Select committee: International Agreements Committee
Conclusion 3
7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement
Published 18 Oct 2022
Paragraph 34
International Agreements Committee UK-Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (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.
From: International Agreements Committee, 7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement, paragraph 34, 18 October 2022
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 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.