Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation bill could be forced on to the statute books without fulfilling the government’s legal commitment to independent scrutiny, the former borders watchdog has told peers.
David Neal, who was sacked last month as the chief inspector for borders and immigration, said the government had failed to publish his report examining the conditions for asylum seekers in the east African country.
The government could also be months away from appointing a new watchdog to examine the implications of the bill and recent conditions in Rwanda, Neal said, with ministers hoping to send asylum seekers there within weeks.
MPs voted overwhelmingly on Monday to throw out a series of amendments to the safety of Rwanda (asylum) bill by the House of Lords.
Sunak’s policy faces further delays, with Labour peers expected to oppose the government’s plans in a crucial vote on Wednesday.
In an appearance before the Lords’ justice committee on Tuesday, Neal said the government had not yet published his country report on conditions for refugees in Rwanda, work commissioned under the Borders Act 2007.
“The Rwanda country information report which was subject to supreme court scrutiny has not been published and that work has been done. That’s a particular problem,” he said.
Government insiders have said it could take months to appoint a new commissioner. Neal said this could mean that the new Rwanda bill was not scrutinised by an independent watchdog.
“Perhaps most importantly in this week, the new material for Rwanda will be without scrutiny. It has been suggested to me – although I haven’t seen the evidence – that perhaps that’s why I wasn’t reappointed. Perhaps it was too risky to reappoint someone who can have oversight of that material,” he said.
The Lords’ justice committee, which was examining the safety of the UK’s borders, questioned Neal about the quality of data used by the Home Office. Neal, who was sacked after speaking out over the safety of e-Borders, said recent Guardian revelations about “merged identities” showed the Home Office needed to have a fallback position if systems went wrong.
“There was a piece in the Guardian last week saying something like 76,000 files had been corrupted. So therefore anything that is using technology needs to have a fallback position that can be done by personnel. The rush to have things automated is good but not if the data quality is poor. And I have said before that the quality of data is poor in the Home Office,” he told peers.
Government sources said ministers hoped to remove a small cohort of asylum seekers within weeks of the bill being passed into law under Sunak’s Rwanda deal, which will cost at least £500m. The Rwandan government has asked for asylum seekers to be “staggered” so it can prepare for them.
Sunak’s asylum plan, which will aim to send people from countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Iran 4,000 miles to Kigali, relies on MPs and peers agreeing a version of the bill in the coming weeks. If passed, it would give ministers the power to ignore any emergency injunctions issued by Strasbourg aimed at stopping flights taking off.
The House of Lords has the opportunity to “work with the government” and stop people-smuggling after the Commons overturned amendments to the Rwanda bill, Downing Street has said.
The prime minister’s official spokesperson said: “Not acting, in the government’s view, is not an option and it certainly wouldn’t be a compassionate route.
“We want to end the business of people-smuggling and ensure that vulnerable people are not lured into making the perilous journey across the Channel, so there’s an opportunity for the Lords to work with the government this week and pass this bill.”
Asked whether the prime minister thought the House of Lords was “out of touch”, the spokesperson said he would not characterise peers in that way.
