Rishi Sunak has suffered his heaviest defeat in the House of Lords after the archbishop of Canterbury and former Conservative ministers joined forces with the opposition to force through five amendments to the Rwandan deportation bill.
The series of challenges faced by the government, with most passing by an overwhelmingly high margin of approximately 100 votes, indicates that the legislation, which intends to facilitate the deportation of asylum seekers to Kigali, must be revisited by the House of Commons.
The prime minister has issued a previous warning to the unelected chamber, cautioning against obstructing the progress of his safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill. This bill has already been approved by MPs and any interference would go against the “will of the people.”
Sunak’s main promise as a leader is to put an end to the arrival of boats. Despite this, he has encountered various obstacles, including the legal challenge to the bill. In the previous week, auditors authorized by the government stated that it would require £1.8m to transfer each of the 300 migrants to Rwanda.
Proposed laws and an agreement with Rwanda aim to avoid future legal disputes over the delayed deportation process following the supreme court’s decision that the plan was illegal.
As well as compelling judges to regard the east African country as safe, it would give ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions. It has been warned that the legislation is “fundamentally incompatible” with the UK’s human rights obligations and would flout international law.
However, according to Downing Street, the government is still dedicated to organizing flights to Rwanda during the spring season.
Overall, on Monday evening, fellow legislators supported the implementation of five modifications to the bill. These changes included guaranteeing that the bill adheres to the principle of abiding by the law and that parliament cannot declare Rwanda as a secure country until the treaty, which includes promised protections, has been completely put into action.
The Lords agreed to a proposal that would permit courts to challenge the assumption that the country is a safe haven.
Display image in full screen mode.
The government was opposed by several people, including the Most Rev Justin Welby and high-ranking Conservatives Ken Clarke, Lord Deben, and Viscount Hailsham, who have all previously served in Cabinet positions.
The defeats’ magnitude heightens the possibility of a prolonged struggle between the House of Commons and the House of Lords during the game of “ping-pong.” This involves back-and-forth exchanges of legislation between the two chambers until a consensus is reached.
David Anderson, an independent crossbencher and barrister, expressed disbelief at the clause in the bill that treats Rwanda as a safe country, saying it insults our intelligence.
Lord Anderson suggested amending the proposal to permit courts to question the presumption. He stated, “If Rwanda is indeed secure as the government asserts, there is no need for concern over such examination.”
“However, we are being asked to accept a falsehood, to hide it under the guise of parliamentary sovereignty, and to exempt it from any form of scrutiny. To present a lie as the truth. Why would we comply with that?”
Welby stated that international human rights law was created after the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany in order to serve as a safety net and deterrent for governments. The archbishop clarified that we are not currently facing a similar situation.
The government is currently not replicating the same level of actions as before, but they are questioning the validity of international laws restricting our actions.
Former chancellor Lord Clarke expressed his desire for a potential legal dispute should the bill be approved. He stated, “I cannot remember a previous instance during my time where any government has presented a bill that declares a factual statement to be true – facts that are to be accepted as truth.”
Afterwards, addressing worries about the mental health assistance that asylum seekers would get in Rwanda, the minister of the Home Office, Andrew Sharpe, stated: “It would be in the best interest of asylum seekers’ mental health to seek refuge in the first safe country they arrived at.”
The government may encounter additional losses on Wednesday as the bill returns to the Lords.
The United Kingdom and France have proposed a new customs alliance with the goal of disrupting the flow of small boats in the Channel.
On Monday, Home Secretary James Cleverly convened a gathering in Brussels for the Calais Group, comprised of various northern European nations. Their objective is to interfere with the distribution process of boat components, such as engines and construction materials.
Source: theguardian.com
