Register for the View from Westminster email to receive professional analysis directly to your email.
Receive our complimentary Westminster View email.
Rishi Sunak’s proposal to deport individuals to Rwanda faced its first defeat in Parliament when peers approved a motion to delay the treaty with the country in East Africa.
The motion to postpone the contentious deportation agreement until the government can ensure the safety of the country was supported by the House of Lords with a majority of 43, with 214 votes in favor and 171 against.
Lord Goldsmith, former attorney general under Tony Blair, urged the chamber to refrain from ratifying the agreement until government officials can prove that Rwanda is secure.
In December, the government reached a legally-binding agreement with Kigali. They stated that this treaty addressed the concerns raised by the Supreme Court regarding the potential risk faced by asylum seekers who were deported to Rwanda and then transferred to another country.
However, the cross-party agreements committee chaired by Lord Goldsmith has stated that the safeguards outlined in the agreement are insufficient and must be secured before the pact can be approved.
The first criticism from fellow peers indicates a potential difficult journey for the law in the House of Lords, even though Mr. Sunak has urged them not to obstruct the “voice of the people”.
The government maintains that the defeat will not cause a delay in the PM’s bill progressing through the Lords. However, there is a potential risk that disregarding the peers’ new demand could be used against them in a future legal challenge to halt flights.
Sunak cautioned fellow politicians against obstructing the desires of the public.
The agreement supports Mr Sunak’s proposed Asylum and Immigration Bill for Rwanda, which requires British judges to consider the country as a safe destination.
Nigel Farage wasted no time in criticizing the outcome. On X, the controversial figure tweeted that all current members of the House of Lords should be replaced, calling the situation absurd.
Lee Anderson, the Tory deputy chair, recently stated that the Archbishop of Canterbury, a fellow peer who has voiced opposition to the Rwanda plan, should accommodate small boat arrivals in the unused rooms of Lambeth Palace.
According to Lord Goldsmith, the government has until mid-March to rectify 10 problematic aspects of the treaty and demonstrate that Rwanda is a secure place.
“We are not stating that the treaty must not be approved, but rather that parliament should have the chance to carefully examine the treaty before making a decision on whether or not Rwanda is secure.”
Several members of the Conservative party in the House of Lords expressed their concern about Mr. Sunak’s bill and the proposal to deport rejected asylum seekers to Rwanda. This is a cause for concern for the government.
Lord Balfe, a conservative member, raised doubts about the safety of any place in Africa. He stated that he could not name a country in Africa where he would feel comfortable living.
Lord Razzall of the Liberal Democrats stated that the purpose of the proposal to relocate individuals to Rwanda was to imply that the country was so terrible that no one would choose to take a boat there.
Sunak met with the president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame.
The individual ridiculed the government for their efforts to showcase Rwanda as a secure and pleasant destination, stating that it may be a good opportunity for them to reconsider the intentions behind their policies.
Baron Sharpe, a junior minister from the Home Office, defended the plan in the House of Lords and stated that it was inappropriate to refer to Rwanda as a “hellhole”.
Conservative politician Lord Howell, who previously served in the cabinet, raised concerns about the decision to require the government to prove the country’s safety.
“What is the definition of safety? It is a subjective idea that will always vary. Can we consider our own judicial system to be safe? I am uncertain and even our postmasters may not all share the same opinion on its safety.”
The previous week, the Prime Minister implored the Lords to not obstruct his plan to halt boat arrivals, stating that the public is tired of the constant back-and-forth.
Baroness Chakrabarti, a former shadow attorney general, expressed disapproval of Mr Sunak’s insinuation that he was able to telepathically understand the will of the people.
The Lords will hold a second reading debate on the Rwanda bill on January 29.
Source: independent.co.uk
