The hon. Lady has been straightforward about that; she is nodding. We are agreeing yet again during the course of these exchanges. It will do nothing for her street credibility in her constituency, but we are agreeing at least on that point. Her amendments would undermine the provisions aimed at narrowing the grounds on which people can challenge their removal to Rwanda in courts or tribunals.
5.15 pm
The treaty agreed by both countries makes it crystal clear that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda are not at risk of being returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened—known as refoulement. Article 10(3) spells that out very clearly. We therefore do not accept that there is any risk of refoulement given that article, given those reassurances and given the treaty. This point also relates to amendments 35 and 37, tabled by the Opposition.
I remind Opposition Members that the Government of Rwanda, the African Union and the UNHCR have signed an agreement to continue the operation of the emergency transit mechanism centre in Rwanda. By temporarily accommodating some of the most vulnerable refugee populations who have faced trauma, detentions and violence, Rwanda has showcased its willingness and its ability collaboratively to provide solutions to the refugee situations and to crises.
The policy statement that was published by the Government set out further evidence on that very point, and it might be worth dwelling on that for a moment or
two. In November 2021, the Government of Rwanda set out the details of the emergency transit mechanism. The agreement has attracted EU funding, which will support the operation of the ETM until 2026.
On 9 February, the EU announced a €22 million support package for the scheme, which the European Union ambassador described as a
“crucial life-saving initiative to evacuate people facing major threats and inhumane conditions in Libya to safety in Rwanda. It is a significant example of African solidarity and of partnership with the European Union.”
He continued:
“We are grateful to the Government of Rwanda for hosting these men, women and children until such time, durable solutions can be found.”
That is further evidence of the safety of Rwanda—not in the future but now—and further evidence for the hundreds of thousands of refugees that Rwanda is welcoming and already hosting, and that it has over the years.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for tabling his amendments. I listened intently as he spoke. The Bill allows the decision maker to consider whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question only when the individual has presented compelling evidence relating specifically to their individual circumstances, and only when their claim does not relate to the risk of onward removal from Rwanda. We all share my right hon. Friend’s desire on this, but there is already a high bar, both legally and evidentially, for making a successful individual claim, and clause 4 sets that out. If people try to use this route without compelling evidence, they will have their claim dismissed by the Home Office and be removed.
My right hon. Friend mentioned people concocting and fabricating evidence, but, of course, that is the exact opposite of compelling evidence. Concocted evidence cannot amount to compelling evidence. It cannot be merely a bare assertion; it cannot even simply be a tweet, as he set out.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Roberts) for his amendments, his exchange and engagement and his constructive remarks. He was the first out of the blocks to get an amendment in. I am grateful to him for the way he set out amendment 1. We do assess that Rwanda is safe for those being relocated there for the reasons that I have given, but the terms of the treaty that we have negotiated with Rwanda address the findings of our domestic courts and make specific provision for the treatment of relocated individuals, guaranteeing their safety and protection. The implementation of those provisions in practice will be kept under review, exactly as he asked for. The independent monitoring committee, whose role was enhanced by the treaty, will look at it and ensure compliance with the obligations agreed.
I also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is worth considering article 4 of the treaty, because that means that in many scenarios, as is already the case, the Government can and will adapt and respond as necessary. On his other amendments, it is right that an individualised claim cannot be considered to the extent that it relates to whether Rwanda will, or may, remove or send the person in question to another state in contravention of its international obligations. That is already there, and
there is only an extremely limited route for individual challenge. However, removing judicial oversight until after a person has been removed to Rwanda in its totality and preventing interim relief even if they can show—however unlikely—a real, imminent and foreseeable risk is unlikely to be compatible with convention rights.
It is important to note that just this week—in fact, last night—the House passed legislation to add India and Georgia to the list of safe countries to which we will be able to return nationals with no right to be here. It is also worth pointing out that the Labour party is so divided on this that they could not even agree among themselves that India and Georgia are generally safe countries. It is no wonder that they cannot formulate an immigration policy.
I turn to some of the evidence from the World Justice Project’s rule of law index 2023, which mentions Rwanda. In fact, it lists 142 countries, from Denmark at No. 1 all the way down to the bottom. It is important to note that Georgia appears at No. 48 on the list and India at No. 79. The House has already passed legislation confirming that they are safe countries.