Receive the complimentary email of Morning Headlines for updates from our journalists worldwide.
service
Register for our complimentary Morning Headlines newsletter subscription.
Rishi Sunak’s proposed small boats bill, which aims to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, has faced numerous defeats from peers.
On Wednesday evening, the House of Lords made the decision to add a requirement to the government’s bill that it must consider international law and ensure that the UK’s treaty with Rwanda is fully carried out before any flights begin. The government was defeated in all seven votes, with one amendment passing that grants exemption for Afghan allies of British troops from being deported to Rwanda.
Lord Vernon Coaker of the Labour Party expressed concern to fellow peers that the country’s image could be jeopardized by the fact that the essential bill includes a provision exempting ministers from adhering to international law. He argued that this cannot be justified.
Lord Coaker criticized the Conservative peers for not providing an update to the house about when the bill would be revisited in the Lords for more discussion. Peers now believe this will not happen until after Easter. As a result, the expected dates for flights to Rwanda will be pushed back.
Cross-bench peer Lord Alex Carlile stated that the expenses of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda are comparable to the price of staying at The Ritz in Paris. He also expressed concern about the safety of Rwanda as a destination for these individuals.
Rishi Sunak was reminded of the moral duty to prevent the deportation of Afghan allies who aided British soldiers, to Rwanda.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton, an official in the government’s judicial department, has contended that the critiques of the Conservative leadership regarding the Rwanda bill are fundamentally misguided.
He stated that it is unacceptable for individuals to undertake perilous crossings and we must take necessary measures to stop any further loss of life at sea.
One Conservative peer, Lord Ken Clarke, went against his own government during votes two and three. These votes were for minor adjustments to a bill that would require closer examination of Rwanda’s flight preparations.
Colleagues also supported a proposal put forward by Baroness Lister of Burtersett, a Labour member, to mandate local authorities to conduct age assessments for individuals facing deportation to Rwanda. Additionally, they voted to reinstate the power of the domestic courts over the legislation.
The government stated on Wednesday evening that they will review the possibility of exempting members of the Afghan special forces from being deported from the UK as a way to protect those who assisted the UK. This was in response to an amendment seeking to safeguard these Afghan heroes.
The first report by The Independent uncovered that the Ministry of Defence had wrongly withheld assistance to the Triples, a division of the Afghan special forces, who had fought alongside British soldiers.
A comprehensive evaluation is currently in progress to examine the relocation choices made for this group, with a few individuals successfully reaching the UK by small boat.
According to the Illegal Migration Act, government officials must remove individuals who arrive in the UK by small boat. However, members of the Conservative party informed the House of Lords that specific groups may be excluded from the consequences of the Act.
This news will bring relief to Afghan special forces members who qualify for the Ministry of Defence’s recent review of relocation choices. However, there is still concern that individuals who assisted UK troops could once again be declared ineligible for assistance.
Lord Des Browne of Labour proposed an alteration to the legislation concerning Rwanda that would exclude Afghan individuals who collaborated with British troops.
Lord Des Browne, the person who proposed the amendment for the armed forces, stated to the Lords: “We have been informed that numerous individuals, who have shown bravery by facing death and injury, and are now facing exile due to their assistance to our armed forces in fighting the Taliban, will be penalized for entering here through unconventional means.”
“Even if our refusals were unjust or the special forces acted inappropriately, forcing them to choose these paths initially.”
According to Lord Browne, there is a group of Afghans in Afghanistan and Pakistan who are awaiting a decision on their review. The proposed amendment aims to protect a smaller group of Afghans who are already in the UK.
He persisted by saying, “They had no choice but to search for alternate paths, or risk facing death or torment.”
“In the past year, The Independent, Lighthouse Reports, and Sky have been revealing instances in which Afghan citizens who worked alongside the UK armed forces, either through the Triples program or in other capacities, were unjustly denied relocation due to government errors and reported interference by UK special forces. As a result, they were forced to find alternative means of arriving in the UK.”
The government should not give assurances about future exceptions, but should instead pass the amendment currently before them to achieve similar goals, according to Lord Browne.
He asked if the individuals who were let down by the Ministry of Defence could rely on “the exact people who initially denied their relocation visas” with trust.
The Lords passed this amendment with 39 more votes than the opposing side.
On Monday evening, members of Parliament voted against all 10 changes proposed for the Safety of Rwanda Bill. This included a proposal from peers to stop the transfer of children with disputed ages to Rwanda.
The Home Office has already selected 150 migrants to be included on the first two flights for deportation.
The legislation will be sent back to the House of Commons for additional review by Members of Parliament.
Source: independent.co.uk
