|
Listen now
|
The U.K government’s method of enforcing the controversial Rwanda deportation policy has been described as “unacceptable” by a House of Lords committee as it avoided parliamentary scrutiny and lacked legally enforceable safeguards on human rights.
When introducing the policy, the government opted to use a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the UK and Rwanda instead of a legally binding treaty.
This method meant the government could not ensure the humans rights of those affected were protected once they were sent to Rwanda.
The safeguards on individual rights which are written within the MoU were not legally enforceable and therefore those affected by the policy were not fully protected.
Sources in the Home Office are adamant that the monitoring arrangements within the MoU give the assurances that the arrangement would operate in line with international obligations but the report seen by ITV News is critical of the government’s approach.
It says the use of an MoU also avoided the need of parliamentary scrutiny which would have been required if an international treaty was signed.
Baroness Hayter, Chair of the International Agreements Committee in the House of Lords said that a legally enforceable treaty should have been the vehicle of choice when trying to introduce a policy of this nature.
“It is unacceptable that the government can avoid parliamentary scrutiny of important agreements with significant human rights implications by concluding such agreements as MoUs,” Baroness Hayter said.
“We regret that the government failed to respond to our call for evidence and did not submit evidence to our inquiry.”
The initial plan was for the government to send selected migrants that arrive in the UK illegally to Rwanda but the policy has come under significant issues from the offset.
No flights to Rwanda have since taken place and the High Court will now rule on whether the policy is legal.