A relates to Lords Amendment 1B, which adds to the Bill’s purpose, seeking to ensure that the eventual Act maintains full compliance with domestic and international law. As my noble friend has set out throughout the passage of the Bill, and as the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration made clear in the other place,

“the Government take our responsibilities and international obligations incredibly seriously. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with our international obligations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 659.]

We are facing a global crisis of illegal migration, and it requires us to seek new, bold, innovative solutions to tackle the increasing numbers of people crossing our borders illegally through such dangerous means. Although we are making progress, and small boat arrivals were down by a third in 2023, we still need to do more. That is why we are increasing our partnership work and signing new deals with our European neighbours; we have a plan, of which this Bill forms part.

Although some of the provisions in the Bill are novel, the Bill strikes the appropriate balance of limiting unnecessary challenges that frustrate removal while maintaining the principle of access to the courts where an individual may be at real risk of serious and irreversible harm. As I will make reference to later, 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.

Taken as a whole, the limited availability of domestic remedies maintains the constitutional balance between Parliament being able to legislate as it sees necessary and the powers of our courts to hold the Government to account. Furthermore, the migration economic development partnership with the Government of Rwanda is one part of our wider programme of work to stop the boats. This partnership will act as a strong deterrent while also demonstrating that taking these perilous and unnecessary journeys to find safety, as promoted by smugglers, is simply not necessary. The Bill—and the partnership with the Government of Rwanda—is predicated on both Rwanda and the United Kingdom’s compliance with international law in the form of the internationally binding treaty, which itself reflects the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom and Rwanda.

Motion C relates to Amendments 4 and 5, which do significant damage to the core provisions and purpose provided for in the Bill. They seek to provide a statutory mechanism to qualify the Bill’s deeming provision and so enable decision-makers, including courts and tribunals, to decide that Rwanda is not a safe country if presented with credible evidence to that effect. The amendments remove the prohibitions on courts and tribunals reviewing decisions on the grounds that Rwanda is generally unsafe, as well as on the grounds of risk of refoulement or other non-compliance with the terms of the treaty.

It is the treaty and the published evidence pack that together demonstrate that Rwanda is safe for relocated individuals and that the Government’s approach is tough but fair and lawful. The Government are clear that we assess Rwanda to be a safe country and we have published detailed evidence that substantiates that assessment. This is a central feature of the Bill, and many of its other provisions are designed to ensure that Parliament’s conclusion on the safety of Rwanda is accepted by the domestic courts.

As my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne set out on Report:

“All the Government are doing in the Bill is to reassert their responsibility, as traditionally understood by the principle of the separation of powers, for executive decision-making. There is a reason why it is the Government and not the courts who have that responsibility: because it is the Government and not the courts who are accountable. The courts are accountable to no one—they pride themselves on that—but accountability is at the heart of democracy. That is why the Government are fully entitled to bring forward the Bill and why much of the criticism directed at them for doing so is, for the reasons I have given, fundamentally misconceived”.—[Official Report, 4/3/24; col. 1330.]


I also remind the House that this is not the first time that legislation has been used to determine a country as a safe country. Again, I refer noble Lords to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lilley when we last debated this matter. In 2004, the Labour Government of Mr Blair introduced legislation which created an irrebuttable presumption that a number of listed countries were safe. It was subsequently tested in the courts and upheld.

Furthermore, the courts have not concluded that there is a general risk to the safety of relocated individuals in Rwanda. Rather, the Supreme Court’s findings were limited to perceived deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system as it was and the resulting risk of refoulement should any lack of capacity or expertise lead to cases being wrongly decided. As we have set out repeatedly, the treaty responds to those key findings.

We cannot allow people to make such dangerous crossings, and we must do what we can to prevent any more lives being lost at sea; nor can we allow our asylum and legal systems to be overwhelmed, our public services to be stretched or the British taxpayer to continue to fund millions of pounds of hotel costs every day.

For the reasons I have set out for not accepting Amendments 4 and 5, the Government also cannot accept Motion D1, which relates to Amendment 6B. Lords Amendment 6B would omit Clause 4 and replace it with a clause that seeks to restore the ability of decision-makers to consider whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country and the jurisdiction of domestic courts and tribunals to grant interim relief. This amendment would strike out a key provision of the Bill and is simply not necessary. The court recognised that changes may be delivered in future that would address the issues it raised. These are those changes. We believe that these address the Supreme Court’s concerns, and we will now aim to move forward with the policy and help put an end to illegal migration.

Throughout all our debates on this matter, my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I have made it clear that we cannot continue to allow relocations to Rwanda to be frustrated and delayed as a result of systemic challenges mounted on its general safety. In this context, the safety of a particular country is a matter for Parliament and one where Parliament’s view should be sovereign. The Bill reflects that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit, including, if that is Parliament’s judgment, requiring a state of affairs or facts to be recognised.

That said, there are suitable safeguards within the Bill that do allow decision-makers and the courts to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual person because of their particular circumstances if there is compelling evidence to that effect, and to grant interim relief where removal would result in a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm for the individual before their appeal was determined. The threshold for “serious and irreversible harm” is high, and the harm in question must be both imminent and permanent. This reflects the test applied by the European Court of Human Rights when granting interim measures and ensures an appropriately limited possibility of interim relief consistent with what is required by the ECHR.

Furthermore, the Government will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. We have assurances from the Government of Rwanda that the implementation of all measures in the treaty will be expedited, and we continue to work with the Rwandans on this. The legislation ratifying the treaty has passed both chambers and is awaiting presidential sign-off. The legislation implementing the new asylum system will be introduced to the Rwandan Parliament soon and passed at pace.

However, the Bill will preclude almost all grounds for individual challenge that could be used to suspend or frustrate removal where no risk exists. This means that illegal migrants will not be able to make an asylum claim in the United Kingdom, argue that they face a risk of refoulement in Rwanda, or make any other ill-founded human rights claims to frustrate removal. The Bill strikes the appropriate balance of limiting unnecessary challenges that frustrate removal while maintaining the principle of access to the courts where an individual may be at real risk of serious and irreversible harm.

On this basis, and in view of the votes in the other place to disagree with Lords Amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, by strong majorities in each case, I hope the noble Lord will now feel able to support Motion A. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak only once in this debate and very briefly, as usual. I should just mention my interest as president of Migration Watch UK. We have been pressing the Government for three years to get a hold of asylum but, regrettably, the situation has deteriorated greatly. There is something missing from the discussion of this subject, and that is the public. There have been plenty of very interesting and capable legal arguments—I do not touch on any of those—but we must not forget that very substantial numbers in this country are concerned about what is happening now on our borders. The Government need to get a grip and if they do not succeed, the next Government will have to tackle it so let us not be too legalistic. Let us see if we can find a way through.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, as I am for their contributions throughout the progress of the Bill through your Lordships’ House, but these amendments do significant damage to the core purpose of the Bill. In relation to political language, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said from the Front Bench but on this subject, I wish to do no more than echo the wise and temperate words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Her observations, as she said, come from someone who is not a supporter of the Bill, but she spoke about the manner in which arguments should be conducted, and the manner in which this House should treat the views of the other place—not a tyrannical assembly, contrary to the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but elected Members representing their constituents.

In relation to Section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, addressed from the Front Bench, the matter is touched on in the response to the Constitution Committee which the Government have issued. The use of a Section 19(1)(b) statement does not mean that the Bill is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. There is nothing improper or unprecedented in pursuing Bills with a Section 19(1)(b) statement; it does not mean that the Bill is unlawful or that the Government will necessarily lose any legal challenges on human rights grounds. Parliament intended Section 19(1)(b) to be used as it is included in the Human Rights Act 1998. All such a statement means is that the Home Secretary is not able to state now that the Bill’s provisions are more likely than not compatible with convention rights. A range of Bills has had Section 19 (1) (b) statements in the past. As we discussed at an earlier stage, that includes the Communications Act 2003, passed under the last Labour Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, extends an olive branch, as she puts it, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, came back on that. But the other place saw these provisions, olive branch though they may be. I do not for a second seek to challenge the noble Baroness’s assertion that she is attempting to improve the Bill, but what the other place recognised was that these provisions are integral to the functioning of the Bill. Therein lies the deterrent effect by which the Government intend that illegal crossings of the channel should come down and be deterred altogether.