Sunak's flagship immigration plan fails first test in the House of Lords
Four days ago, Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak urged the House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of Parliament, to not to block his plans to put asylum seekers on single flights to Rwanda, describing his controversial migration policy as “the will of the people.”
The Lords did not play ball on Monday evening.
Instead, they voted to delay the crucial treaty with Rwanda that underpins Mr Sunak's legislation – underscoring the hostility among some members of the House to a divisive policy since it was introduced by Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister, in 2022. .
In practical terms, the vote has limited impact because the House of Lords – a legislature made up largely of former politicians, civil servants and diplomats, as well as 26 bishops – does not have the power to prevent the treaty from coming into force. .
But it is a symbolic setback for Mr Sunak and suggests the Lords could try to amend the wider legislation, the so-called Rwanda Security Bill, which they will debate next week. It could also strengthen asylum seekers' future legal challenges against their deportation to the African country.
The Conservative government's Rwanda plan would mean anyone arriving by small boat or other “irregular means” would be unable to claim asylum in Britain. Instead, these asylum seekers would be detained and then sent to Rwanda. Their asylum cases would be heard in the African country, and they would do so resettled there.
By threatening asylum seekers with deportation to Rwanda, Mr Sunak hopes to deter people from making the dangerous crossing of the English Channel. But so far, despite Britain paying £240 millionapproximately 300 million dollars, to the Rwandan government, no one was put on a plane to the African country due to legal problems.
In any case, experts say, it is unclear whether the plan will have the promised deterrent effect, given that those traveling in small boats are already risking their lives in the hope of reaching Britain.
Legal specialists say the policy also threatens the UK's human rights obligations. In November, the British Supreme Court ruled, based on expert evidence from the United Nations, that Rwanda is not a safe country for refugees and that the plan would violate national and international law.
In response, the government has created the 'Security of Rwanda' bill, which explicitly declares the African nation a safe place for asylum seekers – contrary to the Supreme Court ruling – and that of the British courts and tribunals demanded that they treat the country as such.
In an attempt to overcome High Court objections, Mr Sunak agreed to a treaty with Rwanda promising several guarantees for asylum seekers, including that they would not be expelled from the African country even if their claims were rejected. It was the ratification of that treaty that the House of Lords voted to postpone on Monday evening by 214 votes to 171.
The Lords voted in favor of a motion stating that the government should not ratify the Rwanda Treaty “until Parliament is satisfied that the protections it provides have been fully implemented, as Parliament is asked to make a judgment on the basis of the treaty say that Rwanda is safe.”
With his Conservative Party lagging in the polls as the British economy stagnates, Mr Sunak has invested enormous political capital in the Rwanda policy, but it has increasingly become a source of division within his own party.
Alice Lilly, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government, a London-based think tank, said: “This is the first indication that the Rwanda policy is unlikely to pass through the Lords unscathed.”
She added that, by pointing out shortcomings yet to be addressed in Rwanda's immigration system, the House of Lords vote “could be referred to in future legal challenges” over Mr Sunak's plan by those opposing deportation to the African country.
The motion to delay the treaty was tabled by Peter Goldsmith, a former attorney general and member of the House of Lords for the opposition Labor Party. He said Monday's vote was the first of its kind since the current treaty ratification legislation came into force in 2010. He said the motion was “unprecedented.”
John Kerr, a member of the Lords, a former diplomat and not affiliated with any political party, expressed his opposition to the Rwanda plan. “Those we transfer to Rwanda will never have their asylum applications heard in this country,” he said. “We intend to wash our hands of them and declare them inadmissible: Rwanda's responsibility, not ours.”
He called the migration plan 'unconscionable'.
Last week the House of Commons voted in favor of the policy after two tense days of debate, which exposed deep divisions within the Conservative Party. At one point, about 60 lawmakers on the right of Mr. Sunak's party tried unsuccessfully to tighten the Rwanda law, trying to pre-empt the legal challenges that most experts agree will arise. as soon as the government tries to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The House of Lords is expected to begin debating the security of the Rwanda bill on January 29. While the chamber cannot block the legislation, it can defer bills for up to a year if they were not included in the ruling party's election manifesto. The Lords can also propose changes to legislation that must then be debated in the House of Commons, a process known as “parliamentary ping-pong“Because amendments can go back and forth between the two houses a number of times before a bill is passed or, occasionally, defeated.