House of Lords rejects British law to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

Britain’s House of Lords dealt a sharp setback to the government on Wednesday by voting to change key Conservative Party immigration legislation and potentially delay a controversial plan to put asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda.

It was an unusual show of opposition from the Lords, many of whom objected to the policy on legal and constitutional grounds. Although the Conservative government, with a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, can eventually get the bill passed, the back-and-forth with the House of Lords, the unelected upper house of parliament, could hamper the government’s hopes for a quick start can thwart. to a plan it sees as crucial to its fortunes in an election year.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak argues that the flights to Rwanda, a small country in East Africa, would be a vital deterrent and could stem the flow of tens of thousands of people who make the dangerous, often illegal, small-scale crossing from France to Britain every year to make. often unseaworthy boats.

The government does not expect such flights until May, and following the House of Lords’ actions on Wednesday, that timeline could now move to June. The Prime Minister’s Office had no immediate comment.

Those chosen for the first flight are expected to file legal challenges that could further hamper the plan.

Under the legislation, the asylum claims of those deported from Britain would be assessed in Rwanda. But even if the claims were successful, the deportees would remain there and not be allowed to settle in Britain.

The policy was started almost two years ago by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. But despite paying hundreds of millions of pounds to Rwanda as part of its deal with that country, the British government has so far failed to send a single asylum seeker there.

The government is under intense pressure over the arrival of small boats on British shores, which have become a symbol of its failure to control immigration. Taking control of Britain’s borders was a central promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign, championed by Mr Johnson and backed by Mr Sunak.

In June 2022, a last-minute legal action grounded the first scheduled flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda, and the policy has since been suspended. Last year, the UK High Court ruled against the plan, saying that Rwanda was not a safe destination for refugees and that there was a risk that some sent there would be sent back to their countries of origin, where they could be in danger.

The bill discussed on Wednesday overturns that ruling, declaring Rwanda a safe country and instructing the courts to consider the country as such. This approach was heavily criticized in the House of Lords, which includes former lawmakers, lawyers, judges, civil servants and diplomats.

In a debate last month, Kenneth Clarke, a Conservative former finance minister, said the legislation set “an extremely dangerous precedent” by legally contradicting the Supreme Court.

During its deliberations, the House of Lords put forward a series of amendments, but these were rejected this week by the elected and much more powerful House of Commons. On Wednesday, the Lords voted to reintroduce seven amendments, including one requiring Rwanda to provide proof that it is a safe destination for refugees.

The Senate can do little more than postpone a bill, and due to a lack of democratic legitimacy, it invariably ultimately bows to the will of the House of Commons. But that didn’t stop some members from taking a challenging tone.

“I know that some noble Lords believe the House of Commons should have the final say,” said David Hope, a retired Scottish judge who is an impartial member of the House of Lords. ‘But on this occasion I really invite your Lordships who are prepared to take this position to think very carefully.’

Vernon Coaker, a member speaking for the opposition Labor party, which opposes the plan, criticized the government for refusing to give any weight to the previous amendments tabled by the House of Lords. Any delays in the deportation policy were the government’s fault, he said, because it controls the parliamentary timetable.

But he conceded that the legislation would eventually pass. “We have said all along, and I repeat here, that it is not our intention to block the bill,” he said.

In addition to the legislation, known as the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the British government negotiated a new treaty with the Rwandan government to try to address the Supreme Court’s concerns.

Under the latest version of the plan, even those whose asylum claims were rejected while in Rwanda would be allowed to stay there. This was intended to allay fears that they could be sent back to their country of origin, where they might be in danger.

Yet the bill has been strongly criticized by human rights organizations. “All this could now come to an end if the government abandons its cruel policy of refusing to decide on asylum claims this country receives,” said Sacha Deshmukh, CEO of Amnesty International UK.