Impact assessment

Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda: equality impact assessment

Updated 29 April 2024

Background

The Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) with Rwanda is part of the New Plan for Immigration (NPI) Programme.

The NPI programme vision is to:

• improve the fairness and efficacy of the UK immigration system so that those in genuine need of asylum can be better protected and supported;
• deter illegal entry into the UK, thereby breaking the business model of people smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger;
• remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here.

Our Partnership with Rwanda is part of a co-ordinated strategy with key actions across policy and operational workstreams and is designed to disincentivise dangerous and unnecessary journeys such as small boat crossings, save lives and prevent injuries, and increase public confidence in the government’s handling border security and wider immigration system.

It supports the NPI by disrupting the business model of organised crime gangs promoting trips to the UK by illegal, dangerous and unnecessary routes. People take appalling risks to enter the UK illegally, and will often undertake dangerous journeys to do so, when there are other opportunities to seek international protection in other countries through which they have transited This can include hiding in containers, hiding under or in lorries, or crossing the English Channel in a small boat.

The MEDP means those who have their asylum claim deemed as inadmissible and have made a dangerous and illegal journey to the UK since 1 January 2022 may be relocated to Rwanda for processing under the asylum system of that country. Those whose claims are successful would remain in Rwanda, while those who are unsuccessful would either depart voluntarily or gain another kind of status in Rwanda with equal treatment to those recognised as refugees. For those who are not recognised as refugees, Rwanda will consider whether the relocated individual has another humanitarian protection need, such that return to their country of origin would result in a real risk of their being subject to inhumane, degrading treatment or torture or a real risk to their life. No individual, including those who do not make a claim for protection in Rwanda, will be removed from Rwanda. This protects relocated individuals against the concept of “refoulement”.

Since its inception, the MEDP has been the subject of a judicial review, the findings from which have been reflected in ongoing work to date to strengthen assurances and ensure the safety of individuals relocated there under the terms of the Treaty.

Throughout the judicial review, the High (Divisional) Court and Court of Appeal both confirmed that the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the Refugee Convention and with the statutory and other legal obligations. This finding was undisturbed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 15 November 2023.

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s assessment that individuals relocated to Rwanda under the MEDP would not face a real risk of being removed to third countries where they would face ill-treatment (contrary to Article 3 ECHR). The Court of Appeal’s finding on that matter was upheld by the Supreme Court in its same judgment of 15 November 2023.

Since the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Home Office has obtained specific information and assurances from the Government of Rwanda to explicitly address the challenges raised by the claimants and UNHCR, acting as interveners, in the litigation. These assurances are primarily contained in newly established Standard Operating Procedures which reflect the assurances from Rwanda as to the treatment of relocated individuals, and the additional work the Home Office has taken to ensure the assurances contained in the Standard Operating Procedures are delivered in practice, including through training Rwandan officials and the monitoring mechanisms in place. The Home Office will continue to use the experience and expertise of the independent Monitoring Committee to reinforce this work, conduct real time monitoring and provide immediate escalation routes should concerns be identified.

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the UK-Rwanda Treaty

On 7 December 2023, the government introduced the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which received Royal Assent on 25 April 2024 and is now law. The Safety of Rwanda Act requires certain general principles to be applied when considering a claim from a person subject to removal to Rwanda. This includes key directives for decision makers:

• Rwanda should be conclusively treated as a safe country (section 2(1))
• the requirement to treat Rwanda as a safe country does not prevent you from considering claims that Rwanda is unsafe for the claimant in question based on their particular individual circumstances. Such a claim must be based on compelling evidence (section 4(1))
• you must not consider whether Rwanda will or may remove or send the person concerned to another State in contravention of its international obligations (section 4(2))

The Treaty agreed by the UK and Rwanda on 5 December 2023 strengthens the assurances set out in the Memorandum of Understanding that previously underpinned the partnership. This Treaty sets out how people being relocated to Rwanda under the partnership will be treated and supported throughout the relocation process and after they have arrived, through terms binding in international law. Under the partnership, the UK is providing funding so that Rwanda can ensure that each relocated individual is provided with accommodation and can ensure the health, security and wellbeing of the person regardless of their status after their arrival in Rwanda. The Treaty specifically addresses issue raised by the Supreme Court in their November 2023 judgment on the MEDP.

Under the partnership, the UK is providing funding so that Rwanda can ensure that each relocated individual is provided with accommodation and can ensure the health, security and wellbeing of the person regardless of their status after their arrival in Rwanda. Individuals who are removed to Rwanda under Operation Vector will receive the protections of the Treaty when it comes into force. The arrangement with Rwanda will include financial arrangements, as were previously in place for relocated individuals under the MEDP.

Changes to existing policies and processes will be made to effect removal as quickly as possible.

Country Information Notes (CINs)

Before entering the Partnership with Rwanda in 2022, the Home Office Country Policy and Information team (CPIT) carried out an assessment of the conditions in Rwanda for potential asylum processing under Rwandan laws and procedures, considering the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and equality issues. This report was published in May 2022. The Home Office has since published relevant Country Information Notes (CINs), presenting an objective and reliable assessment of the country-of-origin information considering ongoing assurance work by Home Office officials.

The CINs are available to read online: Rwanda: country policy and information notes - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

Where the CINs raise a number of discrete issues, there are mitigations, in particular:

• individuals will be given an opportunity to provide compelling evidence as to why relocation to Rwanda would not be safe in their particular circumstances.
• individuals will have access to legal advice and will be able to make representations. Representations will be taken into consideration and assessed against the facts at the relevant time, including (as relevant) our knowledge of the conditions in Rwanda.

Ongoing monitoring of the end-to-end operation under the Treaty between the UK and Rwanda on relocations which provides assurance that each individual and their claim will be treated in accordance with the arrangements.

Deferring removal where a judicial review (JR) is brought

Charter flights are currently subject to special arrangements with the courts which set out that removal will not necessarily be deferred if a JR is lodged. Those wishing to legally challenge their removal via a charter flight will normally be required to seek injunctive relief from the court. These special arrangements are not limited to charter removals, but policy guidance is being clarified to make it explicit that they can also be applied to scheduled flights where the person’s removal is to a safe third country designated in legislation. The Safety of Rwanda Act (Asylum and Immigration) (SORA) has declared Rwanda to be safe for the purposes of removing individuals to Rwanda and therefore persons being removed under the Partnership are unlikely to have a credible fear of being subjected to harm or ill treatment, and JRs will not need to suspend removal. This will apply if we choose to pursue enforced relocations via scheduled flights.

Voluntary departure

It is possible some people selected for removal to Rwanda may wish to pursue voluntary departure to their home country instead. After being detained for removal to Rwanda, any requests made by individuals to voluntarily return to their country of origin will not be accepted.

MPs’ representations

It is a long-standing parliamentary convention that MPs’ representations suspend removal until a case has been considered and a response issued to the MP. In practice, representations are responded to swiftly and do not usually delay removal. Given the novel nature of the SORB, we may expect future MEDP cases to attract significant attention from MPs, and responders may be overwhelmed by cases, causing a delay or removal to be cancelled pending a response. The process for responding to MPs’ representations will continue as usual in Op Vector cases, and responders have put in place a process to ensure responses are issues promptly.

Rule 39 interim measures

Section 5 of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 provides that a Minister of the Crown can decide whether to comply with a Rule 39 interim measure indicated by the European Court of Human Rights where a person is subject to removal to Rwanda. In the event that a Rule 39 is made by the ECtHR, the Home Secretary will assess, on a case-by-case basis, the individual circumstances and facts of the case before reaching a decision about whether to suspend removal.

Cohort selection

Existing MEDP cohort

Ministers have chosen to retain a cohort of people who were issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to treat their asylum claim as inadmissible and remove them to Rwanda under the safe third country inadmissibility processes following the coming into force of the Safety of Rwanda Act. Of the 5,700 people Rwanda has in principle agreed to accept, 2,143 continue to report to the Home Office and can be located for detention.

On 15 November 2023, the Supreme Court found that removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda was, based on the evidence reviewed at that time, unlawful. However, the Court recognised that changes could be made in the future to address its findings. In light of this, and as these individuals remain in scope for inadmissibility action, the Home Secretary decided to maintain a general pause in the making of inadmissibility decisions and associated further leave decisions at this time whilst work was completed to address the Court’s findings (including via the Safety of Rwanda Act and the Treaty with Rwanda, as above). This specifically relates to the group of individuals who arrived in the UK on or after 1st January 2022 and who received a Notice of Intent prior to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in AAA v SSHD (on 29 June 2023) which informed them that their asylum claim may be considered inadmissible and that they may be removed to Rwanda.

We did not assess there to be a significant impact of this delay on individuals with protected characteristics specifically, and the delay can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim to maintain the cohort of individuals who may be eligible for relocation.

The Home Office committed to resuming decision making in respect of this group upon the coming into force of the Safety of Rwanda Act and the UK-Rwanda Treaty, at which point removals of individuals in this group to Rwanda can take place.

1. Summary of the evidence considered in demonstrating due regard to the Public-Sector Equality Duty

Treaty between the UK and Rwanda - Monitoring Committee for the MEDP - UK-Rwanda treaty: provision of an asylum partnership - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Joint Committee for the MEDP - Joint Committee: Migration and Economic Development Partnership - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Home Office asylum data - https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets

Inadmissibility: Safe Third Country Cases (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inadmissibility-third-country-cases)

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act: supporting documents including the Country Information Notes: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill-supporting-evidence

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act: MEDP governance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill-medp-governance

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act: these documents relate to the safety of Rwanda (including Policy Statement published January 2024: The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

New Plan for Immigration Consultation: Project • Consultation on the New Plan for Immigration

NEW PLAN FOR IMMIGRATION - Consultation on the New Plan for Immigration: Government Response (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Reactions to the New Plan for Immigration: updated reading list (parliament.uk)

Irregular migration statistics to the UK (including small boat statistics): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-september-2023/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-september-2023

UNHCR - https://www.unhcr.org/asylum-in-the-uk.html

WHO - https://www.who.int/mental_health/resources/mh_refugees_1996/en/

Equalities Act 2010 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Article 3 of the ECHR - https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, (Application no. 47287/15; judgment 21 November 2019), paras 139 – 14. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-198760%22]}

Section 55 the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/11/section/55

Debate, House of Lords Nationality and Borders Act. February 8, 2022: Nationality and Borders Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament

Debate, House of Lords Nationality and Borders Bill, Amendment 35. March 02 2022: Amendment 35: 2 Mar 2022: House of Lords debates - TheyWorkForYou

UNHCR “Legal Considerations regarding access to protection and a connection between the refugee and the third country in the context of return or transfer to safe third countries” 2018. https://www.refworld.org/docid/5acb33ad4.html

UNHCR, Summary Conclusions on the Concept of “Effective Protection” in the Context of Secondary Movements of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers (Lisbon Expert Roundtable, 9-10 December 2002), February 2003, para. 15(e), http://www.refworld.org/docid/3fe9981e4.html

AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0048-judgment.pdf.

Constitution of Rwanda: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (wipo.int)

2a. Consideration of limb 1 of the duty: Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act.

Since the Supreme Court decision regarding the UK and Rwanda partnership, the Home Office has produced and published a Policy Statement to support parliamentary scrutiny of the Safety of Rwanda Act, alongside two relevant Country Information Notes (CINs). They are (1) on Rwanda: Human Rights; and (2) on Rwanda: Asylum System. The CINs contain objective and impartial country information that has been used to inform our continuing assessment, as set out at section 2(1) of the Safety of Rwanda Act, that Rwanda is a generally safe country for relocated individuals. Details of key areas of Rwanda’s governance and arrangements which informed this overall assessment are available here: Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: supporting evidence - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). The Policy Statement reflects evidence from a wide range of organisations and acknowledges that Rwanda is a relatively peaceful country with respect for the rule of law, although it does note some issues with its human rights record around political opposition to the current regime, dissent and free speech.

However, it is notable that there is no evidence from the sources consulted that asylum seekers or refugees are considered by the Rwandan government to be of negative interest on grounds of their demographic or origin and that most reports of alleged human rights violations are against Rwandan nationals who are critics of the government.

Rwanda has domestic laws in place safeguarding treatment of persons (e.g., non-discrimination provisions in the Constitution) and has established a National Commission for Human Rights meeting the Paris Principles (‘Principles Relating to the Status of National Human Rights Institutions’). There are also a number of international and national NGOs registered in Rwanda supporting refugees. More detail is available in the CINs.

The Home Office does not transfer an asylum seeker to a third country prior to refugee status determination unless it has determined the receiving state is “safe”. There are two facets to this: first, the positive obligation on the sending State to carry out an up-to-date assessment of the relative conditions of the receiving State to ensure it is safe (a general objective test); and second, the individual must be given the opportunity to demonstrate the receiving State will not be safe for them personally (an individualised test).  

We would only ever work with countries which we assess to be safe and will treat those transferred in accordance with our international obligations. Even where we determine it is generally safe to transfer people from the UK to our international partners, every individual in scope for asylum processing overseas under the MEDP would be able to rely on the UK’s and Rwanda’s obligations under the Treaty, so as not to be transferred to a place where they would genuinely be at risk of inhumane and degrading treatment. The Safety of Rwanda Act does restrict the ability of the courts to grant interim remedies which delay or prevent removal to cases where a person faces a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed to Rwanda, but again the Treaty sets out the obligations to be met by Rwanda.

The Home Office would therefore undertake a case-by-case assessment when considering enforced removal. This means individual vulnerabilities will be taken into consideration and assessed against our knowledge of the conditions in Rwanda. No one will be removed to Rwanda if there is compelling evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country for the person in question due to their particular circumstances. Article 13 of the Treaty provides that Rwanda shall have regard to information provided about a Relocated Individual relating to any special needs that may arise as a result of their being a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that these needs are accommodated. For the purposes of Article 13(1), Rwanda agrees to treat as a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking a Relocated Individual who has received a positive reasonable grounds decision made by the United Kingdom (in those cases where the United Kingdom is not obliged to make a conclusive grounds decision prior to removal).

The independent Monitoring Committee, which was introduced as part of the original arrangement in 2022, will monitor the entire relocation process to ensure it is consistent with the approach set out in the Treaty, agreed and ratified by both countries, which provides assurances that their claims will be dealt with in accordance with the Treaty binding in international law. The Monitoring Committee will, therefore, provide an authoritative and independent source of evidence of how relocated individuals are treated and identify any issues that need to be addressed to maintain the successful and lawful operationalisation of the partnership. 

The UK is funding the processing costs for each individual relocated regardless of the outcome of their claim (including if they do not make a claim) once in Rwanda. This includes caseworkers, access to legal advice, translators, accommodation, food, healthcare and a comprehensive integration package including up to five years of training to help with integration.

We will keep equalities impacts under review throughout the operational phase and lifetime of the partnership.

There are two overarching issues which are worth bearing in mind when reading the analysis that follows:

i) We do not consider relocation to Rwanda to be a penalty. Those who will be relocated are, by their own admission by seeking to apply for asylum in the UK, fleeing persecution and/or danger. They have made a dangerous journey to get here. We have demonstrated how people will be provided with a full package of protection.

ii) Everyone who arrives in the UK via illegal, dangerous and unnecessary routes and who is deemed inadmissible to the UK asylum process are potentially eligible for relocation. This excludes Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) who cannot be deemed inadmissible. There is therefore, apart from the narrow exception of UASC, no direct discrimination in how the policy will operate.

iii) Policy changes put in place remove barriers to removal – i.e. clarifying in guidance that removal will not necessarily be deferred where a JR is brought applies to scheduled, as well as charter flights and the Home Secretary’s assessment, on a case-by-case basis, about whether to suspend removal when a Rule 39 is made – will apply equally to the cohort selected and equalities considerations are made on that basis.

If the relocation of people to Rwanda, and other related policies on hazardous journeys, successfully deters people from making dangerous journeys to arrive in the UK without permission, then we can expect fewer and fewer people to be eligible for relocation.  People instead will claim asylum in other safe countries that they otherwise would have passed through to get to the UK or come through our safe and legal routes to the UK. The number of people transferred under the partnership will decrease over time due to the expected deterrent effect meaning fewer people will seek to make illegal and dangerous journeys here. As with all policies, its efficacy will be kept under review.

Age

Direct Discrimination

We are not considering relocating Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking (UASC) Children to Rwanda according to our policy and legal framework. Their claim will be processed in the UK. In the UK in 2022, 7% of asylum claims are made by unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

There is a direct impact on people according to their age. This differential treatment is considered justified given the particular care and support needs of UASC. Differential treatments on the grounds of age can be justified on this basis. We do not therefore consider there to be unlawful direct discrimination on the basis of age in the operation of this policy. It may be harder for children to understand the necessary procedures, contact authorities in safe third countries/offshore, and understand the consequences of entering the UK indirectly or not making an asylum claim without delay.

Excluding UASC, people of all ages are potentially eligible for relocation. At least initially, families with children will only be relocated voluntarily as part of family groups and in any event will not be in the first cohorts of relocated individuals. A further assessment of Rwanda’s capacity to accommodate children will be undertaken before this occurs.

Indirect Discrimination

Individuals making a clandestine journey to the UK are more likely to be young adults compared to other routes. In 2022, there were over 45,000 recorded arrivals in small boats to the UK, all of whom had travelled through other EU countries. 74% of those arriving in 2022 were aged between 18-39 (76% in 2023).

Therefore, the on those aged between 18-39. However, as one of the policy’s key aims would be to deter individuals from undertaking dangerous small boat journeys, and younger adult individuals are more likely to have used this method of entry, we consider any disadvantage to the 18-39 cohort to be justified as a proportionate means of achieving the policy’s aim, which is to discourage dangerous journeys to reach the UK.

In cases where there may be delays to the decision-making process as to whether to keep an individual in a cohort under consideration for relocation to Rwanda, we have considered such a delay may have an indirect impact on those individuals of a more advanced age due to relevant other characteristics such as health or disability. Just over 7% of recorded arrivals in small boats in 2022 were over the age of 40(10% in 2023); however, a far smaller fraction of those will be of an advanced age and are therefore less likely to be impacted by the policy.

Disability

Direct Discrimination

We have not identified any direct discrimination on the basis of disability as a result of this policy.

Indirect Discrimination

If an individual is eligible under the policy, then they may be relocated to Rwanda. Rwandan law prohibits discrimination against any person with a physical, sensory, intellectual or mental disability and the government generally enforces these provisions. The duty of care of the state to persons with disabilities and the prohibition of discrimination are set out in the Constitution of Rwanda in Articles 10, 16 and 51.

Each relocated individual in Rwanda will have access to quality preventative and curative primary and secondary healthcare services, free of charge, that are at least of the standard available to Rwandan nationals.

Considering physical or other disabilities, we may decide where a person faces a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm (if removed to Rwanda) that they are not suitable for relocation.

Rwanda will also be able to indicate in advance if they did not feel they would be able to provide adequate in-country care for any individual because of their specific health needs.

We will also assess whether disability-related adjustments or arrangements can be requested from Rwanda for a particular relocated individual to enable their transfer. This might include wheelchair accessible accommodation or advanced preparation of medical or psychological treatment (such as insulin).

These mitigations ensure that no-one will be transferred to Rwanda where it would result in them being unsafe (in cases where there is compelling evidence relating to a person’s individual circumstances). To the extent that this results in indirect differential impacts in favour of people with certain disabilities, this is considered justifiable given their particular needs, and the important aim of the policy in deterring dangerous journeys to the UK.

In cases where there may be delays to the decision-making process as to whether to keep an individual in a cohort under consideration for relocation to Rwanda, we have considered such a delay may have an indirect impact on those individuals with disabilities, in particular pre-existing mental health conditions which may be exacerbated by the continued pause to decision-making.

While individuals remain in the UK, pending a decision as to whether their asylum claim is inadmissible in the UK, they can continue to access healthcare, including psychological treatment.

Gender Reassignment

Direct Discrimination

We have not identified any direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment as a result of this policy.

Indirect Discrimination

If an individual is eligible under the policy, then they may be relocated to Rwanda. There is evidence of a general lack of societal acceptance of it in comparison with the UK where some report that they have faced discrimination and harassment.

The constitution of Rwanda includes a broad prohibition of discrimination and does not criminalise or discriminate against sexual orientation in law, policy or practice.  However, the CINs suggest that transgender and intersex persons may face some discrimination in practice.

The visibility of gender as opposed to sexuality issues may place transgender women at greater risk of ill-treatment. These factors and any medical needs for people who are or who wish to undergo gender reassignment will be considered and where a person faces a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm, it may be decided that they are not suitable for relocation to Rwanda. Article 3(1) of the Treaty provides that the obligations under the agreement will be met in respect of all relocated individuals without discrimination.

Section 19(2) of the Equality Act 2010 provides that indirect discrimination may be justified where differential treatment can be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, in this case the principle of deterring dangerous and illegal journeys. As each person’s claim will be considered on a case-by-case basis, to the extent that a decision is taken in respect of a person who possesses this characteristic which results in differential treatment that advantages them as compared to those who do not possess it, this is considered justifiable given their particular needs.

Marriage and Civil Partnership

Direct Discrimination

This policy would apply to all regardless of marital status, therefore we have not identified any direct discrimination due to marital status.

Indirect Discrimination

We are not aware of any evidence which indicates this provision will result in indirect impacts or differential treatment for those with the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership.

Pregnancy and Maternity

Direct Discrimination

We have not identified any direct discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristics of pregnancy and maternity.

Indirect Discrimination

While we have not identified that the policy results in any indirect discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or maternity, as with other medical requirements, we will consider what safeguards could be put in place with Rwanda to provide for the needs of pregnant people. Were proper mitigations found to be lacking, we would consider whether pregnant people were suitable for relocation, on a case-by-case basis, before potentially initiating that person’s relocation.

To the extent that this results in indirect differential impacts in favour of pregnant people, this is considered justifiable given their particular needs and the important aim of the policy in deterring dangerous journeys to the UK.

Race

Direct Discrimination

This policy would apply to all regardless of race, therefore we have not identified any direct discrimination on the basis of race as a result of this policy. Those with the right of abode in the UK would not be eligible for relocation, but as they are not eligible to claim asylum in the UK we do not consider them to be in a comparable situation to those who do claim asylum.

Indirect Discrimination

Individuals making clandestine journeys to the UK are more likely to be of certain nationalities compared to other routes. As this policy has been developed as a response to these journeys, it more likely to impact on certain nationalities than others. For example, between January 2018 and September 2023, five nationalities accounted for around three quarters of arrivals by small boats: Afghanistan (19.5%), Iran (10.5%), Turkey (10%), Eritrea (9.6%) and Iraq (8.2%).  

Therefore, the policy may indirectly have a greater impact on individuals based on the protected characteristic of race, including nationality, ethnicity or national origin or colour. However, anyone arriving in the UK via dangerous and illegal routes may be eligible under the policy. We would also consider any disadvantage to be justified on the basis of it being a proportionate means of achieving the policy’s legitimate aim to deter individuals from making perilous journeys.

If an individual is eligible under the policy, they may be relocated to Rwanda. Although Rwanda has a good record of accepting refuges, the CINs suggest that the overwhelming majority of refugees living there come from neighbouring countries: 62.5% from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 36.9% from Burundi, 0.2% from Eritrea and 0.3% from other countries. The integration into society of asylum seekers or refugees of certain nationalities, national or ethnic origins or colour thus presents a potential new challenge to Rwanda. However, discrimination on the grounds of race is prohibited by the Rwandan Constitution (as set out in Article 16 of the Constitution) and the Treaty between the UK and Rwanda does not exclude the transfer of asylum seekers or refugees based on race. Variable treatment or experiences of relocated persons based on their nationality, ethnic or national origins or colour will be kept under close review.

Religion or Belief

Direct Discrimination

This policy would apply to all regardless of religion or belief, therefore we have not identified any direct discrimination on the basis of religion or belief as a result of this policy

Indirect Discrimination

Individuals making a clandestine journey to the UK are more likely to be of Muslim faith compared to other routes. Therefore, the policy may indirectly have a greater impact on those of Muslim faith. However, we consider that any disadvantage is justified on the basis that it is a proportionate means of achieving the policy’s legitimate aim to deter individuals from making such perilous journeys.

If an individual is eligible under the policy, then they may be relocated to Rwanda. The majority of the population in Rwanda are Christian, as are the majority of refugees who come from neighbouring countries. However, Article 31 of the Constitution of Rwanda prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion and guarantees freedom of worship. There are mosques in Rwanda, mainly situated in the capital city of Kigali. We are engaging with Rwanda to ensure that places of worship are available near to the intended accommodation centres for relocated persons.

Sex

Direct Discrimination

This policy would apply to all regardless of sex, therefore we have not identified any direct discrimination on the basis of sex as a result of this policy. Further, we have not identified any direct discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristics of pregnancy and maternity.

Indirect Discrimination

As an example, 87% of those arriving via small boat from January - end September 2023 was male. Therefore, this policy, which aims to deter people from undertaking such dangerous journeys, may indirectly have a greater impact on men. However, we consider that any disadvantage is justified on the basis that it is a proportionate means of achieving the policy’s legitimate aim to deter people from making perilous journeys.

If an individual is eligible under the policy, they may be relocated to Rwanda. The Constitution of Rwanda prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex and states the principle of equality between men and women. The CINs suggest the general experience of women in Rwanda is generally good, however they also identified that there are risks of Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) against women and children. The CINs suggest this points more strongly to domestic (spousal, and inter-family) abuse. To manage this risk, monitoring arrangements will be in place and may obtain information of any reported incidents in the transferee cohort.

Rwanda is committed to tackling the problem through different means, including educational, protective and support measures. Those measures are equally available and accessible to asylum seekers and refugees as they are to Rwanda nationals.

The mitigations in place will ensure that no one will be transferred to Rwanda where it would result in them being unsafe. To the extent that this results in indirect discrimination, this is considered to be justified on the basis of particular needs and that it is a proportionate means of achieving the policy’s legitimate aim of deterring people from making perilous journeys.

Further, we will continue to consider variable impacts on the treatment of men and women in Rwanda as the programme develops further. Moreover, UK funding will support Rwanda’s ‘National Strategy for Transformation’ which sets to strengthen and promote gender equality.

Sexual Orientation

Direct Discrimination

As this policy would apply to all regardless of sexual orientation, we have not identified any direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Indirect Discrimination

No indirect impact flowing from an individual’s sexual orientation status has been identified in the process of selecting and relocating individuals, but this will be kept under review.

If an individual is eligible under the policy, then they may be relocated to Rwanda. The CINs found that no Rwandan laws criminalise sexual orientation or consensual same-sex acts between adults. Although sexual orientation is not specifically a prohibited ground for differential treatment under the country’s constitution, various other constitutional and legal safeguards exist to ensure that every citizen’s fundamental rights are respected.

At this stage, investigations point to ill treatment being more than a one off, but it does not appear to be systemic. To manage this risk, monitoring arrangements will be in place and will take into account further enquiries. Article 3(1) of the Treaty between the UK and Rwanda provides that the obligations in this Agreement shall be met in respect of all Relocated Individuals without discrimination.

The Rwandan Government is committed to eradicating such victimisation, but the wider societal acceptance is likely to take some time to arrive at. That is even more the case for those who have undergone or are undergoing gender reassignment, who are also more liable to sexual and gender-based violence.

A person’s sexual orientation and gender reassignment status will be closely considered on a case-by-case basis to decide if they may be suitable for relocation to Rwanda.  Ongoing monitoring arrangements will ensure relevant individuals are being treated no less favourably than other relocated individuals during the asylum process. The Treaty between the UK and Rwanda makes provisions for an independent Monitoring Committee who will report on the treatment and support of relocated individuals at all times whilst they remain in Rwanda.

2b. Consideration of limb 2: Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

As with limb 1, the overarching aim of the policy is to stop people from making dangerous journeys to the UK to claim asylum, but to claim asylum in a safe third country prior to reaching the UK or to apply for relocation from the affected region under existing safe routes. The policy applies to everyone except UASC.

An individualised assessment of suitability for relocation will be undertaken for each individual, taking into account any representations made as to why they should or should not be transferred. The extent of the diminishment in opportunities resulting from a person sharing a protected characteristic or characteristics will be carefully considered in each relocation decision.

Age – Children under 18 who arrive in the UK will not be considered for relocation.

Disability – Mental and physical disabilities will be taken into account in any relocation decision, and will depend on both the severity of the disability and the facilities in Rwanda. Depending on the severity, it may be that those with specific disabilities are less likely to be relocated if facilities and conditions in Rwanda mean that they cannot be adequately supported.

Gender Reassignment – Gender reassignment will be taken into account in any relocation decision. In relation to Rwanda, we will continue to consider the impact on this group and take into account any future CPIT assessment.

Maternity and Pregnancy – Maternity and pregnancy conditions will be taken into account in any relocation decision. In relation to Rwanda, we will continue to consider the impact on this group.

Race – As analysed above, the pool of people using clandestine routes may mean that relocations could disproportionately impact those of certain races and nationalities.  However, we would consider this to be justified on the basis that it is a proportionate means of achieving the policy’s aim to deter individuals from making such perilous journeys.

Religion or Belief – As analysed above, the pool of people using clandestine routes may mean that relocations could disproportionately impact those of Muslim faith.  However, we would consider this to be justified on the basis that it is a proportionate means of achieving the policy’s aim to deter individuals from making such perilous journeys.

Sex – The proposals are neutral on equality of opportunity between people of a particular sex and those of a different sex.

Sexual Orientation – Sexual orientation of individuals will be considered in any relocation. Each case will be assessed to ensure that there is no compelling evidence relating to a person’s individual circumstances that would make Rwanda unsafe for them. As analysed in the CINs, there are some concerns over the treatment of some LGBTQI+ people, but we will continue to consider the impact on this group and take into account further evidence over the course of the partnership as well as the monitoring arrangements that will be in place.

2c. Consideration of limb 3: Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

We have considered the impact of fostering good relations between relocated people who share protected characteristics and persons who do not. There may be some perception of unfairness between the two in the way they are treated; however, these decisions would be based on an individual assessment of each case, based on detailed knowledge of conditions in Rwanda and information known and provided by each person being considered for inclusion under the MEDP. Suitability for relocation will be kept under constant review.

The purpose of the policy is to deter people from making illegal, dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK and tackle the exploitation of these people by criminal smuggling gangs. People seeking asylum should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach rather than traveling onwards to the UK and potentially funding criminal enterprise. If the policy is effective in achieving this, it will benefit those who share any of the protected characteristics, in that it saves them risking their lives on perilous journeys and ensures they seek protection in other safe countries.

As set out above, we do not consider that relocation to Rwanda, for those who do arrive here via perilous journeys and claim asylum, makes them worse off than if they had stayed in the country from where they travelled to the UK and their protection needs will still be considered as they would in any other safe third country. The agreement requires Rwanda to process claims in accordance with the UN Refugee Convention, ensuring protection from inhumane and degrading treatment, and for those recognised as having a protection need, from being returned to the place they originally fled or other refoulement.

Following the announcement of the MEDP, we note that stakeholders have expressed their views and concerns. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders through our existing communication and engagement channels.

Age – Children under 18 who arrive in the UK unaccompanied will not be considered for relocation. As those eligible would be those who arrived through a clandestine route, it is likely that these will be younger people between the ages of 18 – 39. In 2022, there were over 45,000 recorded arrivals in small boats to the UK, all of whom had travelled through other EU countries. 74% of those arriving in 2022 were aged between 18-39. Around one-sixth (18%) have been children aged 17 and under. We would consider this to be justified on the basis that it is a proportionate means of achieving the policy’s aim to deter individuals from making such perilous journeys.

Disability – The proposal is neutral on fostering good relations between people who share the protected characteristic of disability and people who do not share it.

Gender Reassignment – The proposal is neutral on fostering good relations between people who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment status and people who do not share it.

Maternity and Pregnancy – The proposal is generally neutral on fostering good relations between people who share the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity status and people who do not share it.

Race – This policy is likely to have a greater impact on certain nationalities, particularly people of colour. However, it is important to deter migrants from putting their lives at risk and intervention and action are required to promote public confidence in the security of the UK borders. Where possible, care will be taken to fostering good relations between people who share the protected characteristic of race and people who do not share it.

Religion or Belief – The proposal is generally neutral on fostering good relations between people of different religions (and none).

Sex – The proposals are neutral on equality of opportunity between men and women.

Sexual Orientation – The proposals are neutral on equality of opportunity between people of any particular sexual orientation and people who do not share that sexual orientation.

3. Summary of foreseeable impacts of policy proposal, guidance or operational activity on people who share protected characteristics

Protected Characteristic Group	Potential for Positive or Negative Impact?	Explanation	Action to address negative impact
Age	Neutral	Relocated persons are likely to be younger. Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children will be exempt.	It is important that anyone arriving illegally in the UK may be eligible in order to deter migrants from putting their lives at risk. As a result, there may be some unintended residual impacts to younger people. We will keep these residual impacts under review.
Disability	Neutral	No impact identified. The CPIT reports state that Rwandan law prohibits discrimination against any person with a physical, sensory, intellectual, or mental disability. The Treaty makes provisions for sharing any health issues it is necessary for Rwanda to know before receiving an individual and we would liaise directly to ensure we are satisfied that Rwanda is able to provide suitable care.	Each case will be assessed to ensure that there is no compelling evidence relating to a person’s individual circumstances that would make Rwanda unsafe for them.
Gender Reassignment	Negative	The CPIT evidence indicates that transgender persons who are likely to be more visible than others in this group may face greater risk of ill-treatment such as arbitrary arrests and detention as well as degrading treatment.	We would undertake a case-by-case assessment when determining suitability for relocation.  Each case will be assessed to ensure that there is no compelling evidence relating to a person’s individual circumstances that would make Rwanda unsafe for them
Pregnancy and Maternity	Neutral	No impact identified	We would undertake a case-by-case assessment when determining a pregnant person’s relocation. Each case will be assessed to ensure that there is no compelling evidence relating to a person’s individual circumstances that would make Rwanda unsafe for them.
Race	Neutral	The impacted cohort will be comprised more commonly of certain nationalities than others.	It is important that anyone arriving illegally in the UK may be eligible in order to deter migrants from putting their lives at risk. As a result, there may be some unintended residual impacts to certain nationalities. We will keep these residual impacts under review.
Religion or Belief	Neutral	The impacted cohort will be comprised more commonly of certain religions than others.	As part of arrangement, we have taken adequate care to ensure people relocated will have ability to worship in their desired faith both in principle and practically.
Sex	Neutral	This policy would apply to all regardless of sex, however the impacted cohort is comprised more commonly of men.	It is important that anyone arriving illegally in the UK may be eligible in order to deter migrants from putting their lives at risk. We will keep these residual impacts under review.
Sexual Orientation	Neutral	Individuals will be relocated on a case-by-case basis.  A person’s sexual orientation and gender reassignment status will be closely taken into account in any decision to select a person for relocation to Rwanda.	We would undertake a case-by-case assessment when determining suitability for relocation. Each case will be assessed to ensure that there is no compelling evidence relating to a person’s individual circumstances that would make Rwanda unsafe for them. Monitoring arrangements will be utilised to ensure we can monitor individuals are being treated no less favourably due to the sexual orientation than other individuals during the asylum process. We will monitor carefully to ensure negative impact do not emerge.

4. In light of the overall policy objective, are there any ways to avoid or mitigate any of the negative impacts that you have identified above?

As the policy develops and progresses to the operational stage, we will continue to consider the implications under the three limbs of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

5. Review date

The equality implications of the policy will be kept under review in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

6. Declaration

I have read the available evidence, and I am satisfied that this demonstrates compliance, where relevant, with Section 149 of the Equality Act and that due regard has been made to the need to: eliminate unlawful discrimination; advance equality of opportunity; and foster good relations.

Policy Unit: Migration & Borders Group

Date: 28 April 2024