I gave the noble Baroness a list of the recommendations, or the proposed amendments to the rules, but I do not see them as answering all of the concerns which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, expressed, and with which I agree. The question of the ability to go to court directly after an indication has been made, or an interim interdict or injunction in our jurisdictions has been granted, and to argue the point with the court, does not form part of the reforms to the direct ability to challenge which the Strasbourg court has announced.
10.30 pm
The rules will also confirm the practice of the Strasbourg court of granting measures in exceptional circumstances where there is a risk of irreparable harm. The United Kingdom has responded formally to the court’s consultation on these measures. While we welcome the review conducted by the court and the changes to be implemented, this does not remove the need for Clause 5—that interim measures should be decided on by a Minister of the Crown and that the court must not take them into account.
To conclude, Clause 5 makes it clear that it is for a Minister of the Crown to personally make the decision about whether to comply with a Rule 39 interim measure indicated by the Strasbourg court. The Minister will be accountable to Parliament for the exercise of that personal discretion. It makes it clear that domestic courts may not have regard to the existence of any interim measure when considering any domestic application or appeal following a decision to remove a person to Rwanda in accordance with the treaty. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord German, to withdraw his amendment.