Select committee: International Agreements Committee

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

Published 18 October 2022

International Agreements Committee UK-Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding Report on parliament.uk ↗

At a glance3 recommendations and 7 conclusions · Government response published 13 January 2023

The government's response

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

What the committee recommended 10

1
The UK-Rwanda MoU is an important political arrangement, the implications of which may affect individual... Conclusion · paragraph 25
2
We are concerned that the Government has concluded an agreement which appears to be entirely... Conclusion · paragraph 33
3
The UK Government should not have chosen an MoU to facilitate this arrangement. Conclusion · paragraph 34
4
The arrangement does not appear to fall within the Government’s own guidance of when an... Conclusion · paragraph 37
5
We call on the Government to set out why it decided to use an MoU... Recommendation · paragraph 38

See all 10 recommendations and conclusions

Sources

7th Report - Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement ↗The committee's report, parliament.uk
Government Response to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee Report on its Inquiry: Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda for the Provision of an Asylum Partnership Arrangement ↗The government's response, 13 January 2023, parliament.uk

Recommendations and conclusions 10

1
The UK-Rwanda MoU is an important political arrangement, the implications of which may affect individual... Conclusion · paragraph 25 Conclusion (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.
2
We are concerned that the Government has concluded an agreement which appears to be entirely... Conclusion · paragraph 33 Conclusion (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.
3
The UK Government should not have chosen an MoU to facilitate this arrangement. Conclusion · paragraph 34 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.
4
The arrangement does not appear to fall within the Government’s own guidance of when an... Conclusion · paragraph 37 Conclusion (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.
5
We call on the Government to set out why it decided to use an MoU... Recommendation · paragraph 38 Recommendation (the committee's words)
We call on the Government to set out why it decided to use an MoU for its arrangement with Rwanda.
6
We also call on the Government to publish clearer guidance and criteria as to when... Conclusion · paragraph 39 Conclusion (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.
7
There is a substantial lacuna in the parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements as significant MoUs... Conclusion · paragraph 44 Conclusion (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.
8
The Government’s approach in this case has meant that Parliament has had no opportunity to... Conclusion · paragraph 45 Conclusion (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.
9
It is unacceptable that the Government should be able to use prerogative powers to agree... Recommendation · paragraph 46 Recommendation (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.
10
As noted earlier in this report, MoUs should not be used instead of treaties if... Recommendation · paragraph 47 Recommendation (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.