Home / Sources / Select Committees / International Agreements Comm… / UK-Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding
Select committee: International Agreements Committee

UK-Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding

Closed Opened 10 Jun 2022 Closed 13 Jan 2023 3 recommendations 7 conclusions

International Agreements Committee Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
The House of Lords International Agreements Committee, chaired by Baroness Hayter, has launched an inquiry into the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an Asylum Partnership Arrangement.

Where it stands

The inquiry is closed, opened 10 June 2022.

The committee has published 1 report, most recently 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement on 18 October 2022.

The government's response

Published 13 January 2023.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The Government notes the Committee's report and, while agreeing the MoU is an important political arrangement, does not agree that using a non-legally binding instrument was contrary to guidance or that there is a scrutiny gap.

  • On the choice of an MoU, the Government says a non-legally binding instrument allows the detail to be "adjusted or updated quickly, if needed, with the agreement of both partners", and that adopting a treaty would not have afforded individuals the right to raise disputes.
  • The Government "does not agree" that using an NBI was contrary to its guidance, saying the guidance examples "do not form an exhaustive list".
  • On clearer criteria for choosing between a treaty and an MoU, the Government says such criteria would "restrict the Government's ability to exercise effectively its powers under the Royal Prerogative", and that it maintains its discretion.
  • On scrutiny, the Government's view is that NBIs do not create a "scrutiny gap". It "may be appropriate" to draw Parliament's attention to NBIs raising public importance, "on a case-by-case basis", and any debate request must be balanced against other demands on parliamentary time.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Recommendations and conclusions

All 10 recommendations and conclusions

Reports

All reports

Recent activity

Recommendations and conclusions 10 shown

Conclusion 1

Conclusion · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Concluded (the committee's words)
The UK-Rwanda MoU is an important political arrangement, the implications of which may affect individual rights and which warrants Parliamentary scrutiny.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 2

Conclusion · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Concluded (the committee's words)
We are concerned that the Government has concluded an agreement which appears to be entirely unenforceable. In practice this means that neither individuals, nor the Parties to the arrangement, can ensure the rights of those affected are fully protected.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 3

Conclusion · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Concluded (the committee's words)
The UK Government should not have chosen an MoU to facilitate this arrangement. Agreements that raise fundamental questions about individual rights should not be entered into through an MoU, but through a formal treaty.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 4

Conclusion · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Concluded (the committee's words)
The arrangement does not appear to fall within the Government’s own guidance of when an MoU may be used in place of a treaty. In the absence of written evidence from the Government, it is unclear on what basis it considered it preferable to conclude the agreement as an MoU—particularly, when practical considerations are balanced against the fact that the arrangement engages individuals’ rights.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 5

Recommendation · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Recommended (the committee's words)
We call on the Government to set out why it decided to use an MoU for its arrangement with Rwanda.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 6

Conclusion · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Concluded (the committee's words)
We also call on the Government to publish clearer guidance and criteria as to when an instrument ought to be agreed as a legally binding treaty and when it may be concluded as an MoU. The current guidance gives Government Departments too much discretion in this regard. Their decision can have far-reaching consequences—both in respect of parliamentary scrutiny and the impact of arrangements on individuals.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 7

Conclusion · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Concluded (the committee's words)
There is a substantial lacuna in the parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements as significant MoUs are not subject to any formal scrutiny processes.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 8

Conclusion · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government’s approach in this case has meant that Parliament has had no opportunity to consider whether the MoU is compatible with the UK’s obligations under international law; whether the policy objectives are coherent and achievable, the financial implications, the basis in domestic law for its implementation; or whether any safeguards ought to have been introduced.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 9

Recommendation · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Recommended (the committee's words)
It is unacceptable that the Government should be able to use prerogative powers to agree important arrangements with other states that have serious human rights implications without any scrutiny by Parliament.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 10

Recommendation · 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

Recommended (the committee's words)
As noted earlier in this report, MoUs should not be used instead of treaties if they raise fundamental questions about the rights of individuals. Where it is not possible to enter into a formal treaty, we call on the Government to ensure that any such MoU be deposited for parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as a treaty, including the submission of an Explanatory Memorandum. This would mean allowing for a gap of at least 21 sitting days between deposit of the MoU and its implementation, and facilitating a debate if requested.

Link to this item · Read this item

Reports

1 report