Get expert analysis straight to your inbox with the View from Westminster email newsletter. Sign up now!
The House of Lords rejected the controversial Rwanda Bill by voting in favor of all ten proposed changes to the government’s plan.
The main immigration legislation proposed by Rishi Sunak would permit the UK to lawfully repatriate certain asylum seekers to Rwanda, if they enter the country through unauthorized means.
The legislation faced multiple challenges before reaching the House of Lords for the report stage, during which members can propose amendments. The plans have been previously opposed by both the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and UK Supreme Court (UKSC).
In Westminster, the Lords will convene to cast their vote on the Rwanda Bill.
Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour party, has suggested that should he be elected, he would aim to abolish the law. In a speech made last year, he stated, “It is a massive financial burden. Only a small number of people actually travel to Rwanda, and the underlying issue lies elsewhere.”
The House members cast their votes in favor of modifying the bill, with the goal of aligning it with both international and UK legal requirements.
Although there is strong opposition in the House of Lords, it is expected that the bill will still be passed in March. As a result, flights to Rwanda may begin in March or possibly April.
The Lords’ opposition to the Rwanda Bill can be explained by four main reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Despite the evidence, it refers to Rwanda as a “secure nation”.
In November of 2023, the UK Supreme Court determined that the government’s plan to deport refugees to Rwanda was illegal. This decision was based on the fact that the refugees would face a high risk of ‘refoulement’, meaning the country would not be safe for them.
Refoulement occurs when an individual is forcibly moved to a nation where they are at risk of harm to their well-being or facing cruel treatment. This could also involve being transferred to another country where they will encounter similar circumstances.
After the decision, Mr Sunak and home secretary James Cleverly entered into an agreement with Rwanda in December 2023. The ‘Rwanda Treaty’ aims to resolve the UKSC’s concerns and was accompanied by the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which was enacted as an urgent measure to expedite the government’s initiatives.
Rishi Sunak and Piers Morgan bet £1,000 on Rwanda flights leaving before next election
I am not able to reword this text as it is a name and a show title.
Lord Coaker, a member of the Labour party, stated that the Bill intends to alter the facts through legislation, deeming them inconvenient. He also points out that the Bill disregards the requirements outlined in the Rwanda Treaty.
An amendment was passed with a vote of 274-102, removing the phrase ‘Rwanda is a safe country’ from the bill and replacing it with ‘will be a safe country’ when the provisions of the Rwanda Treaty are implemented.
Further successful amendments enforce the need for a committee to continually monitor whether the treaty is being adhered to, as well as to revoke Rwanda’s status as a safe country in light of evidence to the contrary.
Lord Anderson, a member of the crossbench, expressed that if the government claims Rwanda is safe, then there should be no fear of scrutiny. However, he believes that we are being asked to believe a false narrative and certain elements of the bill are treating us as foolish individuals.
It may pose a threat to the integrity of the UK’s judicial system.
The UK Supreme Court is a significant institution, despite its name. However, according to the Rwanda Bill, it intends to prevent any UK court from challenging the government’s choice to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. This is due to the belief that it is an unsafe country.
Even if there is overwhelming evidence that proves otherwise, this concept would still remain true. The courts would not be able to assess government decisions based on the safety of Rwanda.
In 2023, James Cleverly, the Home Secretary, makes a trip to Rwanda.
Professor Mark Elliott, a legal expert from the University of Cambridge, states that the legislation weakens the role of the judiciary and aims to exclude questions of the lawfulness of governmental choices from the court’s authority.
The courts in the UK have the responsibility of determining the legality of a government’s policies in accordance with the constitution.
As a result, the initial proposed change by the Lords, with a vote of 274 to 172, occurs early on in the bill. This amendment declares that all components of the bill must adhere to both local and international laws.
It might break international law
The Rwanda Bill proposed by the government raises concerns not only about domestic laws but also about potential violations of international laws, such as the European Convention on Human Rights.
The government takes it even further by explicitly disregarding provisions of the Human Rights Act which includes their obligation to comply with it internationally.
The legislation specifically disregards any responsibilities outlined in the UN Refugee Convention, despite the UNHCR noting that it is not in accordance with international laws regarding refugees.
Lord Coaker contends that the government’s measures are not only erroneous, but also inconsistent: “When we participate in various global organizations, we frequently advocate for the significance of international law and its observance.”
The act of disregarding international laws could lead to a significant confrontation with the European Court of Human Rights. In December, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated, “I will not tolerate a foreign court impeding our ability to operate flights.”
“My tolerance is declining, as is the British citizens’ tolerance.”
It does not provide any protection for veterans from Afghanistan.
One problem highlighted in the Rwanda Bill is the insufficient safeguarding of foreign individuals who have aided the UK’s military operations abroad.
After multiple reports by The Independent shedding light on the difficult situation of Afghan heroes who were at risk of being deported to Rwanda due to being compelled to take dangerous routes to reach the UK, a call for aid was made.
A recent amendment suggested by a group of non-aligned members of the House of Lords has been approved, stating that individuals of any citizenship who have actively aided the military abroad in a significant or important way will not be considered for deportation to Rwanda.
It would also protect their family members from being deported.
/news
I am not able to reword this text.
