The Rwandan deportation bill faced its biggest setback yet, as Rishi Sunak experienced a major defeat in the House of Lords when the archbishop of Canterbury and former Conservative ministers united with the opposition to pass five amendments.
The pattern of obstacles faced by the government, with many receiving approval by a vast majority of approximately 100 votes, indicates that the proposed legislation, which seeks to facilitate the transfer of asylum seekers to Kigali, will need to be reconsidered by the House of Commons.
The prime minister has previously cautioned the unelected chamber from impeding the progress of his asylum and immigration bill, which has been endorsed by MPs, as it would go against the “will of the people”.
Sunak has prioritized halting the arrival of boats as a major promise of his leadership. However, he has faced numerous obstacles, such as the bill being challenged in court. Recently, auditors stated that shipping 300 migrants to Rwanda will incur a cost of £1.8 million.
The proposed law and agreement with Rwanda aim to avoid any additional legal disputes regarding the halted deportation plan, following the supreme court’s decision that it was invalid.
The legislation not only requires judges to consider the east African country as a safe place, but it also grants ministers the authority to disregard emergency injunctions. This has raised concerns that the law contradicts the UK’s human rights responsibilities and violates international law.
However, the government has stated that it is still dedicated to scheduling flights to Rwanda during the spring season.
Overall, on Monday evening, fellow members supported five alterations to the legislation, which included guaranteeing its conformity with the legal system and prohibiting parliament from declaring Rwanda as secure until the treaty’s commitments are completely enacted.
The Lords agreed to a measure that would permit the challenge of the presumption that the country is a safe refuge in court.
Enlarge the image to full screen mode.
Some individuals who have previously served in Cabinet positions, such as the Most Rev Justin Welby and Conservative leaders Ken Clarke, Lord Deben and Viscount Hailsham, voted against the government.
The extent of the losses suggests the possibility of an ongoing disagreement between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, known as “ping-pong”, where the legislation is sent back and forth until consensus is reached.
According to David Anderson, a lawyer and member of the independent crossbench, the clause in the bill stating that Rwanda must be considered a safe country is insulting to our intelligence.
Lord Anderson suggested a potential change that would enable the courts to question the assumption. He stated, “If Rwanda truly poses no danger, as the government claims, then there should be no concern about facing such examination.”
“However, we are being asked to accept a fabrication, to disguise it as the supreme authority of parliament and shield it from any questioning. To speak falsehoods and label them as facts. What reason do we have to comply with this?”
The archbishop, Welby, stated that global laws on human rights were established after the atrocities carried out by Nazi Germany as a safeguard against governments. However, he clarified that we are currently not facing a similar situation.
The government is currently not engaging in actions that are on the same scale as what we saw before, but they are questioning the validity of international law in limiting our actions.
Former chancellor Lord Clarke expressed his desire for a potential legal dispute to arise if the bill is approved. He noted that he could not remember a previous instance where a government, regardless of its affiliation, has introduced legislation that presents facts as absolute.
In response to worries about the psychological assistance that asylum seekers would receive in Rwanda, Home Office minister Andrew Sharpe stated: “It would be most beneficial for the mental well-being of those seeking asylum, who are also victims, to request asylum in the first secure country they arrive at.”
The government could face additional losses on Wednesday as the Lords revisit the bill.
The UK and France have proposed a novel customs collaboration with the goal of impeding the flow of small boats through the Channel.
On Monday, the Calais Group of northern European countries, led by home secretary James Cleverly, held a meeting in Brussels. Their objective is to disrupt the supply chain of boat components, such as engines and building materials.
Source: theguardian.com
