Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is facing a significant setback as members of the House of Lords are poised to reintroduce two amendments to the Government’s Rwanda legislation. The rejection of four amendments by MPs earlier today means that the bill will return to the Lords for further consideration. However, if the peers reintroduce their amendments, MPs will not have the opportunity to reconsider them until Monday. This delay threatens Sunak’s plans to secure royal assent on the bill by tomorrow and casts doubt over the timeline for flights to Rwanda, which he had hoped to initiate by Spring.
The legislative process surrounding the Rwanda bill has been marked by intense debate and parliamentary ping-pong between the two houses. Despite initial expectations that peers would concede to the Government’s stance and pass the legislation upon its return to the Lords, sources within the Lords have indicated that members seeking to undermine the Government’s Rwanda plan are gearing up to push two of the amendments to a fourth vote tonight.
This development underscores the contentious nature of the debate surrounding the bill, which addresses issues related to migration and the designation of Rwanda as a safe country for asylum seekers. While the Government argues that the bill is necessary to curb illegal migration and facilitate the operation of flights to Rwanda, opponents have raised concerns about human rights implications and the effectiveness of the proposed measures.
In this afternoon’s debate on the legislation, Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson characterized the amendments as attempts to obstruct the objectives of the bill. He asserted that some amendments were unnecessary, while others were deemed “wrecking amendments” deliberately designed to thwart the bill’s purpose of curbing illegal migration and facilitating the operation of flights to Rwanda.
One of the contentious amendments discussed by Tomlinson pertains to the restoration of the jurisdiction of domestic courts concerning the safety of Rwanda, allowing them to intervene in related matters. Tomlinson criticized this amendment as a “wrecking” measure that would encourage illegal migrants to prolong legal challenges, thus hindering their removal from the country. He emphasized that the bill strikes a delicate balance between minimizing unnecessary legal obstacles and upholding the principle of access to justice.
Another amendment, which garnered support from peers, stipulates that Rwanda cannot be designated as a safe country until an independent monitoring body verifies the implementation of treaty protections. Conservative MP Sir Bob Neill, chair of the Justice Committee, described this amendment as proposed in “moderate and non-partisan terms.”
The potential reintroduction of these amendments by peers reflects the ongoing disagreements and divisions within Parliament over the Government’s Rwanda plan. While the Government maintains that the bill is necessary to address migration challenges and ensure compliance with international and domestic legal frameworks, opponents argue that the proposed measures could have adverse consequences for asylum seekers and undermine human rights protections.
Kevin Saunders, a former Chief Immigration Officer at Border Force, provided insight into the potential timeline for the bill’s enactment, stating that the first flights carrying migrants to Rwanda could commence in June if the legislation receives royal assent tomorrow.
During voting in the House of Commons, MPs rejected the aforementioned amendments proposed by the Lords. The rejection of these amendments underscores the Government’s commitment to advancing its Rwanda legislation without further delays or alterations. Despite the contentious nature of the debate, the Government maintains its stance on the necessity of the bill in addressing migration challenges and ensuring compliance with international and domestic legal frameworks.
In conclusion, the ongoing debate surrounding the Rwanda bill highlights the complexities and controversies inherent in immigration policy. As Parliament grapples with the competing interests and concerns raised by stakeholders, the outcome of the legislative process will have far-reaching implications for the UK’s approach to migration and asylum.