Treaty of such significant legal and political importance should be debated, Committee says
As the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill returns to the House of Commons this week, the Home Affairs Committee published a brief report on Friday calling for Parliament to be able to debate the ratification of the asylum treaty signed with Rwanda in December.
Image credit: UK GovernmentThe treaty replaced the original April 2022 memorandum of understanding with Rwanda and was signed to address the issues raised by the Supreme Court in November when it ruled that the Government's policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful.
The Home Affairs Committee says the treaty is clearly of significant legal and political importance, and the House of Commons should be able to debate and reach a view on the ratification of a treaty of such significance.
In the report, the Committee notes: "Under Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, a treaty requiring ratification is to be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days, and may then be ratified if neither House has resolved that it should not be. If the House of Commons resolves against the treaty, the Minister may lay a statement that they are of the opinion that the treaty should be ratified and explaining why, and may then ratify the treaty after another period of 21 sitting days unless the House of Commons resolves again that the treaty should not be ratified."
The Committee called on the Government to provide time for the treaty to be debated and for the Commons to be able to record its view as to whether the treaty should be ratified or not.
Arabella Lang, formerly of the Public Law Project (PLP) and now of the Law Society, noted on X that it would be the first ever substantive debate under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act's treaty procedures should it go ahead.
The House of Commons will be debating the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week as it reaches committee stage.
Ahead of the debate, the House of Commons Library published a helpful 25-page report highlighting and summarising various legal commentaries on the Bill. It considers competing legal arguments as to whether the Bill is compatible with the UK's international obligations.
Lots more reading on the subject was made available last week by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee as it published written evidence submitted for its inquiry on the asylum agreement with Rwanda.
The written evidence can be accessed from here and includes submissions from legal academics and NGOs. Sixteen submissions are available.
The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) and PLP were among those submitting written evidence for the inquiry.
PLP's submission succinctly summarises its findings as follows: "PLP's evidence is that the Government's revised UK-Rwanda Agreement does not address the Supreme Court's concerns. There remains a substantial risk that Rwanda will violate the agreement through misunderstanding, neglect or wilful disregard of its obligations. Therefore, transfers to Rwanda continue to be unlawful. The Supreme Court made clear that the problems in Rwanda's asylum system are endemic, cultural and entrenched and would take considerable time and effort to reform. It is not possible to have made such fundamental changes in such a short time and the Government has not done so. In addition, the Rwandan Government's commitment to human rights is sufficiently questionable to raise doubts about their obedience to this treaty in practice. Moreover, we are not satisfied that the mechanisms available to individuals either in general international law nor in this treaty provide effective protection commensurate with the human rights at stake. Litigation before the International Court of Justice, arbitration and complaints give the individual no ability to secure emergency relief from an independent authority preventing his or her removal from Rwanda should Rwanda violate this agreement through misunderstanding, neglect or wilful disobedience."
ILPA made a joint submission with JUSTICE that concludes: "[T]he assurances contained in this Treaty, and the evidence put forward in the Policy Statement, are insufficient to dispel the Supreme Court's concerns that there is a real risk of refoulement in Rwanda. The decision-making, appellate, and monitoring procedures it would introduce are novel and remain untested. We are further concerned that the Treaty cannot sufficiently protect the human rights of individuals removed to Rwanda, a country whose human rights record remains unaltered since the Supreme Court's assessment, particularly as the Treaty lacks proper enforcement mechanisms and is unlikely to provide adequate protections for individuals against refoulement. The corresponding Bill before Parliament additionally ensures that individuals' rights cannot be properly upheld by our courts and tribunals, as it severely restricts their oversight."