Government Faces Defeats in House of Lords over Proposed Rwanda Deportation Scheme
The government has encountered a series of setbacks in the House of Lords regarding its bill to revive the proposed Rwanda deportation scheme. The legislation aims to designate Rwanda as a safe country for sending asylum seekers, with the intention of preventing removals from being hindered by appeals. However, peers have supported amendments that would make it easier for judges to challenge this designation and have also insisted that the treaty supporting deportations must be fully implemented before any flights can take place.
Despite these defeats, the government is expected to overturn them when the bill returns to the Commons, which is likely to happen later this month. This bill is a crucial component of the government’s strategy to curb small boat crossings across the English Channel, a priority for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Ministers hope to commence flights to Rwanda as early as this spring.
The draft law was introduced by ministers last year after their previous scheme to send an unspecified number of asylum seekers to Rwanda was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. The government’s aim with this new legislation is to resurrect the scheme and prevent legal challenges from impeding future deportations. By declaring Rwanda a safe country in UK law and limiting the courts’ ability to block deportations on human rights grounds, the government believes it can ensure a smoother process.
However, critics, including some Conservatives, argue that this approach puts individuals at risk and undermines the independence of the courts. In a recent series of votes, opposition peers supported an amendment proposed by crossbench peer Lord Anderson of Ipswich. This amendment enables courts to overrule the presumption that Rwanda is safe if they encounter credible evidence to the contrary. Several Conservatives, including former home secretary Lord Clarke of Nottingham, also backed this amendment.
Lord Anderson emphasized that if Rwanda truly is safe, it should have nothing to fear from such scrutiny. Peers also approved changes stating that Rwanda can only be considered safe once independent officials overseeing the UK’s deportation treaty with the country confirm that it has been fully implemented. Additionally, they supported a Labour amendment that requires the bill to maintain full compliance with domestic and international law.
The government argues that its new treaty with Rwanda, signed in December, addresses the objections raised by the Supreme Court. Home Office Minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom stated that the new treaty eliminates the risk of individuals being sent from Rwanda to their home countries, where they could face persecution. Lord Sharpe rejected the amendments, asserting that the grounds for challenging deportations should remain limited to prevent a constant cycle of legal challenges that frustrate and delay removals.
The changes made to the bill will now be sent back to the Commons, where the government’s majority is expected to overturn them. If the changes are rejected, the bill will undergo a process known as “ping pong,” where it will be reviewed by both MPs and peers until they reach an agreement on the final wording. The Labour party has indicated that its peers will not seek to completely block the bill’s passage into law. However, Lord Coaker, one of the party’s whips, urged ministers to listen to the objections raised in the House of Lords.
This ongoing debate in the House of Lords highlights the complexities and controversies surrounding the government’s proposed Rwanda deportation scheme. While the government seeks to streamline the deportation process and deter small boat crossings, concerns remain about the potential risks faced by asylum seekers and the potential erosion of judicial independence. As the bill progresses through Parliament, it will be interesting to see how these issues are addressed and whether any further amendments are made to strike a balance between immigration control and human rights.