Georgia Wells
PM Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda Bill was criticised by the House of Lords during its second hearing, despite the Lords voting against the motion to block the Bill.
Sunak’s controversial Rwanda plan would see illegal migrants sent to a “safe third country,” such as Rwanda, to deter migrants from crossing the channel.
Despite facing strong criticism from the Supreme Court concerning potential human rights violations, the Bill has successfully passed all three stages in the House of Commons.
Rwanda Bill Has Second Hearing In House Of Lords
Although Sunak urged the Lords to back the Rwanda Bill, the first hearing concluded with a majority vote to delay the passing of the treaty until important amendments were made.
On the 29th January, the House of Lords considered the bill for the second time.
Despite the government subsequently taking “crucial steps forward” in tackling the issue of refoulement, the Lords’ scrutinised the provision of non-refoulement within the Bill.
“The Bill does not only violate international law, but incurs unjustifiable costs to the taxpayer”
They concluded that the Bill incurs “real risks of refoulement” as it places refugees at risk of being returned to their home country. This is against International Human Rights Law.
Lord Ponsonby claimed that Sunak’s Bill presents “increasingly rushed, unworkable, and inhumane solutions” to a long-term and complex problem.
Speaking in the Lords, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, warned that the Bill is “leading the nation down a damaging path.”
"We can, as a nation, do better than this bill."
Archbishop Justin Welby says the government's Rwanda bill is "damaging in respect of constitutional principles, the rule of law and… for our nation's unity." pic.twitter.com/UsoBGveQ0A
— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) January 29, 2024
Lord German expressed that the Bill does not only violate international law, but incurs unjustifiable costs to the taxpayer. As a recent Economic Income Assessment revealed, sending individuals to Rwanda would cost approximately £69,000 more per individual compared to UK alternatives.
He stated that the Bill does not tackle criminal smuggling gangs, nor does it provide any safe and legal routes for those seeking legitimate asylum and refuge.
Lord Ponsonby agreed that the Bill is “hugely limited,” as its impact “will not address the state that our asylum system is currently in.”
He highlighted that the Rwandan Government has agreed to receiving only a few hundred people. Yet the Home Office has already recorded 63,000 asylum claims from January to August 2023, and currently have a backlog of 100,000 asylum claims awaiting a decision.
What Power Do The Lords Have?
“The Lords’ are now powerless in stopping the Rwanda Bill”
The House of Lords holds the government to account and provides an in-depth analysis of policies in order to make amendments.
Whilst the Lords cannot outrightly block legislation, it does have the power to delay the passing of Bills for up to one year.
The decision to enforce this delaying power can be contentious. Typically, the Lords only enforce this power in rare and extreme circumstances.
In the second hearing of the bill there were disagreements as to the “proper role” of the Lords.
In an attempt to stop the Bill, Liberal Democrat peers called for a “fatal motion.” This position was backed by the Greens. However, the majority voted against this motion by 206 votes to 84.
Thanks for this, but we DID try to stop the #RwandaBill with a Lib Dem Fatal Motion, which Greens supported fiercely. But Labour abstained, which meant the Motion fell.
We'll now go thru the agonising process of trying to 'improve' it with amendments. A pointless/tiring process. https://t.co/iB2IoHgiqC— Jenny Jones (@GreenJennyJones) February 2, 2024
Labour abstained in the vote on the fatal motion.
In response to Lord German’s fatal motion, Lord Coaker argued that the “proper role” of the House is “to scrutinise and amend, but not to block.”
According to Green Party peer Baronness Jones, Labour’s voting abstinence means the Lords’ are now powerless in stopping the Rwanda Bill.
What Next For The Rwanda Bill?
The Bill will now go forward into the Committee Stage in the House of Lords.
This process involves a line-by-line examination of the legislation by the Lords as they propose amendments to the Commons.
In order for this stage to conclude, both the Lords and the Commons must agree to every clause of the Bill. This means the Bill will ‘ping pong’ between both Houses until the final Bill is agreed upon.
The House of Lords rejected our attempts to stop the Rwanda Bill. We did what we thought was right, and we will now turn our attention to amending this terrible piece of legisaltion.
You can see the breakdown of how the parties in the Lords voted below.https://t.co/uuliB4pCsO
— Lib Dem Lords (@LibDemLords) January 30, 2024
Despite widespread backlash across the political spectrum, Sunak has continued to urge the Lords to back the legislation and “do the right thing.”
Yet, as of January 2024, the UNHCR re-states that the Bill “undermines the universality of human rights.”
Meanwhile, whilst Sunak continues to pledge the deterrent effect of the Bill, 1,335 additional people have crossed the channel in 2024.
READ NEXT:
-
EMPOWORD EXPLAINS: THE NEW RWANDA BILL
-
INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC: THE UK’S WAR ON ASYLUM SEEKERS
-
TORY CHAIRMEN RESIGN OVER RWANDA BILL AS SUNAK FACES ‘NO-CONFIDENCE’ VOTES
Featured image courtesy of Number 10 on Flickr. No changes made to this image. Image license found here.
Georgia Wells
I'm a final year Criminal Justice and Criminology student at the University of Leeds. After university I hope to pursue a career in journalism. I am passionate about tackling injustice, social and political policy, and human rights.