UK-Rwanda asylum Agreement

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the evidence of the UNHCR in making its assessment of whether Rwanda is a safe country. The rapid timetable for Parliamentary scrutiny of the Treaty did not allow enough time for UNHCR to respond to our call for evidence but on 15 January 2024 it published an updated assessment taking into account the Supreme Court judgment, the Rwanda Treaty and the Bill. 63 This states: “As of January 2024, UNHCR has not yet observed the changes in practice of asylum adjudication that would overcome the concerns set out in its 2022 analysis and in the detailed evidence presented to the Supreme Court. … UNHCR notes the detailed, legally-binding commitments now set out in the treaty, which if enacted in law and fully implemented in practice, would address certain key deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system identified by the Supreme Court.This would however require sustained, long-term efforts, the results of which may only be assessed over time. …[U]ntil the necessary legal framework and implementation capacity is established, the conclusion of the treaty in itself does not overcome continued procedural fairness and other protection gaps.” This assessment supports the views of witnesses to the inquiry.

In his evidence to us on 19 December 2023, the Home Secretary suggested 64 that we could draw an inference about UNHCR’s views from the fact that it had transferred more than 160 asylum seekers to Rwanda the day after the Supreme Court judgment. However, the Home Office has subsequently confirmed 65 that this transfer was connected with a transit mechanism operated by UNHCR which was referred to by the Supreme Court: “Rwanda has also supported the UNHCR emergency transport mechanism for asylum seekers from Libya. Once in Rwanda, their claims are processed by UNHCR, and the claimants have been resettled by UNHCR in third countries”. 66 This flight therefore has no bearing on the assessment of the Rwanda Treaty.

The Government has presented the Rwanda Treaty to Parliament as an answer to the Supreme Court judgment and has asked Parliament, on the basis of the Treaty, to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. While the Treaty might in time provide the basis for such an assessment if it is rigorously implemented, as things stand the arrangements it provides for are incomplete. A significant number of further legal and practical steps are required under the treaty which will take time, in particular: (a) a new asylum law in Rwanda; (b) a system for ensuring that non-refoulement does not take place ; (c) a process for submitting individual complaints to the Monitoring Committee ; (d) the recruitment of a Monitoring Committee support team; (e) the appointment of independent experts to advise the asylum First Instance and Appeals Bodies; (f) the appointment of co-presidents of the Appeals Body; (g) the appointment of international judges; (h) training for international judges in Rwandan law and practice; (i) training for Rwandan officials dealing with asylum applicants; and (j) steps to ensure a sufficient number of trained legal advisers and interpreters are available. Moreover, the arrangements put in place by the Treaty need time to bed in to demonstrate that they operate in practice. The Home Office has been unable to offer any clear timeline for implementation, but we agree with the evidence we received that the Treaty is unlikely to change the position in Rwanda in the short to medium term. Members of Parliament should take that into account in considering the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.

Greater transparency is also required about aspects of the Treaty’s implementation to allow for a full assessment . Witnesses to this inquiry highlighted a number of areas of uncertainty as discussed in this report. The Government has now published some additional documentation through links in its revised Policy Statement, but the lateness of this disclosure means that we are unable to judge whether this meets the concerns raised.

In November the Prime Minister indicated a desire to ratify the Treaty as quickly as possible, which could be as early as February on the expiry of the CRAG scrutiny period. If the Government ratifies immediately, it gives the Government of Rwanda control over when the Treaty enters into force. 67 Rwanda might ratify before all the implementing measures have been adopted. 68 The Home Secretary told us that the Government would not “operationalise this scheme until we are confident that the measures underpinning the treaty have been put in place; otherwise, the treaty is not credible”. 69 We welcome that commitment but would go further. The Government should not ratify the Rwanda Treaty until Parliament is satisfied that the protections it provides have been fully implemented since Parliament is being asked to make a judgement, based on the Treaty, that Rwanda is safe.

The Government should submit further information to Parliament in due course to confirm that the necessary legal and practical steps and training identified in this report, which underpin the protections provided for in the Treaty, have been put in place and bedded in. It should then allow for a further debate before proceeding to ratification.

In making this recommendation we draw to the attention of the House the terms of section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act which provide that the House of Commons has the power to delay the ratification of a treaty. The House of Lords can also resolve that a treaty should not be ratified but the Government can override this if it lays a statement before the House.

We report the Rwanda Treaty to the House for special attention together with our comments in paragraphs 20, 33, 38, 42, 45–47 and 48–49. 1 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda for the Provision of an Asylum Partnership Agreement to Strengthen Shared International Commitments on the Protection of Refugees and Migrants, CP 994, December 2023: https://assets.publishing.service .gov.uk/media/65705fd4746930000d4888dc/CS_Rwanda_1.2023_UK_Rwanda_Agreement _Asylum_Partnership_Protection_Refugees_Migrants.pdf [accessed 8 January 2024] 2 Written evidence from Amnesty International UK ( URA0002 ),Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) ( URA0007 ), Dr Joseph Mullen ( URA0010 ), and Associate Professor Catherine Briddick and Professor Cathryn Costello ( URA001 5 ) and Q 3 (Professor Theodore Konstadinides). 3 UNHCR, Analysis of the Legality and Appropriateness of the Transfer of Asylum Seekers under the UK-Rwanda arrangement , (8 June 2022) https://www.refworld.org/docid/62a31cc24.html [accessed 16 January 2024] and UNHCR Updated Analysis, 16 January 2024 https://www .unhcr.org/uk/media/unhcr-analysis-legality-and-appropriateness-transfer -asylum-seekers-under-uk-rwanda-1 [accessed 16 January 2024] 4 Written evidence from Prof Catherine Briddick and Prof Cathryn Costello ( URA0015 ) and Amnesty International UK ( URA0002 ) 5 Home Office, Migration and Economic Development Partnership: factsheet , (15 November 2023): https ://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-economic-development-partnership -factsheet/migratio n-and-economic-development-partnership-factsheet [accessed 8 January 2024] 6 HM Government, ‘Rwanda Bill Factsheet’, (11 January 2024): https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a139ebe96df5000df84586/Safety_of_Rwanda_ Bill_Fact_Sheet_11_Jan_2023_FINAL.pdf [accessed 16 January 2024] 7 International Agreements Committee, Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement (7th Report, Session 2022–23, HL Paper 71) 8 Refoulement means the expulsion of a person to a country where they are at risk of persecution or ill-treatment. 9 R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, judgment of the Supreme Court, [2023] UKSC 42 , 15 November 2023 at paragraphs 102–104 10 Prime Minister’s Office, PM remarks on Supreme Court Judgement: 15 November 2023, (15 November 2023): https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm- remarks- on-supreme-court-judgement-15-november-2023 [accessed 8 January 2024] 11 Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill 12 Home Office, Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill Policy Statement , (Updated 11 January 2024): https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/media/65a16e2b7eb42e000dceb78a/Safety_of_Rwanda__Asylum_and_Immigration__ Bill_-_Policy_Statement-main.pdf [accessed 11 January 2024] 13 Written evidence from Professor Tom Hickman KC ( URA0001 ), Professor Theodore Konstadinides and Rebecca Amor ( URA0012 ) the Law Society ( URA0016 ) and Dr Rossella Pulvirenti and Dr Kay Lalor ( URA0003 ) 14 “The … principle of the separation of powers … requires the executive and the legislature to abstain from interference with the judicial function, and conversely requires the judiciary not to interfere with or to criticise the proceedings of the legislature.” Submissions on behalf of the House of Commons Speaker in R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin) at paragraph 46 15 We expect that other Parliamentary committees will examine the constitutional implications of the Bill in more detail. 16 Relocated Individual is the term used in the Treaty for a person who is being considered for removal to Rwanda or has been removed, Rwanda Treaty , Article 1. 17 Rwanda Treaty , Article 10(3) 18 Rwanda Treaty , Article 9 and Annex B 19 Rwanda Treaty , Article 15 20 Rwanda Treaty , Article 22 21 Written evidence from Prof Tom Hickman KC ( URA0001 ) See also written evidence from Amnesty International UK ( URA0002 ), Dr Rossella Pulvirenti and Dr Kay Lalor ( URA0003 ), ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ), Public Law Project ( URA0006 ), JCWI ( URA0007 ), Redress ( URA0008 ), Prof Theodore Konstadinides and Rebecca Amor ( URA0012 ), Prof Catherine Briddick and Prof Cathryn Costello ( URA001 5 ), Law Society ( URA0016 ) and Bar Council ( URA0018 ). Q 1 and Q 11 (Lord Anderson of Ipswich) and Q 7 (Professor Theodore Konstadinides). 22 Home Office Policy Statement at paragraph 13 23 Rwanda Treaty , Article 3(2) 24 Q 21 (Rt Hon James Cleverly MP) and Home Office Policy Statement at paragraph 20. 25 During our evidence session on 19 December, the Director General of Asylum and Immigration at the Home Office told us that Rwanda’s new asylum law would simply reflect the terms of the Treaty. Q 21 (Dan Hobbs). We find that unconvincing since domestic legislation will inevitably add detail not covered by the very broad outline in the Treaty. It is clear from the Home Secretary’s letter to the Chair of the Committee of 11 January that some of the detail of the new asylum system is still being discussed with Rwanda. 26 Letter from the Home Secretary to the Chair of the International Agreements Committee, 11 January 2024: https://committees.parliament. uk/publications/42871/documents/213213/default/ 27 Rwanda Treaty , Article 15(8) 28 Rwanda Treaty , Annex B, paras 3.3.3 and 4.2.4 29 Rwanda Treaty , Annexes A and B. The Home Office Policy Statement refers at paragraph 86 to an agreement between the Government of Rwanda and the Rwandan Bar Association to provide legal advice to Relocated Individuals under the MEDP. It states that there are currently 38 lawyers practising in the field of asylum and migration which is a small number to meet the requirements of the Treaty given the volume of persons who may be sent to Rwanda. See written evidence from ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ). 30 Rwanda Treaty , Annex B, paras 4.2 and 4.4 31 Letter from the Home Secretary to the Chair of the International Agreements Committee, 11 January 2024: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/42871/documents/213213/ default/ 32 Written evidence from Dr Rossella Pulvirenti and Dr Kay Lalor ( URA0003 ), ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ), JCWI ( URA0007 ), Ayesha Riaz ( URA0011 ), Human Rights Watch ( URA0013 ) and Justin Bahunga and others ( URA0017 ) 33 The Supreme Court did not express a concluded view on the risk of ill-treatment in Rwanda, aside from the risk of refoulement. 34 Written evidence of Prof Theodore Konstadinides and Rebecca Amor ( URA0012 ). See also written evidence from Prof Tom Hickman ( URA0001 ), Amnesty International UK ( URA0002 ), Public Law Project ( URA0006 ), Dr Joseph Mullen ( URA0010 ), Prof Catherine Briddick and Prof Cathryn Costello ( URA0015 ) and Law Society ( URA0016 ) 35 Supreme Court judgment at paragraph 104 36 Q 20 (Rt Hon James Cleverly MP ) 37 Home Office Policy Statement at paragraph 31 38 Home Office Policy Statement paragraph 131 39 Written evidence from Prof Tom Hickman ( URA0001 ), Amnesty International UK ( URA0002 ), ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ),Public Law Project ( URA0006 ) 40 Home Office Policy Statement paragraphs 104 and 109 41 Q 8 (Lord Anderson of Ipswich) 42 Home Office Policy Statement at paragraphs 106-108. See also letter from the Home Secretary to the Chair of the International Agreements Committee, 11 January 2024: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications /42871/documents/213213/default/ 43 Rwanda Treaty , Article 15(4) and the Terms of Reference of the Monitoring Committee at paragraph 104 of the Home Office Policy Statement . 44 Written evidence from the Law Society ( URA0016 ) 45 Q 10 (Lord Anderson of Ipswich) 46 Letter from the Home Secretary to the Chair of the International Agreements Committee, 11 January 2024: https://committees.parliament. uk/publications/42871/documents/213213/default/ 47 Judgment of the Supreme Court at paragraph 105. See also the written evidence from Amnesty International UK ( URA0002 ), ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ), Public Law Project ( URA0006 ), JCWI ( URA0007 ), Ayesha Riaz and others ( URA0011 ), Law Society ( URA0016 ) 48 Written evidence from JCWI ( URA0007 ) 49 Written evidence from Prof Theodore Konstadinides and Rebecca Amor ( URA0012 ). See also the written evidence from Prof Tom Hickman ( URA0001 ), ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ), Public Law Project ( URA0006 ), JCWI ( URA0007 ), Redress ( URA0008 ), Dr Joseph Mullen ( URA0010 ) and Prof Catherine Briddick and Prof Cathryn Costello ( URA0015 ). 50 Supreme Court judgment at paragraph 76 51 Supreme Court judgment at paragraphs 95–96 52 Written evidence from Prof Tom Hickman ( URA0001 ) 53 Written evidence from Amnesty International UK ( URA0002 ), ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ), Public Law Project ( URA0006 ), Ayesha Riaz and others ( URA0011 ), Prof Theodore Konstadinides and Rebecca Amor ( URA0012 ) and Justin Bahunga and others ( URA0017 ) 54 Written evidence from Dr Rossella Pulvirenti and Dr Kay Lalor ( URA0003 ), University of Birmingham ( URA0004 ), ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ), Public Law Project ( URA0006 ), Human Rights Watch ( URA0012 ) and Prof Catherine Briddick and Prof Cathryn Costello ( URA0015 ) 55 Written evidence from ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ) and Ayesha Riaz ( URA0011 ) 56 Written evidence from Prof Tom Hickman ( URA0001 ), ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ), Ayesha Riaz ( URA0011 ), Law Society ( URA0016 ) and Bar Council ( URA0018 ) and Q 11 (Lord Anderson of Ipswich) 57 Written evidence from ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ) 58 Letter from the Home Secretary to the Chair of the International Agreements Committee, 11 January 2024: https://committees.parliament.uk/ publications/42871/documents/213213/default/ 59 Rwanda Treaty , Article 3(4) 60 Written evidence from ILPA and JUSTICE ( URA0005 ), Prof Theodore Konstadinides and Rebecca Amor ( URA0012 ) and Prof Catherine Briddick and Prof Cathryn Costello ( URA0015 ) 61 Letter from the Home Secretary to the Chair of the International Agreements Committee, 11 January 2024: https://committees.parliament. uk/publications/42871/documents/213213/default/ 62 Written evidence from Prof Tom Hickman ( URA0001 ) 63 UNHCR , Analysis of the Legality and Appropriateness of the Transfer of Asylum Seekers under the UK-Rwanda arrangement: an update , (15 January 2024): https://www.unhcr.org/uk/sites/uk/files/2024 –01/updated_unhcr_analysis_-_uk-rwanda_arrangement_1.pdf [accessed 16 January 2024] 64 Q 20 (Rt Hon James Cleverly MP) 65 Letter from the Home Secretary to the Chair of the International Agreements Committee, 11 January 2024: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/42871/documents/213213/default/ 66 Supreme Court judgment at paragraph 77 67 The Treaty will enter into force on the date of the last notification by the two parties that their internal procedures have been completed: Rwanda Treaty , Article 24 68 It is UK policy not to ratify any treaty before the necessary implementing measures are in place. See FCDO, ‘Treaties and MOUs: Guidance on Practice and Procedures’, (12 March 2022) ,at paragraph 11: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/treaties- and-mous-guidance-on-practice-and-procedures [accessed 16 January 2024]. Other countries may not take the same approach. 69 Q 21 (Rt Hon James Cleverly MP) < Back Next > © Parliamentary copyright 2024 A-Z index Glossary Contact us Freedom of Information Jobs Using this website Copyright Privacy notice Cookie policy Cookie Manager House of Lords - Scrutiny of international agreements: UK–Rwanda Agreement on an Asylum Partnership - International Agreements Committee Accessibility Email alerts RSS feeds Contact us Home Parliamentary business MPs, Lords & offices About Parliament Get involved Visiting Education House of Commons House of Lords What's on Bills & legislation Committees Publications & records Parliament TV News Topics Scrutiny of international agreements: UK–Rwanda Agreement on an Asylum Partnership Contents