Fresh Round of Government Defeats in House of Lords Over Rwanda Bill

Handout photo issued by UK Parliament of Lord Murray of Blidworth speaking in the House of Lords, London, during the debate on the Government's Illegal Migration Bill on May 10, 2023. House of Lords 2023/Roger Harris

The government’s Rwanda asylum bill has dealt a blow in the House of Lords, suffering defeat in a fresh batch of five votes.

Former Tory Cabinet members and the Archbishop of Canterbury were among peers who inflicted damage on the bill, including an amendment to allow courts to consider the safety of Rwanda. Peers backed the amendment in a 278 to 189 vote.

The government losing all five amendment votes on Wednesday brings the total number of defeats to ten at this stage of the process. On Monday, peers voted in favour of amendments to the bill, including the government’s assertion that Rwanda is a safe country.

Illegal immigration has been a sore point for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who has pledged to stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats. The government’s plan to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda, including those who crossed the English Channel in small boats, has faced multiple legal hurdles over the safety of the scheme.

The defeats in the upper chamber amplified the pressure on the government to make amendments to the bill, it has been trying to deliver as part of its overall crackdown on illegal immigration.

Changes to the bill, backed by peers, would allow individuals to legally challenge their removal if they felt they’d been wrongly labelled an adult. Another amendment would prevent the relocation of people who had previously supported British military overseas or had been a modern slavery or human trafficking victim.

Debate

According to an amendment vote passed on Monday, Rwanda cannot be deemed a safe country until the safeguards of the treaty are fully implemented. The Archbishop of Canterbury told peers that if that’s the case, the amendments to the bill don’t present a problem.

Referring to the ability of the courts to consider claims on the basis of Rwanda’s safety, Conservative Viscount Hailsham said it was “very dangerous” to prevent people from “having recourse to the courts for protection.”

Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker said that it was crucial that law get tested by the courts.

“The courts are there to ensure that justice is done. Justice in this case requires the ability for the law, as it impacts an individual, to be tested in the courts. That strikes me as fundamental to how the rule of law operates,” he told the House of Lords.

Other peers disagreed, arguing that the bill has been continuously “delayed” and “challenged” on the safety of Rwanda, despite the evidence provided by the east African country and the UK.

“There are ample safeguards in the Bill, and these amendments would be contrary to the Bill’s whole purpose,” said senior government law officer Lord Stewart of Dirleton.

Former leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, Lord German, questioned the screening process to spot victims of modern slavery, proposed in the bill.

“Anyone who has worked in that field knows that it is not just a simple, very short interview that enables people to detect whether someone is subjected to modern slavery,” Lord German said.

The amendment to include safeguards in order to reduce the risk of unaccompanied children being sent to Rwanda was moved by Baroness Lister of Burtersett.

“Without it, a child can be sent to Rwanda as an adult on the basis of a short visual assessment by two immigration officers,” the peer said.

She added that this goes against the Home Office’s own advice that physical appearance and demeanour represent “a notoriously unreliable basis for assessment of chronological age.”

The amendment was backed with the majority of 84 votes.

Mr. Sunak has previously warned against the “appointed” House of Lords frustrating “the will of the people” as expressed by the “elected” House of Commons.

Following the scrutiny by the upper chamber, the bill will bounced back to the Commons, where the government holds the majority and is likely to overturn the reworded clauses.