Rwanda policy: the new asylum plan explained

The House of Lords has voted against the ratification of Rishi Sunak's controversial Rwanda treaty and called for it to be delayed until the African nation improves its asylum procedures.

The treaty is the basis for the government’s flagship Safety of Rwanda Bill and the upper house was voting "following a report last week that recommended the treaty not be ratified", said Sky News.

​​The chamber supported a call by Labour peer Lord Goldsmith that Parliament should not ratify the pact until the government could demonstrate that Rwanda is safe.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

While non-binding, the vote on the treaty "gives an indication of the level of opposition Sunak is likely to face" when the bill itself is debated in the Lords next week, according to the BBC.

At a press conference last week, Sunak urged the Lords not to "frustrate the will of the people", and said peers needed to pass the bill "as quickly as possible".

What is the Rwanda asylum plan?

First announced by the then prime minister Boris Johnson in April 2022, the   Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda was designed to deter asylum seekers from making dangerous journeys to the UK – such as via small boats across the Channel or by lorry – if they have already "passed through manifestly safe countries" before reaching Britain. 

Under the scheme, anyone who has entered the UK "illegally" by such routes could be sent to Rwanda for processing, with no cap on the numbers of people who could be sent there, according to the government. 

Once asylum seekers are transferred to Rwanda, they will have the option to claim asylum there and, if successful, be allowed to stay. Those who are not given asylum status could apply to stay in Rwanda on other immigration grounds, or apply for asylum in a "safe third country".

What did the Supreme Court say about it?

In November, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government's Rwanda plan was "unlawful", a move that appeared to have effectively blocked the government from implementing the policy.

The Supreme Court said there was strong evidence that genuine refugees sent to Rwanda could be returned to their home countries where they faced harm or persecution. In legal terms, this is called "refoulement". It breaches part of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibiting torture and inhuman treatment, to which the UK is a long-standing signatory. 

The Supreme Court also upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, which in June found that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was a "safe" country for asylum seekers.

What is in the new treaty with Rwanda?

In November, the government signed a new treaty with Rwanda, which includes a pledge from the African country that those who fail with their asylum claims will not be sent anywhere but back to the UK. The government believes this will mean the policy no longer breaches "refoulement" rules.

There will also be "enhanced" functions for an independent monitoring committee, to ensure Rwanda complies with the treaty, as well as a new appeals body made up of judges with experience of asylum law, according to the Home Office.

What is the new Rwanda bill in Parliament?

In order to side-step the Supreme Court ruling, the government introduced a new bill that would declare Rwanda to be a "safe country" in UK law.

The legislation disapplies some sections of the Human Rights Act, and states that ministers alone will decide on whether to comply with any injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights. 

It also tells the courts to ignore other British laws or international rules, such as the international Refugee Convention, that stand in the way of deportations to Rwanda.

What next?

The government insists that the initial defeat in the Lords over ratifying the treaty with Rwanda will not delay the bill moving through the upper house. But, said The Independent, "there is now a risk that ignoring the new demand by peers could later be used in a legal challenge aiming to stop flights".

The bill’s second reading takes place in the Lords on 29 January and then there will be three days of debate during the committee stage on 12, 14 and 19 February.

Throughout the committee stage, every clause of the bill must be agreed upon, with the possibility of votes on any amendments.

As the think tank UK in a Changing Europe noted, the Conservative Party does not have a majority in the Lords. And given that the Rwanda policy was not part of the Tories' 2019 manifesto, the Lords are not bound by what is called the Salisbury Convention, which would require them to approve the bill.

The Lords are also unlikely to heed Sunak's words and pass the bill quickly. In the past they have made clear that the parliamentary scrutiny of bills "should not be rushed unless there are justifiable reasons for fast-tracking them".

If the Lords amend the bill, any changes will then be debated in the Commons. Both Houses must agree on the wording, meaning that the legislation is likely to go back and forth between the Houses until an agreement is reached, a process often referred to as "ping pong".