Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, the policy of offshoring asylum seekers for assessment and resettlement abroad will indeed be costly, to judge from the down payment already made. Its likely deterrent effect is at best uncertain. However, as a lawyer, I start by acknowledging three things. The policy was given statutory force in the Illegal Migration Act, which we passed last year. It is consistent in principle with the refugee convention, which does not oblige us to settle asylum seekers here, but only to avoid sending them to places where their lives or freedoms are threatened. The principle was not called into question by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

The only issue that remains is safety. This Bill, said the Minister in the Commons,

“puts beyond … doubt the safety of Rwanda”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/23; col. 751.]

How could it? The Supreme Court has already found that Rwanda operates a profoundly dysfunctional asylum system. We know from our own International Agreements Committee, whose conclusions we supported last Monday, that work still needs to be done to build institutions, change attitudes and monitor compliance. A solution may be within our grasp, but it is not a legal fiction, still less a legal fantasy. A way must be found of determining whether Rwanda is and will remain safe in reality.

When we are concerned about the safety of a country, we often consult the Foreign Office travel advice. Expertly informed and responsive to events, it is a valuable resource. However, in expecting Parliament to come to a judgment, in the words of the Bill,

“that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”,

the Bill makes no provision for expert scrutiny, second thoughts or revision of that judgment. Flattering as it may be for some of us to be treated as infallible, to cast Parliament as decision-maker in this changeable and fact-specific context is fraught with constitutional danger. If we are persuaded to take on that role, we will surely need, at least—as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has hinted—an independent body on the ground to tell us when the deficiencies already identified have been remedied, and a mechanism for ensuring that, when conditions change, the verdict can change.

Ouster clauses—even partial ousters such as those in Clause 4—are among the most fundamental attacks on the rule of law because they challenge, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, Dicey’s first principle. Indeed, more impressively still in my book, they challenge the first principle of my noble friend Lord Hennessey that nobody—not even the Government—is above the law. However, the very seriousness of these issues means that we owe the Commons the courtesy of our careful consideration of them. For that reason, I will not support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, tonight.

Finally, I turn to Clause 5, with its proposed exclusion of the right to seek interim measures from the Strasbourg court. I view with dismay the proposal to defy successive rulings of the court, whose opinion on the matter is decisive under Article 32 of the ECHR, to the effect that these measures are binding on the states party to the convention. As we acknowledge in our own legal systems, and have previously acknowledged in this context too, the effective adjudication of any case can depend on a workable system of interim measures. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether interim measures will be a feature of the new Rwandan asylum law, which, as far as I am aware, no one has yet seen.

We did, it is true, in the end accept Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act, but that was presented as a negotiating ploy—perhaps a productive one, since the court is now in the course of improving its procedures for interim measures. This clause, however, is different. No such conditions are mentioned in it. The crocodile, having devoured the bun offered by the international court, now proposes to kick it into the water with a casual swipe of its tail. Some will say that this pass is sold, but I hope that, if only out of self-respect, your Lordships will push back hard at this casual dismantling of international protections that are as necessary now as they ever were.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly want to follow my noble friend Lord Hailsham in his remarks. Had he been the presider in a three-person court, I would have been very happy to say that, having heard his speech, I had nothing else to add. However, since we are here, your Lordships have the disadvantage of hearing what I have to say. Like my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and my noble friend Lady Helic, I regret not being present at Second Reading and apologise, but I have read the Hansard of the debate.

I am always reluctant to disagree with my noble friend Lord Howard, but he took too narrow an approach to the questions before us. I use Clause 1(2)(b), which is the subject my noble friend Lord Hailsham attacks, as a hanger on which to make a few remarks. I think, if I understood him correctly, that my noble friend Lord Howard said that Parliament can essentially do what it likes, and of course he is perfectly right. Parliament can be as foolish as it likes. It can pass a law saying that all dogs are cats, but that does not make all dogs cats. It can pass a law saying that Rwanda is a safe country, but that does not make it a safe country. In addition—this is where I agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham—it is for the Executive to advance their policy, whether it is a good policy or a bad one. It is for the Government to say that it is their policy that Rwanda is a safe country to which to send failed asylum seekers. If the Government then wish to have their view tested by Parliament, again, they can go ahead and do it.

Therefore, what the Government are proposing as a matter of policy is not a constitutional outrage, but the way in which they are writing it down in Clause 1(2)(b) is, if I may respectfully say so, just plain silly. It is worse to be silly than it is to be guilty of a constitutional outrage, and this is not a constitutional outrage but just plain silly.

Ridicule is a more powerful weapon than the constitutional and legal arguments of any number of lawyers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, advances in one of her amendments, it would be helpful to have a UNHCR opinion on the safety or otherwise of Rwanda. However, I have a feeling that exporting government policy to the UNHCR is not a good idea. It would be helpful to have that opinion, but it is not essential. The Government must stand on their own feet, bring their policy to Parliament and have it tested. It will survive or not on the merits of the facts. The assessment of whether Rwanda is a safe country must be for the Government to consider and for Parliament to agree; we as a bicameral parliamentary body are not equipped to reach those sorts of conclusions. We can agree or disagree with the Government, but we are not equipped in a presidium to reach a conclusion on whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country as a matter of fact.

I do not wish to undermine or underestimate the hugely difficult political problem that the Government face with illegal immigration and the making of unsound asylum applications. Nor do I wish to undermine their genuine and very proper decision and policy to stop the boats. However, if we are to stop the boats, and if we are to reduce the amount of illegal immigration and bogus asylum applications, the Government would go a long way if they had the confidence of their own convictions and allowed Clause 1(2)(b) to say that that the Bill gives effect to the politically expedient policy of the Government that the Republic of Rwanda is safe, rather than trying to shift the responsibility for that opinion on to Parliament. Parliament may come to agree with it, but the initial policy is one for government. To that extent I wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I am another supporter of Amendment 3. Clause 1 is an example of the current vogue for starting Bills not with operative provisions but with preambular statements of the obvious, a custom which is always irritating but normally harmless. However, there is harm, not just silliness, in Clause 1(2)(b) with its rather grand invocation of

“the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”,

a judgment for all time, apparently, that there is no provision to revisit or change. That invocation is unnecessary and contrary to principle. It is unnecessary because there are other ways for Rwanda to be declared or deemed safe. The Secretary of State could be entrusted with the decision or, if it really is necessary for Parliament to take it, there could at least be a power for the Secretary of State to amend it in the light of changed conditions, as was the case with Section 75 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

It is contrary to principle because it requires us to come to a judgment on a fact-specific life-and-death matter on which, frankly, we are ill equipped to adjudicate. Of course, this is not the first time that such a thing has happen. It was tried in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, when the countries of the European Economic Area—all signatories to the ECHR—were deemed, beyond rebuttal, to be safe. That experiment, a requirement of European Union law, was not a successful one. Its unwieldiness was demonstrated in the case of Nasseri. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords dismissed a challenge to the safety of Greece but, through the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, whom I am delighted to see in his place, indicated that the courts might have to issue a declaration of incompatibility if the deeming provision was contradicted by the evidence. The issue was sensibly addressed in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 by transforming the irrebuttable presumption into a rebuttable one.

--- Later in debate ---

As I said at the beginning, my four amendments are all part of a package, and they are designed to correct the wholly inaccurate and, frankly, sloppy use of “is”, which should never have been in the clause in the first place if it is going to be a declaration of what our judgment is. I suggest that my words are far better suited to the judgment that the House is being asked to make and to put it into practice. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot of course surpass the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in quality but I can at least claim the advantage in quantity: I have seven amendments in this group to his four.

We discussed in the first group of amendments why Parliament is ill equipped to make the fact-specific and time-specific judgment asked of it by the Bill—that Rwanda is a safe country. I suppose that on Wednesday we will look at how this difficulty is compounded by restrictions on access to the courts, which is the most troublesome aspect of the Bill.

The amendments in this group do not provide answers to either of those concerns of constitutional principle. Instead, and very much as a second-best option, at least as far as I am concerned, they accept the proposition that Parliament should be the decision-maker and seek to make something workable out of it. The past few hours have surely served as a warning, following the similar warning delivered by the International Agreements Committee at the end of last year, that this House could not, as the noble and learned Lord put it, in all conscience sign off now or in the near future on the proposition that Rwanda is a safe country. The Minister came very close in the last debate to admitting the obvious—that this is at best a work in progress. If he is as sensible as I think he is, he should be very grateful for the olive branch that is Amendment 6 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.

We turn to the question of what Parliament would need in order to make its judgment—the letter promised to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will be a welcome start, but it could not of course be enough—and how to ensure that this judgment can be revisited over time. My Amendments 15, 16, 77, 83, 88, 89 and 92 in this group, on which I am grateful for the assistance of the Law Society of England and Wales, are put forward in that spirit of slightly grubby compromise.

Amendment 15 provides for an independent reviewer to review the implementation and operation of the Rwanda treaty and report on it, initially at three-month intervals and thereafter annually. The objective is to produce an impartial report which Parliament can use to come to its own view. I am indebted for that idea to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer himself, who signed the amendment but unfortunately cannot be here today. I accept that there are bodies other than an independent reviewer which could give us the expert advice that we need to make the judgment required of us under Clause 1. It may not be realistic to expect the Government to accept the UNHCR or indeed the Joint Committee on Human Rights for that purpose. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, suggests involving the independent monitoring committee established under the UK-Rwanda agreement. There is a good deal of logic in that and it might be a satisfactory solution, so long as its reports are published in full and without interference by the joint committee—the body made up of officials from the two Governments and hence anything but independent—to which the monitoring committee, under the scheme of the treaty, reports. For that reason I see attraction in the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his Amendments 64 and 65, which cut out the middleman and require the monitoring committee to report directly to Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak against Amendments 9, 10 and possibly 13. I declare that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights but, personally, I did not agree to the full report. Like the noble Baroness, Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is not in her seat, I have to say that I am not a lawyer, but I am a woman and therefore I am a pragmatic person.

The one thing about this Bill is that everybody criticises it, but nobody gives us an answer on how to deal with what is a huge problem. As a pragmatic person from the outside, I see it as a totally political discussion rather than people getting together to try to find a solution. The problem is that there is no silver bullet solution to regaining control of our borders, dealing with immigration and how to deal with all those people dying coming into the United Kingdom.

As I see it, the Strasbourg court states that members have an obligation to comply with interim measures, but it does not say anywhere that they are compelled to do so. Therefore, the argument that Parliament will undermine the rule of law by authorising Ministers to decide whether to comply with Rule 39 measures, is incorrect.

The other argument advanced by people opposing the Bill is that our reputation across the world will be damaged, but this is not a proven belief. It is unsubstantiated. The reality is that the whole international migration system has got totally out of control. Our Government are taking decisive actions to protect our country’s border, strengthen our national security, stop the appalling trade and, ultimately, avoid many unnecessary deaths.

Is not the primary duty of any Government to keep their citizens safe and the country secure? British citizens generally welcome migrants and value the importance of migration, but they are becoming more and more reticent at the idea of footing the bill, seeing the pressures on our NHS, schools and housing. This Bill is not anti-immigration but a pragmatic response to the urgent crisis. One cannot compare previous waves of immigration, such as those of the Jews and others who were forced to leave their country and were limited in their numbers. Faced with the scale and cost of the current migration into the United Kingdom, doing nothing is not an answer.

I realise that this Bill is not perfect, but it is a first step. If we do nothing, there will be political consequences, as the noble Baroness pointed out earlier, and we can see that in the rise of populism and anti-immigration movements in the rest of Europe. This is why I object to these amendments; they will strip away parliamentary authority to decide not to comply with the Rule 39 interim measures and therefore go against the whole idea of this Bill.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I am prompted to intervene by Amendment 80, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. Although I do not support that amendment, I think that he has raised a very significant issue. He referred to Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol, as amended by the Windsor Framework, and to the principle of non-diminution of rights. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, as he knows, has a statutory duty under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to monitor the implementation of Article 2 to ensure that there is no diminution of rights.

As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission explains in its advice on the Rwanda Bill, referred to in the Constitution Committee’s report last week—and I declare an interest as a member of that committee—the rights not to be diminished include the EU procedures directive. That requires, among other things, by Article 27, that a third country can be considered safe only where the authorities are satisfied that key human rights principles will be respected. The procedures directive cannot be satisfied by a deeming provision; that is not how EU law works. It requires decision-makers to be untrammelled by legal fictions, and it requires convincing evidence that third countries are safe in practice. So there would appear to be a clear mismatch between what the Bill says and what the procedures directive preserved in Northern Ireland says.

My understanding is—although I submit to noble Lords from Northern Ireland on the detail of this—that this by no means a theoretical question. Official statistics do not provide an accurate picture of the extent of human trafficking on the island of Ireland, but the Northern Ireland refugee statistics for December 2023 record that there were 3,220 people receiving asylum support in Northern Ireland, and they were eligible for that because they were destitute on arrival.

To echo the call from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for transparency and openness in this matter, my questions to the Minister are as follows. Does he agree with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission report, and in particular its conclusion that Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are contrary to the principle of non-diminution of rights under Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol? When he responds to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on his Amendment 80, would he also explain how, consistently with the Northern Ireland protocol, this Bill can apply in Northern Ireland at all?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 9 and 13. I obviously have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but let us look at the two subsections whose removal they called for at the beginning of the debate. Clause 1(4) says:

“It is recognised that … the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign, and … the validity of an Act is unaffected by international law”,


and Clause 1(6) defines what the term “international law” means. There is nothing at all controversial in either of these clauses: indeed, Clause 1(4) is a classic statement of the legal position. I am afraid that I find it frankly bizarre for speeches to be made in this Committee expressing outrage that the Government have had the temerity to put them into Clause 1, as though they were dark secrets to be discussed only among lawyers in quiet corners of the Inns of Court. It is simply a frank statement and it has every place in Clause 1, where it will help the courts interpret the provisions of the Bill. Indeed, one can see that the interpretation provision at the end of the Bill refers back to Clause 1(6). For those reasons, I oppose the amendments proposed by my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I want to be clear. I referred to the provision of the procedures directive which requires a case-by-case decision on whether a third country is safe. I contrasted that with Clause 2(1) of the Bill, which says that:

“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”.


Is the Minister saying that there is no difference between those provisions, or is he accepting there has been a diminution of rights under the procedures directive and saying that it does not matter? If that is case, can he explain why it does not matter?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to enter into a matter that lies outwith my department and sphere of responsibility at this hour. With the noble Lord’s permission, we shall write.

Having offered those reassurances to the unionist Benches, I offer this conclusion. We have devised a solution that is innovative and within the framework of international law. It is a long-term solution that addresses the concerns set out in the Supreme Court judgment and ensures that this policy can go ahead, paving the way, as I said earlier, for other countries to look at similar solutions. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

19: Clause 2, page 2, line 33, leave out “conclusively”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew would ensure the declaration that Rwanda is a safe country is capable of being rebutted in law by credible evidence. The amendments require decision-makers (including courts or tribunals) to consider credible evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I rise in place of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to speak to Amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28, in his name and in mine, which are also signed variously by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. We are all grateful to Justice for its assistance in drafting these simple but important amendments.

The purpose of these amendments is to replace the irrebuttable presumption in Clause 2 that Rwanda is a safe country by a rebuttable presumption to the same effect. Decision-makers would begin from the same position that Rwanda is safe, but they would be entitled to consider credible evidence to the contrary. That is provided by Amendments 19 and 21, which amend Clause 2(1).

Amendment 28 supplies more detail by indicating the matters on which evidence could, if it is available, be presented: the risk of refoulement from Rwanda, the risk that there will be no fair and proper consideration of an asylum claim there, and the risk that Rwanda will not act in accordance with the treaty. These are all things that, under Clause 2 as it currently stands, may not be considered by independent courts and tribunals. They are not only relevant but of the highest importance to the lives and safety of anyone we send to Rwanda.

Finally, Amendment 25 would lift the bar on courts and tribunals considering claims that Rwanda is not safe. It is the logical corollary of Amendments 19 and 21: if decision-makers are entitled to consider credible evidence that Rwanda is not safe, the courts must be entitled to do so in order to determine whether they came to a lawful decision. Amendment 29, from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is welcome, but without an equivalent of Amendment 25 I am afraid that it does not do the job.

These amendments would not open the floodgates to vexatious claims. To be considered, any evidence must meet the credibility threshold—a well-established feature of Home Office practice, which, in a policy document entitled Assessing Credibility and Refugee Status in Asylum Claims Lodged on or After 28 June 2022, highlights a number of so-called credibility factors, including sufficiency of detail, internal consistency and plausibility.

To summarise, Clause 2, as it came to us from the Commons, requires officials to disregard relevant facts and prevents the courts calling them to account for it. With Clause 1, it creates a legal fiction—not in the field of tax law or planning law, where such things have their place, but in the totally different context of human safety and its opposite. It suppresses the evidence-based inquiry on which our common law and, ultimately, our democracy depend. Accept this and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said in his Second Reading speech, with all his constitutional expertise:

“We shall be living in a different land, breathing different air in a significantly diminished kingdom”.—[Official Report, 29/1/24; col. 1022.]


These four amendments would enable those entrusted with these sensitive decisions to look at Rwanda as it is, not as we all hope that it may become. But I must acknowledge that, for this very reason, they go to the heart of this Bill, for it is not a bright by-product of this Bill but its whole purpose to assert to be true what first the Supreme Court and then our International Agreements Committee have found to be false, and then to protect that false assertion from rational challenge by decision-makers or in the courts.

This is not, like the previous group, a debate about exceptions. The deterrence theory on which the Bill is founded has the unfortunate result that it is the most objectionable features of this Bill to which the Government hold most tightly, even when, as here, they set a thoroughly depressing precedent. There are limits to my optimism that the Minister will respond positively to these amendments but, knowing him and respecting him as I do, I do not altogether abandon hope.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who has put his case with the precision and succinctness that we remember of our late friend Lord Judge. These amendments would render the safety of Rwanda, which we hope will come in the future, a rebuttable presumption rather than an absolute conclusion. They echo my Amendment 34, which we discussed in the first group, but put more flesh on those bones. I commend them to the Committee.

I also remind the Committee that the amendments echo a finding by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. Ministers say that it is precedented and normal to have lists of safe countries in asylum statutes. That has been the case in the past, but in those past cases the consequence of being a safe country on a so-called and unfortunately coined white list of countries has been only a rebuttable presumption. So Ministers were wrong, for example, to say during the course of the Illegal Migration Act, “Nothing special here, nothing new”, when they said that it will be an absolute conclusion and irrebuttable presumption that any country is absolutely safe.

We need to amend this Bill in good faith. We need belts and braces. We will have to look at other provisions and amendments around how it is that we will judge when Rwanda becomes safe, as we all want it to be. In any event, even when all the experts in the world—the UNHCR, independent monitors, parliamentary committees —say that things have gone well in the last couple of years and that the treaty worked out, and how wrong we were to be so sceptical as things have gone so well, so quickly, and Rwanda is considered to be one of the safest countries in the world for its treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, it is still right in principle that the presumption of safety should be a rebuttable presumption and not an absolute conclusion that squeezes out the judgment of civil servants, Border Force and Ministers, or ousts the jurisdiction of our courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, all relocated individuals will receive protection appropriate to them and assistance according to their needs, including, where necessary, referral to specialist services to protect their welfare. Furthermore, it remains possible for an individual to raise a claim that their individual circumstances mean that Rwanda is not a safe country for them. Should such a claim succeed in demonstrating that serious, irreversible harm will result from removal to Rwanda, that removal will not take place. We expect such successful claims to be rare, bearing in mind the safety of Rwanda, which I have already set out in my response.

The United Kingdom and Rwanda will continue to work closely to make this partnership a success. I do not accept that individuals relocated to Rwanda would be at risk of torture or any other form of inhumane or degrading treatment. I assure the Committee that, under this Bill, decision-makers will already be able to consider compelling evidence relating specifically to a person’s individual circumstances. Should someone with particular vulnerability concerns be relocated to Rwanda, safeguarding processes will be in place.

That Rwanda cares deeply about refugees is amply demonstrated by its work with the UNHCR to accommodate some of the most vulnerable populations who have faced trauma, detention and violence. We are confident that those relocated under our partnership would be safe, as per the assurances negotiated in our legally binding treaty. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, it was once the practice of our courts to prevent the jury from dining until they had reached their verdict. Rising to my feet on the wrong side of 3.30 pm, it seems that this practice may live on, unreformed, in what we must get used to calling “the court of Parliament”. Your Lordships may feel that they have had enough food for thought in this debate and that it is time for sustenance of a different kind, so I shall be as brief as I can in response.

What a debate it has been—fully up to the standards of its predecessor earlier today. I will pick out a few of the highlights from the Back Benches. We had lessons from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, on precedent. It seems one has to go back to 1531 to find a precedent for this Bill. The moral I took from his tale was that it ended badly for both the cook and the Act.

We were reminded by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady D’Souza, of the astonishing fact that the courts must not consider even a complaint of risk of torture in Rwanda or a country to which Rwanda might send somebody. As the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, reminded us, that is no theoretical possibility. What an illustration it is of the lengths to which this extraordinary provision goes. We also heard a political analysis from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—I suspect it was very astute, but it is well above my pay grade so I will say nothing more about it. The right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Bristol and Leeds wove together the legal, moral and even philosophical aspects of the issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. We are grateful to them for that.

I will single out two speeches, both from the Conservative Benches. The first was from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. I followed with great care everything the noble Lord said, not just in this debate but in the debates on the Illegal Migration Bill. It seems that he is one of the very few people, either in this House or outside it, who can vocalise the quite understandable unease engendered in fair-minded people in this country by the prospect of immigration generally, and particularly by the prospect of people—as they see it—coming in without respecting the rules. He combines that with an absolute conviction that we need to address that problem without sacrificing our core values. I am so grateful to him, once again, for that extraordinary speech. How on earth did he never become Prime Minister of this country? There will be political historians who know the answer to that.

The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is the other speech I will single out, because he made the link so persuasively between this Bill and the most insidious of the threats to our democracy: disregard for the truth and subjugation of the truth to political expedience.

As to the Minister’s speech, he made the argument that considering even a claim that someone would be exposed to torture would place, as he put it, excessive demands on the resources of the courts and stand in the way of relocating individuals. With great respect to the Minister, I found that extraordinary coming from the mouth of a lawyer. I have rarely heard such a formulation of the argument for administrative expedience.

He raised Clause 4(1), and I acknowledge that it makes provision for decisions based on “particular individual circumstances”. If you have compelling evidence relating specifically to your individual circumstances, you might receive some consideration, either by the decision-maker or the court. However, as the clause also says, if your ground is that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country in general, it does not work. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, reminded me sotto voce during the debate, it is apparently therefore a defence to a claim under Clause 4 that you are about to be exposed to torture, “Oh, don’t worry, plenty of other people will be exposed to torture as well, it’s nothing to do with your own particular individual circumstances—case dismissed”. It is extraordinary.

We should be grateful, I suppose, to hear the Minister say that our amendments and speeches are listened to and that his party does not dictate the reporting of the Sun. I am grateful for both of those things, and we look forward to seeing those welcome words reflected in actions. On that theme, it was good to see the Opposition Front Benches listening intently throughout. I have no doubt that we will be coming back to these issues on Report. It may be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, the Bill will not be blocked, but we have to get it right and we cannot legislate for nonsense.

I say to the Minister that we do not want to boil him alive—although it may sometimes feel a bit like that—but this Bill poisons the springs of our democracy and I very much hope that this Chamber at least of the court of Parliament will continue to say so. However, because it is the convention at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I have found this group of amendments very interesting and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for introducing it. But there has been a liberal use of certain concepts in the debate that I would like to comment on. We have heard a great deal about parliamentary sovereignty and history, including the history of the party on whose Benches I have the honour to sit.

The Conservative Party is a very broad church; it is no more the party of my noble friend Lord Hailsham than the great party opposite is the party of Mr Corbyn. These are great parties because, from time to time, they catch the hem of history as she passes by. On this occasion, I suggest that it is well worth listening to the Front Bench of this party, with its great electoral mandate, to do what is necessary to control these borders. I have no doubt that the party opposite will catch that hem sometime, but on this matter it is with our Front Bench.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I am afraid that this will be a more prosaic and lawyerly contribution than the two we have just heard, but at least I will keep it short. When I first read the title of Clause 3, I did not appreciate quite how radical and unprecedented it is. I thought it right to bring that to the attention of the Committee, because I sit on the Constitution Committee with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and others, and it certainly preoccupied us there. It is true that the Government have recently acquired what has been called a habit of seeking to disapply the strong duty of interpretation in Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. We saw that in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and we see it in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. Had Mr Raab’s Bill of Rights Bill been brought forward, we would have seen a general disapplication of Section 3 across the board.

When we came to look at this in the Constitution Committee, we noticed the ways in which Clause 3 goes beyond even these precedents. It disapplies Section 3 but also Section 2 and Sections 6 to 9; I believe I am right in saying that neither of those things has ever been done before. Furthermore, those novel disapplications apply more widely than just to this Bill. Clause 3(3) states that Section 2 does not apply to Rwanda safe country determinations

“under any provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts”.

Thirteen such Acts are listed by the Constitution Committee in a footnote. Clause 3(5) clarifies that Sections 6 to 9 of the Human Rights Act do not apply to sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in relation to the assessment of whether removal to Rwanda could give rise to serious and irreversible harm.

Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is right that there was a world before the Human Rights Act—a less satisfactory world, I would say, in terms of human rights protection. What all this means in practice is that decision-makers and courts making decisions in relation to the safety of Rwanda, save in an application for a declaration of incompatibility, are instructed to ignore what the ECHR has to say about one of the most important of human rights, perhaps the most important of all—the right not to be subject to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment—and to ignore it, furthermore, in relation to one group only: the particularly vulnerable group of asylum seekers. That puts added weight on Strasbourg, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, as a backstop. That backstop is itself weakened, as we will see when we come on to Clause 5.

As a unanimous Constitution Committee said in our usual moderate terms:

“This is of considerable constitutional concern”—


I pause to note that the four Conservative members of that committee signed up to that formulation. We also invited the House

“to consider the potential consequences of undermining the universal application of human rights”.

For my part, I consider that this is an unhappy and dangerous road to go down.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as someone who was called to the Bar many years ago and has not subsequently done a great deal of law directly, I have been interested, amused and dazzled by the breadth of learning that we have heard.

I would like to make a couple of remarks. I start with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. We live in a world where we have domestic jurisdiction, but also where everyday life is very significantly affected by all kinds of international agreements and arrangements, and we all benefit from that. Against that background, it is important that that system remains stable and respected; if it does not, we will all suffer.

We have heard this evening the arguments as to whether there is jurisdiction in respect of interim injunctions from the ECHR. I personally do not feel qualified one way or another to make a value judgment about that. What I do think is important is that, once you have got the interim injunction—and I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said—that is a piece of evidence that is relevant to the issues that we are discussing.

On balance, the interim injunctions—there are not many of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said —are evidence that something is not quite right. I am therefore concerned about the provisions in Clause 5 that we have been talking about: there will be a power with the Minister to set aside a piece of evidence, which I believe has come from a respectable source, that something is not right.

I think the remarks of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, were very important. Regardless of international law, this is important in the context of domestic law, where there is real evidence—and I think it is real evidence—that something is awry. If you are to have some provision of the kind that we are considering this evening, there has to be a presumption that it will be adhered to but also that, if you are concerned, there is some kind of mechanism to set it aside, rather than the other way around.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, as a signatory to the stand-part proposition in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I will confine my remarks to the question of whether it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and thus to international law, for a contracting state to disregard interim measures issued by the European court under Rule 39. Spoiler alert: it is, and the question is not so difficult as some noble Lords have suggested.

I declare an interest as a member of the Bar who has appeared for 30 years or so in that Strasbourg court, both for applicants and for states, and who has therefore been on the wrong end of some Rule 39 measures, including at least one which the court had to be persuaded to reverse. So I welcome the steps that the European Court of Human Rights is taking, partly at the instigation of this country’s Government, to improve its procedures and make them more transparent, including, as the court itself announced on 23 November last year, the attribution of interim measures to the judges who made them.

We have heard a lot about the Policy Exchange paper of last May. The arguments have been very well summarised in other speeches, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who has spoken to them a couple of times. Happily, I do not need to take your Lordships through those arguments or, indeed, the detailed rebuttals of them, which will be found in the Bingham Centre report of July of last year. Both reports are footnoted in the Constitution Committee report, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has referred. The reason that I do not need to do that is that the position was made completely clear in law by the European court, in a judgment that has been referred to: the 2005 judgment of the Grand Chamber in Mamatkulov v Turkey.

It has been mentioned, but I will say a little more about it. Of the 17 judges who ruled on this issue in the Grand Chamber, a clear majority of 14 held that Article 34 of the convention, which guarantees the effective exercise of the right of application to the Strasbourg court, is violated when a state fails to comply with interim measures. For 13 of those 14, violation follows automatically from a failure to comply. The 14th thought that there was a violation if, as in Mamatkulov itself, applicants are as a matter of fact prevented from effectively exercising their right of application,

Three judges dissented: those appointed by Turkey, Russia and Liechtenstein. Their dissent is long and tightly argued. Policy Exchange would have been proud to publish it. Its authors looked at the text, the preparatory materials, state practice, the analogy with the International Court of Justice and the relevant rules of international law—all ground covered subsequently by Professor Ekins and tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. They accused the court, just as Professor Ekins did, of exercising a legislative rather than an interpretative function.

Court cases, unlike academic debates, produce clear winners and losers. The result of Mamatkulov, since followed in other judgments, is quite simply conclusive of the matter. The arguments advanced by the dissenting judges, and later by Professor Ekins, were decisively rejected. Why does this matter? Again, noble Lords have had reference to it: the reason it matters is Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides two things of importance. First,

“the jurisdiction of the court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation of the convention”.

Secondly, as my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton said:

“In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide”.


That is really it. The European Court interpreted Article 34 in Mamatkulov as requiring compliance with interim measures issued by the court because, as the court put it in its judgement at paragraph 135, interim measures

“play a vital role in avoiding irreversible situations that would prevent the Court from properly examining the application and when appropriate securing to the applicant the practical and effective benefit of the Convention rights asserted”.

That ruling is binding, as the United Kingdom agreed it would be when we signed and ratified the convention, including Article 32. Perhaps we should not be very surprised that a treaty means what the court constituted to interpret it says that it means. Even the dissenting judges did not suggest otherwise. They did not like the majority judgment, but neither did they describe it, in a word recently used by Professor Ekins, as “lawless”. They accepted it.

State practice since the Mamatkulov decision is supportive of it. The Committee of Ministers, of all the Council of Europe states, resolved in 2010 that

“the Court’s case law has clearly established that Article 34 of the Convention entails an obligation for States Parties to comply with an indication of interim measures made under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court”.

The requirement on states parties to comply with interim measures was reiterated in the Izmir Declaration of 2011 on the Brussels Declaration of 2015, to which of course the United Kingdom was a party. It was endorsed in very clear terms by the French Conseil d’Etat as recently as 7 December last year, when that senior court required a person deported to Uzbekistan in breach of interim measures to be repatriated at the state’s expense.

In a recent email to noble Lords, Policy Exchange described its own 2023 paper as “authoritative”. I am afraid that whoever wrote that was high on their own supply. It is supported neither by the court whose job it is to provide authoritative interpretations of the convention nor by state practice, nor even, subject to anything the Minister may say, and I will be listening carefully, by our own Government. That at any rate is what I take from the last paragraph of the ECHR memorandum on the Bill.

To throw this established position into doubt might once have been merely eccentric; in current conditions, it is positively dangerous. As recently as 2005 there was a culture of compliance. The Strasbourg court could say, in Mamatkulov, paragraph 105:

“Cases of States failing to comply with indicated measures remain very rare”.


However, the “good chaps” theory no longer prevails in the Council of Europe. Russia challenged the jurisdiction of the court in 2021 when it required Alexei Navalny to be immediately released from prison due to the risk to his life and health—interim measures strongly supported by our Government—while Poland challenged it last year when its previous Government refused to comply with interim measures relating to the politicisation of its judiciary.

Supranational courts do not have bailiffs to enforce their decisions. The fabric of international law—that “gentle civiliser of nations”, as it was once described—is easily torn but not so easily repaired. It can be torn by acts such as that which is proposed to us—acts that enable or facilitate actions in breach of international law.

Clause 5 is peculiar, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, have both said. If Rwanda is as safe, as the Government invite us to declare, Clause 5 is unnecessary. If it is not safe, Clause 5 will compound the injustice of Clause 4. Either way, Clause 5 extends the damage already done by Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act because it severs the link, praised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, between non-compliance and procedural reform. If we accept this clause, we will not only be authorising Ministers to contravene this country’s obligations; we will be handing an excuse to illiberal Governments across the continent to do the same, and worse. We should be ashamed to do so.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to refer to any of the legal aspects of the amendment; there has already been enough of that in the excellent contributions from noble and learned Lords. I just want to address the point about why the United Kingdom should feel that we are particularly vulnerable to this court.

There has been reference to other countries that have had interim measures granted against them. It is of course the case that the interim measures relating to the Rwanda MEDP have a high profile. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seems to continue to be uncertain as to why the interim measures were given. I think he knows that, on the day that the court issued the interim measures, it also issued the statement of the decision when it notified the UK Government of the interim measures. These are public documents and they are online.

The interim measure relating to the case of NSK was put in place on the grounds that that the individual should not be removed to Rwanda until the ongoing domestic judicial review process was concluded. That is the reason the court gave for that case. I am not a lawyer and I know the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is, but it sounds reasonable to me that while a domestic—

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, Clause 5 makes it clear that it is for a Minister of the Crown to personally make the decision about whether to comply with a Rule 39 interim measure indicated by the Strasbourg court. The Minister will be accountable to Parliament for the exercise of that personal discretion. It makes it clear that domestic courts may not have regard to the existence of any interim measure when considering any domestic application or appeal following a decision to remove a person to Rwanda in accordance with the treaty. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord German, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

The Minister said, and I agree, that nothing in Clause 5 requires the United Kingdom to breach its international obligations. Does he agree that, if a Minister, in compliance with Clause 5, decides not to comply with an interim measure, that would place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations, or have the Government thrown their lot in with the dissenting judges and with Policy Exchange?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, ultimately the matter for the Committee to take into account—I appreciate that I am not giving the noble Lord an answer—is where this leaves our domestic obligations, not our international ones.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

Surely it is relevant to this Committee, if we are being invited to pass Clause 5 into law, to know whether or not, in the Government’s view, it will enable or facilitate a breach of international law by a Minister acting in reliance on it. The Minister does not seem to be able to tell us whether he takes that view or not. I read the human rights memorandum as taking the orthodox view that there is a breach of our international obligations when interim measures are disregarded by a Minister. Is the Minister telling us that the position has changed since that memorandum was drafted?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, in addressing the Committee, I outlined that the position in relation to international measures is that they must be incorporated into domestic law before they take on binding character for our domestic courts.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I do not believe there is any dispute in this Committee about the proposition that the Minister has just delivered himself of. However, we are not talking about domestic law; we are talking about international law. If the Minister cannot answer the question now, will he add it to what is, I am afraid, the lengthy list of questions on which he has kindly offered to write to the Committee in due course?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the hour and the information which I have to hand, and given the stark terms in which the noble Lord expresses himself, that might perhaps be the better course.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

9: Clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert “unless presented with credible evidence to the contrary”
Member's explanatory statement
The amendments to Clause 2 in the name of Lord Anderson of Ipswich would allow the presumption that Rwanda is a safe country to be rebutted by credible evidence presented to decision-makers, including courts and tribunals.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 9 and address Amendment 12 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Carlile, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. I will be brief, because the equivalent amendments were discussed in detail in Committee. I am also very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead for how he has dealt with pre-emption, which, your Lordships willing, may allow both groups of amendments to stay alive.

Amendment 9 would allow Ministers, officials and courts to depart from the presumption that Rwanda is safe when presented with credible evidence that it is not. Amendment 12 would remove various detailed barriers to that course. Their combined effect is to reverse two of the most revolutionary—I do not use that word in a positive sense— aspects of the Bill. They are the requirement for decision-makers, including courts, to stop their ears to any evidence that does not agree with the Government’s position and the requirement that they should do so for an indefinite period, even if things in Rwanda—as we all hope that they do not—take a turn for the worse.

If noble Lords are in any doubt about how truly remarkable Clause 2 is, I invite them to look at subsection (4). It does not matter how compelling your evidence is of what could happen to you and people like you when you get to Rwanda, it must not even be considered if it questions the proposition that Rwanda is safe.

Subsection (5) sets out the legal principles that have to be ignored to make this clause work—not just the Human Rights Act and international law but

“any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law)”—

an insight into the sheer range of legal protections, ancient and modern, that may have to be disregarded in the interests of avoiding the impartial scrutiny of the courts.

If Rwanda is safe, as the Government would have us declare, it has nothing to fear from such scrutiny, yet we are invited to adopt a fiction, to wrap it in the cloak of parliamentary sovereignty and to grant it permanent immunity from challenge—to tell an untruth and call it truth. Why would we go along with that? Clause 2 takes us for fools. Subject to anything that the Minister may say, when these amendments are called, I fully expect to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I am glad that this evening I have started to understand the processes of the House of Lords, having been here only eight years. Therefore, I will not speak to Amendment 6, which had to be withdrawn in order to vote on Amendment 7, even though Amendment 6 was in group three, but there we go.

I can be even briefer than I intended to be, by just saying that when something is a nonsense, it remains a nonsense at whatever stage we happen to be voting on it. Crucially, in terms of what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has rightly said, when circumstances change, most people change their minds. If minds are not allowed to be changed when circumstances change, then we are all extremely foolish.

I heard the noble Lord, Lord Howard, on the radio this morning explaining in great detail why Parliament had primacy over the courts. In many respects, as with the doctrines of Lord Jonathan Sumption, I agree. However, when the Government step outside the norms of international conventions which Parliament has ratified and signed up to, then the courts obviously continue to have a substantial role, because those are the checks and balances we have built in.

This evening, we are trying to make sense of a nonsensical piece of legislation. No doubt the House of Commons will just nod through the Government’s rejection of these amendments, but in times to come, when historians look back, I think they will ask: “Where were you and what did you do?” If you cannot answer that in a way that makes you comfortable about your grandchildren seeing it, then do not do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this fast-paced debate, and for the generous and constructive contributions that we have heard from all corners of this House. I shall not dwell on them individually, but I will single out the contributions that we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, on the subject of torture. Although my amendments are broader than theirs, theirs serve as a reminder that even evidence of widespread torture would be off limits if Clause 2 were not amended as they and I wish.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that I am delighted by what he says he has seen in Rwanda. However, with great respect to him, the points that he makes in no way remove the desirability of ensuring that, should protections not prove to be adequate—including, for example, protections against the risk of refoulement contrary to the terms of an agreement, as we saw when the Rwanda/Israel agreement was in force—the decision-makers and courts should be able to take those matters into account. That is all that these amendments contend for.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that it is operational measures that will make the difference; he must be right about that. Those are the sorts of measures that were identified by the International Agreements Committee in its list of nine or 10, and in Article 10(3) of the treaty. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, these will be unfinished business even when the treaty is ratified. The purpose of the courts is simply to check that those measures meet the minimum thresholds laid down by law.

The Minister made the point that the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court were limited to specific issues regarding refoulement and suggested that, had they not been resolved already, those issues would be easily resolved in the near future. The Minister asks us to take a good deal on trust. I understand that a letter has been circulated this afternoon; it certainly did not reach me. Whether that includes, for example, full details relating to the Rwanda asylum Bill, which nobody seemed to have seen when we debated this in Committee, and whether it contains full details of the arrangements to ensure non-refoulement, which are referred to in Article 10(3) of the treaty, I cannot say.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Speaking for myself, I would just say in answer to the noble Lord’s questions that the answer is no.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I am grateful. I should say in fairness to the Minister that I did have a letter about Northern Ireland. It did not touch on those issues.

I acknowledge the confidence with which the Minister defended the position on the ground in Rwanda. This is all the more reason to accept these amendments. The more confident the Government are in the safety of Rwanda, the less they have to fear. For these reasons, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

12: Clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out subsections (3) to (5)
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendments to Clause 2 in the name of Lord Anderson of Ipswich would allow the presumption that Rwanda is a safe country to be rebutted by credible evidence presented to decision-makers, including courts and tribunals.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I am the last person to speak who was also in Rwanda last week and attended the same meetings. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murray, what I heard was that it may not be exactly like in some countries but, within Africa, and compared to everything, the witnesses said that they were protected because of the constitution, that gay men could walk in the street holding hands and were not abused, and that Rwanda is a safe enough country to send people. I do not see where this obsession comes from that Rwanda is unsafe, and I suggest, as I said last time, that a lot of people who have preconceived views should go to Rwanda and check for themselves.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, do these exchanges not suggest that many of us are liable to hear what we hope we will hear and that there is good sense therefore, instead of leaving these difficult decisions to the judgment of Parliament, to leave them to the people who are better equipped to make them at the end of the day—including, on an interim basis, as the noble Baroness’s amendment wishes—the courts?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I hesitate to stand up, looking around. We very much support Amendment 33 from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. If she wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will certainly support her.

I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, in defence of the Select Committee system, that sometimes there are differences of opinion on Select Committees. However, it is a really important point of principle about Parliament that reports from Select Committees, both in this and the other place, are hugely respected, even when there is a division of opinion. We need to be careful about suggesting that a chair of a Select Committee has come to an opinion because of their party-political allegiance. That is a difficult point to make. In my experience, chairs of Select Committees of all political parties have sometimes made very difficult decisions and come to very different conclusions from those of the party of which they are a member. That important point of principle underpins our democracy, and we need to be careful about suggesting that the chair of a Select Committee has been openly influenced by party-political allegiance to come to a particular conclusion. Going down that route is dangerous.

The point about this, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti outlined, is to try to give immigration decision-makers the opportunity to see whether a particular decision is able to be challenged in the courts and whether an individual’s rights need to be protected. My view is that this is of course about the rule of law, but the courts are there to ensure that justice is done. Justice in this case requires the ability for the law, as it impacts an individual, to be tested in the courts. That strikes me as fundamental to how the rule of law operates.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, sometimes that is really inconvenient to Governments. Sometimes it is really convenient to all of us. Justice is an important part of our democracy and goes alongside the rule of law. I just say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that I think that is what her Amendment 33, supported by others, seeks to do and why we would support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I promise I will be brief. First, there appears to be agreement that there was not total agreement on the position of international law. Noble Lords will remember the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, referring to the article in Policy Exchange. This is not the time to repeat the arguments, one way or another.

It was also agreed that the procedure adopted by the European Court of Human Rights was sub-optimal and there is room for improvement. Improvement may come along the line in due course; we wait to see, and there are some hopeful signs. However, the current position is that it is not a satisfactory procedure.

We then come down to the power. It is important to stress that the Minister has a power, not a duty, which he or she can exercise to ignore the ruling. The Minister does not have to ignore the ruling, and no doubt they will look carefully at the reasons given. Amendment 37 suggests that the Minister will consult the Attorney-General, who I am glad to see sitting in her place beneath the Throne today. I imagine that in a normal course of events, a Minister taking a decision of that gravity would consult the Attorney-General. However, the fact that there is a slender basis for the jurisdiction, that the interim procedure is unsatisfactory, and that there is a power, seem to me to hedge around this provision with appropriate safeguards.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will be sorry if, as I suspect may be the case, none of them is put to the vote.

I spoke in Committee on the status of interim measures of the European Court in international law. I will not repeat any of that now, although I remind the Minister, as I did informally a moment ago, of the exchange we had at the end of that debate, at about 10.30 pm on 19 February. I asked him whether he agreed with me that if a Minister decided not to comply with an interim measure, as Clause 5 permits, this would place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations. He gave me no answer—and frankly accepted that he was giving me no answer—but did undertake to write to me. The Minister did tell me a moment ago that such a letter has been sent, but I am afraid that, despite his best efforts, it has not yet reached me. Will he please be kind enough to read the relevant passage when he answers this debate?

The European Court of Human Rights takes one view, which is generally accepted to be binding on contracting states—including our own—by Article 32 of the ECHR. In brief reference to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—I thank him for the courtesy he extended to me earlier in today’s debates—the binding effect of interim measures rulings was clearly accepted in this case by the French Conseil d’Etat, in its judgment of 7 December 2023. I know the noble Lord is very conversant with the French language; if he reads paragraph 5 of that judgment, he will be left in no doubt as to the relevant position.

If, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, suggested, the French Government are flouting both the interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights and the judgment of their own highest court, shame on the French Government. Shame on any Government who behave like this. We are used to seeing the Russian Government, the former Government in Poland, behave like this, and we have to make up our mind which camp we are in. That is why it is so important that we understand what the Government’s position is before we vote on the Bill. Is the purpose of Article 5 to permit Ministers to involve this country in breaches of international law, or is it not? I hope that this time, we will have some clarity from the Front Bench.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, as the House will know, I tend not to want lawyers to have it all their own way when they are dealing with legal issues, but I rise because it seems to me that this is an occasion to point to the fundamental problem the Bill presents. It asks Britain, which is absolutely dependent on international law, as we found in our debate yesterday, to present a situation which, at its very best, looks like flouting international law. The previous speech, by my fellow Ipswichian, is germane to this. I want to bring it back to this key issue. Those who objected to the European Union and our membership really cannot come to this House and say, “Because the French are doing it, we ought to copy them”. That seems to me to be a very curious position.

This brings us to a very crucial issue about this House. Earlier on, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, rightly said that the Government have addressed the world to say that whatever we say, they have no intention of changing the Bill. That is unacceptable. It is an insult to the House, and it is constitutionally improper.

However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that the Opposition also have a responsibility in this. We all know that, so far, the Opposition are not prepared to pick one of these amendments, which are about our acceptance of international law, and to press it to the point at which the Government have to give way or lose the Bill. I say to the Opposition that the responsibility of opposition is as great as the responsibility of government. In the hands of the Opposition is the ability to make this Government turn the Bill into one that conforms with international law. If they do not do that, they will have failed in their duty and in the way they treat this House.

As the Opposition may become the Government, this, in my view, undermines their position, because the world knows why they do not want to do it: for electoral reasons. I find that unacceptable in the party I support; I find it just as unacceptable in the party with which I disagree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is “imminently”.

Returning to the correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I quote from that letter that bears my signature and which I trust that he will see in due course. He asked whether the Government agree that if, in compliance with Clause 5, a Minister decides not to comply with an interim measure, that would place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations. Clause 5 provides that it is for a Minister only to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with an interim measure indicated by the European Court of Human Rights in proceedings relating to the intended removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda under, or purportedly under, a provision of or made under the Immigration Acts. The Bill is in line with international law. The Government take their international obligations, including under the ECHR, very seriously, and there is nothing in the clause that requires the United Kingdom to breach its international obligations. In any event, it is not correct that a failure to comply with interim measures automatically involves a breach of international law. There are circumstances where non-compliance with an interim measure is not in breach of international law. There follows a list of further addressees whom I hope will receive the letter presently.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I recall that, of the Grand Chamber in Mamatkulov, 13 of the 14 judges in the majority thought that there were no circumstances in which a failure to comply with interim measures could be in accordance with international law. The 14th expressed the view that the Minister has just expressed. Can the Minister indicate in what cases it is lawful under international law not to comply with interim measures issued by the court?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

It would be in circumstances where compliance is not possible.

Turning to Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I now turn to Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I do not wish to prolong things, but so we can be completely clear, is the Minister accepting that in circumstances where the Strasbourg court has made an order and it is possible for the United Kingdom to comply with that order, then the United Kingdom will be in breach of its obligations if the Minister decides not to comply with it? That is what I take from what he has just said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House, whatever their views may have been, for contributing to this debate. The result has been a much more interesting discussion than I anticipated in my rather brief and somewhat lame introduction to my amendment.

I shall make only one point. My amendment is concerned with the position of our own courts. As Clause 5(3) stands, it prohibits our courts from having any regard to an interim measure when considering an application which relates to a decision to remove someone to Rwanda. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is quite right when he says that the current procedures under Rule 39 are suboptimal. There are various defects which we would not accept in our courts, but that does not apply to our procedures. They are perfectly open, proper and thorough. Our judges would be able to take on board all the points that have been made in the course of the discussion and weigh up one way or another whether this measure from the European Court of Human Rights should be given effect to. I am not asking that they should be bound to give effect to it but that they should be permitted to do so. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to ask our courts to do.

I have considered whether I should press this to a vote, but we have to ration ourselves at this stage of our proceedings and have regard to what happens next. If this goes down to the House of Commons, no doubt it will bounce back again and so on. We have to be careful how far we press things to a Division; I would have liked to do so, but at some points one has to exercise self-restraint, which I am doing.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

Does the noble and learned Lord take comfort, as I do, and perhaps some people watching these proceedings might do, by recalling that on Monday we agreed to an amendment that requires this Bill—this Act, as it will become—to comply with international law when it is implemented?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a couple of things about Northern Ireland, following the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, although I suspect from a very different perspective. First, as I pointed out in Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights asked for a full explanation before Report. We are almost at the end of Report and, as far as I am aware, despite all the talk of imminence, we still do not have the Government’s response to the JCHR’s report. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about that earlier—it really is not good enough.

I turn to the disapplication of human rights and the implications for the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor Framework. I know I will not change the Government’s mind on this, but I say this partly to amplify what was said earlier and put this on the record. The cases that the noble Lord referred to have been brought to my attention. In their revised fact sheet—and in almost identical words in a letter to me—the Government said that

“the bill does not engage the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, including the rights chapter - those rights seek to address longstanding and specific issues relating to Northern Ireland’s past and do not extend to matters engaged by the bill”.

But the cases to which the noble Lord referred made something absolutely clear. The 28 February decision in the 2024 case of Dillon and others—NIKB 11 —referenced the overarching commitment to civil rights in the relevant chapter of the Belfast Good/Friday agreement. It said in paragraph 554:

“A narrow interpretation of ‘civil rights’ undermines the forward-facing dimension of the non-diminution commitment in article 2(1)”.


It says it is “future-facing”; it is made clear that it is not looking just to the past.

Similarly, in Angesom, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, the decision said:

“The court rejects the submission by the respondent that the rights protected by the relevant part of the GFA are frozen in time and limited to the political context of 1998. The GFA was drafted with the protection of EU fundamental human rights in mind and was therefore intended to protect the human rights of ‘everyone in the community’ even ‘outside the background of the communal conflict’”.


So I do not think that what the Government have come up with so far is good enough in explaining why they believe that the disapplication of the Human Rights Act does not apply and will not affect the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor Framework.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I echo the importance of the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has raised in his Amendment 44ZA. That issue, in a nutshell, is that relevant provisions of EU law apply in Northern Ireland and may, under the Northern Ireland protocol and Windsor Framework, result in the judicial disapplication of incompatible legislation.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which of course is the statutory body appointed to look at these things, reported that Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill are contrary to Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. I asked the Minister in Committee whether the Government agreed with that, and he wrote to me on Monday as he had promised. The letter expressed the Government’s disagreement with the NIHRC, though without engaging with the detailed provisions that it had identified relating to asylum seekers as problematic for the application of the Bill in Northern Ireland. I respectfully question whether that conclusion is correct, given statements already made by the High Court of Northern Ireland in the various cases referred to by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

I understand that the final judgment in the Northern Irish challenge to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred—I think that he referred to the commission decision—is expected in the next 10 days or so, perhaps even in time for what we must assume will be ping-pong. I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in his amendment, which asks us to disapply the EU withdrawal Act, but let me make a different suggestion. As the Government apply themselves to the judgments of the Northern Ireland courts, which have been referred to, I hope that they will reflect that, by accepting some of the amendments that your Lordships have already made to this Bill, they can protect it from successful judicial challenge in Northern Ireland and so ensure that it applies across the whole United Kingdom as intended.

On Amendments 44A and 44B, relating to the position of the Channel Islands, I declare an interest as a soon- to-be-retired member of the Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey. I have written to the Minister on this issue already and await with interest his response to the compelling points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I add only that the irregularity that he has identified surely applies, as he indicated, not just to Jersey or the Channel Islands generally but to all the Crown dependencies—including, I assume, the Isle of Man.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo what my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, have said, in supporting the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has taken on behalf of Northern Ireland. I do not necessarily agree with the suggestion that he is making to solve the problem, but it is clear that what he is saying—and what I believe the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to—is total openness about what is going to be achieved in relation to this. If the position is that the Government are saying with one voice that, actually, Northern Ireland will be treated exactly the same as the rest of the country, because the Windsor Framework relates only to trade, whereas in fact the position will be different, the Government should either come clean in relation to that or should propose amendments.

I echo also what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, which is that, if the Government were to accept some of the amendments that have been made on Report, which in effect incorporate some degree of judicial control, the question of there being any inconsistency between the Northern Irish position and that of the rest of the United Kingdom would almost certainly go away. It may be that that solution is not welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, but it would nevertheless lead to a conclusion that there would be no difference in the position between Northern Ireland on the one hand and the rest of the United Kingdom on the other.

I also support my noble friend Lord Dubs when he raises the question of why the Channel Islands are not being treated with the usual constitutional respect with which they are normally treated. What is it about this Bill that makes the Government think that they can throw all constitutional convention to the wind?

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 3J in lieu—

3J: Clause 1, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) The Republic of Rwanda may be treated as a safe country for the purposes of this Act only once the Secretary of State, having consulted the Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 of the Rwanda Treaty, has made a statement to Parliament to that effect.
(8) The Republic of Rwanda must cease to be treated as a safe country for the purposes of this Act once the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament to that effect.””

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A. I do so in the unavoidable absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who tabled the previous versions of Amendment 3 and has been good enough to approve this one.

We are in the endgame now. We will, this week, have a law that provides for the offshore processing and settlement of asylum seekers in Rwanda. Its benefits remain to be seen. Its costs will be measured not only in money but in principles debased—disregard for our international commitments, avoiding statutory protections for the vulnerable, and the removal of judicial scrutiny over the core issue of the safety of Rwanda. That is now a fact, and there is nothing more we can do about it.

But there is a further principle, as precious as any of those, to which we can still hold fast. One might call it the principle of honesty in lawmaking. I presume on your Lordships’ patience this evening because we have it in our power to reinstate that principle without damaging the purpose of this Bill or delaying its passage any further. We are concerned with the safety of Rwanda, both in the present and in the future. This Bill is honest about neither.

The present position is governed by Clause 1(2) of the Bill, which

“gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”,

yet there has been no statement even by the Government that Rwanda is currently a safe country, as defined in Clause 1(5). The Minister said just now—I noted his words; they are the same words he used last Wednesday—that

“we will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty”.—[Official Report, 17/4/24; col. 1033.]

This has not yet happened. Against the background of what the Supreme Court described on the evidence before it as

“the past and continuing practice of refoulement”,

those obligations include, by Article 10(3) of the treaty, the agreement of an “effective system” to ensure that refoulement no longer occurs. The Minister has repeatedly declined the invitations of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to confirm that this system—a precondition for the safety of Rwanda—is fully set up and ready to go. Neither have we heard anything from the monitoring committee. While the Minister’s confidence is comforting up to a point, we are simply not in a position to make the judgment this Bill imputes to us.

The Bill’s treatment of the future is still further from reality. Parliament is asked to declare that Rwanda will always be a safe country, even if the progress made since the genocide of the 1990s—and one can only commend Rwanda on that—should ever falter or go into reverse. Decision-makers, immigration officials, courts and even the Secretary of State are bound by Clause 2 to treat Rwanda conclusively as safe in perpetuity.

Bluntly, we are asked to be complicit in a present-day untruth and a future fantasy, by making a factual judgment not backed by evidence, then by declaring that this judgment must stand for all time, irrespective of the true facts—this in the context not of some technical deeming provision in the tax code but of a factual determination on a matter of huge controversy on which the safety of human beings will depend. This is a post-truth Bill. To adapt a phrase we have often heard from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, it takes the culture of justification, which is a trademark of this House, and replaces it with a culture of assertion. It takes hopes and rebadges them as facts. It uses the sovereign status of this Parliament as a shield from scrutiny, and it makes a mockery of this Bill.

My amendment addresses first the present and then the future. The first part, proposed new subsection (7), requires the Secretary of State to tell us when, in his judgment, Rwanda is safe. It is this statement, not the judgment we are supposed to be reaching tonight, that will determine when the flights may lawfully begin. He has the detailed evidence on this. Despite our best efforts, we have had only scraps.

In previous versions of the amendment, this ministerial statement on the safety of Rwanda has been conditional on a favourable opinion from the Government’s own monitoring committee, established under the treaty, which we are told is already operational and which is ideally placed to assess the evidence. It has been objected, on previous occasions, that the monitoring committee should have no more than an advisory role. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I have listened and have revised this amendment, which now provides only for the monitoring committee to be consulted. The statement on safety would be purely for the Secretary of State.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, asked the Minister last Tuesday to confirm that

“before the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is a safe country, they will seek the views of the monitoring committee”.—[Official Report, 16/4/24; col. 900.]

No such assurance was forthcoming. I cannot say why not; perhaps we will get an assurance this evening. Failing that, this amendment would write one into law.

The second part of my amendment, proposed new subsection (8), deals with the future. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out the problem in these terms:

“no provision is made anywhere in the Bill for what should happen if the facts change and everyone can see that Rwanda is no longer safe”.—[Official Report, 16/4/24; col. 902.]

Sir Jeremy Wright, Sir Bob Neill, and Sir Robert Buckland—none of them lefty lawyers, the last time I checked—have made the same point in the Commons debates. The Minister indicated last week that if the Government thought Rwanda had become unsafe, there might be some unspecified “parliamentary occasion” to mark that development, but of course no such occasion, other than the passage of a full Act of Parliament, could do the trick. I think that was effectively acknowledged by the Minister in the Commons this afternoon.

This assumption of perpetual parliamentary infallibility is an embarrassment and a nonsense. Fortunately, there is an alternative, which presents not the slightest threat to what the Government are seeking to achieve. Proposed new subsection 8 would give the Secretary of State an untrammelled power to decide in the future that Rwanda is no longer a safe country. Such a decision would release all decision-makers, including himself, from a legal fiction that makes the law look like an ass and those who make it asses.

So there is a speedy and effective way to reinstate the principle of honesty in lawmaking. To quote the parting words of Sir Robert Buckland, who rebelled this afternoon, alongside Sir Jeremy Wright, “Sort this out now”. I persist in the hope that reason may yet break out in the Minister’s response. If it does not, I propose to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

No, I will not. That is an operational matter; we are discussing the amendments in ping-pong.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to my Motion A1. Perhaps I may make two short points in response. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who knows how much I appreciate the work he does in this House and its committees, that a vote for this amendment is not a vote for delay. It simply gives the Secretary of State a power to declare Rwanda safe, having consulted his monitoring committee. He could do that tomorrow if he had the evidence for it. If he does not have the evidence for it, how can he expect us to do it tonight?

Secondly, I thank the Minister for his measured response, not to mention the best laugh of the evening, and for the additional scrap of information concerning the Rwandan law, I assume the asylum law, that he says was passed on Friday. I am afraid that it is the first I have heard of that. I do not know how many of us in the House have had an opportunity to study that law. He knows that these scraps fall far short of the comprehensive picture that we would need if we were seriously to make our own judgement that Rwanda is safe and that the concerns identified by the Supreme Court and our own International Agreements Committee in great detail, only in January, have been satisfied.

In a less frenetic political environment, this common-sense amendment or something like it could, I am sure, have been hammered out between sensible people around a table. Sadly, that does not appear to be the world that we are in. I am afraid that I see no alternative to pressing Motion A1 and testing the opinion of the House.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill has now been scrutinised a number of times. The Government have rejected this amendment several times, so we must now accept the will of the elected House, bring the debate on this last amendment to an end and get this Bill on to the statute book. Having now debated this issue on so many occasions, I will not repeat the same arguments but reiterate a few key points. The Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, which is when the parties have completed their internal procedures. We will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.

I have set out the steps that have been taken to be ready for the treaty to be ratified, and I will remind noble Lords once again of the most recent step. Last Friday, 19 April, the Rwandan Parliament passed its domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system. Rwanda has a proven track record of working constructively with domestic and international partners, including the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration and other non-government organisations to process and support asylum seekers and the refugee population. As I have already set out this evening, the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is safe and has the right mechanisms in place should a situation ever arise that would change that view. The Government will respond as necessary, and this will include a range of options to respond to the circumstances, including any primary legislation if required.

The monitoring committee will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification of, and response to, any issues. This enhanced phase will ensure that comprehensive monitoring and reporting take place in real time. During the period of enhanced monitoring, the monitoring committee will report to the joint committee in accordance with an agreed action plan to include weekly and biweekly reporting, as required. The implementation of these provisions in practice will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee, whose role was enhanced by the treaty, which will ensure compliance. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 3J in my name turned out to be the last one standing. Perhaps I may say just a few words at its funeral. It was not much, perhaps, compared with some of those amendments that had already been defeated. Indeed, it survived so long under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who I am delighted to see back in his place, precisely because it was so modest and unthreatening to the Government’s policy. But it at least touched on a central disease of this Bill and perhaps of our body politic more generally: the imputation of decisions to Parliament to reduce the possibilities for challenge and the pretence that by asserting something to be true, even in the teeth of the evidence, one can not only make it true but keep it true for ever.

Many people, some of them perhaps still watching even now, will have wished us to keep on fighting, but without the threat of double insistence—which remains part of our constitutional armoury, but which did not command the necessary political support on this occasion—there would have been no point in doing so. The purpose of ping-pong is to persuade the Government, through force of argument, to come to the table and agree a compromise. They have refused pointedly to do so, and after four rounds of ping-pong, their control of the Commons remains as solid as ever.

The time has now come to acknowledge the primacy of the elected House and to withdraw from the fray. We do so secure at least in the knowledge that the so-called judgment of Parliament was not the judgment of this House, and that we tried our hardest to achieve something a little more sensible. We must take comfort from such assurances as the Minister has been able to give and hold the Government to them. This is the Government’s Bill, resolutely free of any outside influence. As a patriot, I can only hope—though I am afraid, without much optimism—that it will bring benefits, in some way, commensurate to its real and painful cost.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise with a heavy heart, given the lack of further amendment, to this dreadful, international law-busting Bill. I note that in the other place, the SNP twice used procedural Motions to delay it by 15 minutes each time. I applaud them for that, and I am not going to take up the same length, but I am going to take a moment to mark this historic occasion.

Your Lordships’ House has put a lot of work into trying to make the Bill comply with international law, with basic moral laws and with the principles of justice and fairness. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, earlier today said:

“Its costs will be measured not only in money but in principles debased—disregard for our international commitments, avoiding statutory protections for the vulnerable, and the removal of judicial scrutiny”.


Nothing has changed in the Bill in the last few hours.

I note that Amnesty International this evening warned airline companies that many members of the public take an extremely negative view of the content of the policy. Those were really unnecessary words, because no company of any repute whatsoever is going to take part in implementing this dreadful policy. That is a measure of the Bill and the disgraceful, despicable actions it represents.

I am disappointed to see the almost empty Benches around me. I note that the Liberal Democrat Benches are here, having played their part in trying to stop the Bill at Second Reading, and I commend them for that action that the Green group supported. They are still here to the bitter end.

We heard from the Minister, we will hear tonight, and no doubt will keep hearing in the coming days that “Well, we’re the unelected House”. That does not mean that this House is without moral or legal responsibilities. I have asked the House a number of times: if not now, when? What will it take to make this House say, “Here we take a stand”?

We have had the abomination of the Elections Act, the elements of a policing Act that targeted Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people explicitly. We have had multiple indefensible restrictions on the right to protest. Now, we are letting through an attack on some of the most vulnerable, desperate people on this planet. What more will we let through? I suggest to noble Lords as they leave this Chamber tonight to ask themselves that question.

With a desperate, flailing government party bereft of ideas and philosophy and without principles, this House will keep being tested. I ask these empty Benches: you might be waiting for an election, but what kind of a country will it be if you do not stand up now?