Peers in the House of Lords dealt a significant blow to the UK government’s flagship legislation known as the Rwanda Bill, designed to implement measures to ‘Stop the Boats.’
This defeat, with 274 votes against 172, marks a majority of 102 in favor of an amendment aimed at ensuring the controversial bill aligns fully with both domestic and international legal standards.
The outcome sets the stage for potential future clashes between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as the government faces a series of proposed amendments to the legislation.
Amendment Highlights: Compliance with Domestic and International Law
The House of Lords supported an amendment emphasizing the necessity for the Rwanda Bill to adhere entirely to domestic and international legal frameworks.
Proposed changes also include debates on delaying deportations to Rwanda until additional safeguards are established regarding the treatment of migrants in the African nation.
Key figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and former judge Baroness Hale of Richmond are advocating for measures preventing ministers from bypassing the European Court of Human Rights through this legislation.
Potential Implications: Extended Legislative Struggle and ‘Ping-Pong’ Dynamics
While these amendments may not entirely block the legislation, as the House of Commons has the final say, many peers are determined to impede the progress of the Rwanda Bill.
Today’s substantial defeat for the government foreshadows a prolonged legislative struggle during the ‘ping-pong’ phase, where the bill is shuttled between the two houses until a consensus is reached.
Despite the government’s aim to initiate flights to Rwanda this spring, concerns linger among Tories that the policy might not be operational before the anticipated autumn general election.
Debates in the Lords: Justifications and Criticisms
During the Lords’ debate on the Rwanda Bill, former Tory leader Michael Howard defended the government’s right to declare Rwanda a safe country for asylum seekers.
He argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds in declaring Rwanda not a safe third country, emphasizing the government’s accountability in executive decision-making.
In contrast, critics, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, raised concerns about the government challenging international law, asserting that the purpose of international law is to prevent governments from undertaking wrongful actions.
Dissenting Voices: Analogies and Calls for Legal Challenges
Tory peer Lord Tugendhat likened the government’s actions to George Orwell’s novel ‘1984,’ suggesting that, if the bill becomes law, Rwanda would be considered a safe country regardless of the actual situation.
Crossbench peer Baroness D’Souza labeled the bill a ‘legal fiction,’ alleging an attempt to incorporate a demonstrably false statement into law.
Former Tory chancellor Ken Clarke expressed hope for a legal challenge, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of a government asserting facts in legislation and restricting the courts from questioning these facts.
Government’s Perspective: Addressing Illegal Immigration and Financial Investment
Home Secretary James Cleverly expressed determination to tackle illegal immigration, citing past failures by the Labour government.
He emphasized the government’s commitment to reducing small boat arrivals and asserted that the Rwanda deportation scheme is a ‘worthwhile investment.’
Chancellor Rishi Sunak echoed this sentiment, characterizing the current situation as unsustainable and unfair.
Downing Street reaffirmed the government’s dedication to sending flights to Rwanda in the spring, emphasizing the legal and operational benefits outlined in the bill.
Financial Considerations: National Audit Office’s Revelations and Labour’s Criticism
The National Audit Office (NAO) revealed potential costs of nearly £2 million for each of the first 300 asylum seekers sent to Rwanda, branding the plan a ‘national scandal.’
Labour criticized the lack of transparency regarding additional costs beyond the confirmed £290 million and uncovered expenditures, such as £11,000 per migrant’s plane ticket.
Despite these revelations, Chancellor Sunak defended the deportation scheme as a necessary measure to address the unsustainable financial burden of housing illegal migrants in the UK.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn