Rwanda bill: House of Lords inflicts further defeats on government plan

rwanda-bill:-house-of-lords-inflicts-further-defeats-on-government-plan
Rwanda bill: House of Lords inflicts further defeats on government plan

The UK government has faced five additional defeats in the House of Lords over its proposed Rwanda bill. The legislation would allow the UK to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda by declaring it a safe country. Peers made several changes to the bill, including allowing courts to question the East African nation’s safety. However, the government is likely to overturn the changes when the proposed law returns to the House of Commons. Earlier this week, the House of Lords inflicted five defeats on the bill, meaning the government has lost all ten votes.

The government introduced the bill after its previous plan to deter small boat crossings in the English Channel by deporting arrivals to Rwanda was blocked by the courts. The Supreme Court had ruled the policy was unlawful and could result in human rights violations. In response, the government drafted the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which states that Rwanda is a safe country in the UK’s legal system. It restricts courts from blocking deportations on human rights grounds. The bill passed the House of Commons with some opposition, but it has faced significant opposition in the House of Lords where the government does not have a majority.

On Wednesday, peers backed an amendment by a majority of 89 votes to allow courts to consider the safety of Rwanda. Conservative Viscount Hailsham said it was very dangerous to prevent people from having access to the courts. However, government law officer Lord Stewart of Dirleton argued that the amendment would undermine the bill’s goals which had ample safeguards. The House of Lords also backed an amendment to reword the bill to allow legal challenges in cases where an individual felt they had been wrongly labelled an adult.

The UK government has said that it would not relocate unaccompanied children to Rwanda. However, Baroness Lister argued the methods for assessing age are notoriously unreliable and that her amendment would minimize the chances of unaccompanied children being sent to Rwanda. Home Office minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom agreed it was inherently difficult to determine age but argued that adults must be disincentivized from claiming to be children. Additional amendments backed by peers would prevent people from being relocated if they had previously supported British troops overseas or had been modern slavery and trafficking victims. The bill will go back to the House of Commons where it is expected to be overturned by the government

Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More