Does the bill satisfy Conservative MPs?

Where does the bill lie on the scale between full fat and skimmed? It’s probably semi skimmed. It does not go to the extremes favoured by Suella Braverman, so as to exclude all forms of court challenge. Evidently it has not satisfied Robert Jenrick, who resigned as immigration minister. But it does disapply relevant aspects of international law and potentially puts the UK in breach of its treaty obligations, in particular under the ECHR.

So the bill may face resistance or amendment both from MPs who think it doesn’t go far enough, and from those who think it goes too far, particularly in overriding international law. The House of Lords might also give it a going-over on those grounds.

There is an irony in the government relying on the binding nature of one international treaty to solve the Rwanda problem, while at the same time overriding others which it judges to get in the way. It seems that point has occurred to the Rwandan government itself, which has said it is not prepared to continue with the deal unless the UK complies with international law.

Could there be further court challenges?

Even if the treaty is ratified and (which is less certain) the bill is passed in its current form, there may well be further court challenges. As mentioned, the bill allows claims under section 4 of the Human Rights Act and certain challenges based on an individual’s particular circumstances.  

It is not impossible to imagine other forms of challenge, for example if compelling evidence emerges that the Rwandan authorities are systematically departing from the standards set by the treaty. The Supreme Court made clear that “significant changes” needed to be made to Rwanda’s “procedures, understanding and culture”. It said “the necessary changes may not be straightforward” and doubted whether they could be achieved “in the short term”. What if, despite the treaty, there is significant evidence of things going wrong in Rwanda, of asylum seekers slipping through the net and being subject to refoulement or otherwise mistreated? In that case, the argument might run, parliament (even by the strong deeming provision in clause 2 of the bill) cannot have intended to obliterate real-life evidence of serious human rights abuses.  

In any event, as mentioned there remains the possibility of claimants going to Strasbourg, of that court making orders to prevent removal to Rwanda – and of the UK government ignoring them.

Both in parliament and the courts there could still be choppy waters ahead.