In view of the time, I wish to focus what I say on the second part of amendment 3G(8). It is clear that Lord Hope has drawn attention to a flaw in the Bill’s logic. We all understand that it is about parliamentary sovereignty, but if declaring Rwanda safe in the first instance is a matter for Parliament then why is determining whether it remains safe not also a matter for Parliament? Yet the Bill covers only the first determination of safety and provides no mechanism for Parliament to change its mind if circumstances change, save for primary legislation, which we need Government to introduce.
My quarrel with the noble Lord Hope’s amendments has been that, whereas the theme of this Bill is parliamentary authority, the earlier forms of his amendments give effective authority on the safety of Rwanda to the monitoring committee, because its conclusion on treaty compliance will be determinative of the question of safety. The later versions of Lord Hope’s amendments, however, would transfer authority to Ministers to determine —presumably on the advice of the monitoring committee —that Rwanda is no longer safe, and to make a statement to that effect. I do not think that is perfect either. I still think that for the Bill to have inherent logical consistency, it should be for Parliament to decide whether Rwanda remains safe in changed circumstances—not the monitoring committee or a Minister—but how much latitude Parliament would have in deciding whether Rwanda remains safe in changed circumstances rather depends on the point I raised in an intervention on the Minister.
4.45 pm
If adherence to the treaty is evidence contributing to an assessment of whether Rwanda remains safe but is not wholly determinative of the question of safety, it remains possible, if unlikely, that Parliament would consider non-compliance but none the less decide that Rwanda remains safe for the purposes of the Bill. If the only consideration on safety is the question of compliance with the treaty, Rwanda cannot remain safe if it is in breach of the treaty. We need to be clear on which of the two it is, but either way—determinative or not—if Parliament is to be the sovereign decision maker, it must know of non-adherence to the treaty, and directly or indirectly the monitoring committee is the body that can tell us.
It seems to me that we must look at Lords amendment 3G in the light of this late stage in proceedings. We cannot keep batting the Bill backwards and forwards across the building. As I said, I do not think that the
amendment is the best way to solve the problem that Parliament has no mechanism available to it to change its mind if the facts change, but with all due respect to the Minister, whom I hold in high regard, the Government have not come up with a better alternative. He leaves me little place to go other than to support the amendment, if he cannot propose a better way of resolving this deficiency.