‘We need to go fast’: why the House of Lords is clashing with Sunak

For the House of Lords, the unelected counterpart of the House of Commons, Wednesday could mark a rare moment in British politics: the ermine-clad barons and baronesses of that old chamber will vote on whether to leave an elected British Prime Minister must brave above a flagship. policy.

The Lords will hold a crucial debate on the policy, which would put asylum seekers on single flights to Rwanda. They are attached several amendments to the bill in an attempt to weaken it; the government, with its large conservative majority in the House of Commons, has systematically stripped them down.

No one, least of all the Lords themselves, believes that the Senate will ultimately torpedo the legislation. In the unequal clash between the elected Commons and the unelected Lords, the Lords invariably yield. But they could delay its passage by another week or two, which could be enough to jeopardize Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s goal of putting the first flight to Rwanda in the air by the end of May.

That would thrust the House of Lords into Britain’s electoral politics in a way that is unusual for an institution that sees itself as a cool-headed, measured check on the more unruly House of Commons.

The prospect of sending asylum seekers to an East African country – and overruling a High Court ruling – has provoked so much opposition, even from Conservative peers, that it has shaken the Lords from their usual deference.

“This is about people who have a fundamental objection to a piece of government legislation,” said Simon McDonald, a former head of Britain’s diplomatic service who became a contrarian or non-partisan member of the House of Lords, where he is known. as Baron McDonald of Salford, in 2021.

“Personally, I would be disappointed if we just gave in,” he said. “For me, we have to work hard on the conditions that must be met before the law comes into effect.”

The Rwandan government, Mr McDonald said, had to show it had taken safeguards to ensure the rights of asylum seekers arriving there from Britain were not breached. Several Lords amendments aim to do this, but the government has rejected them on the grounds that they are simply another legal hurdle preventing flights from taking off.

Timing is important for the government. Mr Sunak has defended the Rwanda policy as the best way to deter migrants making the dangerous crossing of the English Channel in small boats. Under the law, they would remain in the African country even if they were granted refugee status.

Stopping those Channel crossings is one of his government’s five fundamental objectives, and Mr Sunak hopes the flights will help the Conservatives close a yawning poll gap with the opposition Labor party.

But the policy has run headlong into concerns about human rights and the rule of law, which have roiled the normally equal Lords. The Supreme Court ruled in November that Rwanda was not a safe country for refugees, prompting the government to reform policies to address these concerns — insufficient, according to critics.

Several members of the chamber are retired judges and civil servants who see themselves as guardians of the courts and of Britain’s adherence to international law. They use the levers they have to force the government to correct the legislation.

“The way the Lords operates, like much of the British constitution, is based on convention rather than rules,” said Richard Newby, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in the House of Lords. “The question is how far you push a convention, rather than whether you break a rule.”

Mr Newby predicted that Mr Sunak’s Conservative government would not muster the votes of enough members on Wednesday to force the Lords to overturn the amendments. That means the bill will be returned to the House of Commons, most likely with fewer amendments.

The resulting back and forth could ensure that the bill does not become law until after the Easter holidays. However, Mr Sunak has appealed to the Lords not to “frustrate the will of the people”. recent poll suggests that a majority of the British public do not support the policy.

The House of Lords, the largest legislative assembly outside China, has about 800 members, including 91 who have inherited titles, and 26 archbishops and bishops. Its ranks include former politicians, advisors and diplomats; most are appointed for life.

The Lords meet in an ornate hall that has too few seats on busy days. Below them is a gilded throne, inlaid with rock crystals and covered in red velvet, from which King Charles III speaks when he opens Parliament.

Members, who can shape laws and ask questions without the inconvenience of running for office, can claim up to 342 pounds, or $435, in per diem. There are also other advantages: an office in the parliament complex; a parking lot; and luxurious, subsidized food and drink options, including the wood-paneled Bishops’ Bar.

But the members also work.

“The Lords is where you get effective supervision,” says Jill Rutter, a senior research fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, a research institute. “The House of Commons virtually did not examine the Rwanda bill because it was passed very quickly.”

“The problem,” she added, “is that the Lords actually know it is a ridiculous and illegitimate institution, which is why it almost always collapses.”

Yet, even within these limitations, the House can influence and even change policy. In 2015, the Lords convinced the government to reconsider cuts to social benefits. Just last week it was the prospect of defeat over an amendment to a bill in the Lords that prompted the government to promise new rules banning foreign state ownership of British newspapers and magazines.

David Lipsey, a Labor member of the Lords, said he expected his party to push for around half a dozen amendments. He said it was “fairly unlikely” that Labor would continue its opposition beyond Wednesday, even if there were good reasons for it.

“The Lords have always had the role of a backstop in stopping governments from doing things outside the bounds of democratic and legal decision-making,” said Mr Lipsey, who became a member in 1999 as Baron Lipsey of Tooting Bec.

While Labour’s double-digit poll lead means it is likely to form the next government, the party’s leaders know that if elected they would not automatically have a majority in a chamber where many members are uncommitted.

“Labor doesn’t particularly want to set the precedent that it’s OK for the Lords to throw out a flagship piece of government legislation because there may be things they want to do,” Ms Rutter said.

The elections, most likely scheduled for this fall, have also given non-aligned members pause. Some worry that they are being portrayed by the government as obstructionists, who could weaponize the unelected body in a campaign. Others worry about constitutional reforms that could threaten their status.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, spoke out strongly against an earlier version of the Rwanda bill last year, saying it “fails to deliver on our history, our moral responsibility and our political and international interests.”

But in an interview last December he said: ‘I would like to play as small a role as possible in the debate. We are within a year of the election.”