Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill comes under fire from Tory and Labour peers

Sign up for the View from Westminster e mail for professional evaluation straight to your inbox

Get our free View from Westminster e mail

Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation bill confronted contemporary opposition from Conservatives and Labour within the House of Lords.

Tory and Labour peers warned of their perception that the Safety of Rwanda Bill would set a harmful precedent for Britain.

The PM’s bill, which goals to beat a Supreme Court ruling blocking the federal government from deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, is making its means by way of the higher chamber.

After Mr Sunak’s deportation scheme with the east African nation was dominated illegal, primarily based on judges’ evaluation that Rwanda will not be a secure nation for asylum seekers, the prime minister launched a bill deeming the nation secure in British regulation.

It has handed the House of Commons, however is more likely to face amendments within the Lords which might threaten the federal government’s means to place asylum seekers on planes earlier than the final election anticipated this autumn.

On Monday Lord Cameron, the overseas secretary, warned peers it could be “wrong” to frustrate the bill, arguing that “we need to get this Bill through Parliament”.

But, debating the bill on Monday night, peers from throughout the higher chamber tore into the bill’s implications.

Tory peer Lord Tugendhat mentioned: “I have been a member of Parliament for a very long time on and off, and I have been a member of the Conservative party for some 66 years when I counted it up, and I do have to say that I find it quite extraordinary that the party of Margaret Thatcher should be introducing a Bill of this kind.”

The Conservative grandee, whose nephew is safety minister Tom Tugendhat, claimed the Bill might have an effect on the UK’s notion as a “marvellous place to do business because of our great respect for the rule of law”.

Lord Tugendhat added: “What we are being asked to do really represents the sort of behaviour that the world associates with despots and autocracies, not with an established democracy, not with the Mother of Parliaments. It is a Bill we should not even be asked to confront, let alone pass.”

Meanwhile Tory peer Viscount Hailsham mentioned it was “manifestly untrue” to say parliament believes Rwanda is a secure nation for asylum seekers.

“It is just unfaithful to state that it’s the judgement of Parliament that Rwanda is a secure nation. That possibly the opinion of the House of Commons”, the peer said, noting MPs can come under pressure from party whips, and adding “however what is totally sure is that it isn’t the opinion of this House.”

It came as peers debated the merits of amendments to the asylum bill. Those put forward include measures that would include a “sunset clause” into the bill and require the government to restate that Rwanda is a safe country every six months.

It is likely that if the bill returns to the House of Commons with any amendments attached, the government will seek to strip them out. The bill would then be sent back to the House of Lords in a process known as ping-pong.

During the debate, Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti warned the bill “threatens both the domestic rule of law, especially the separation of powers, and the international rules-based order”.

The barrister and human rights activist led calls for the Government to heed advice from the UN about whether Rwanda is safe before beginning deportations, adding: “I’ll assume that the Government doesn’t wish to put the chief of the United Kingdom on a collision course with our Supreme Court or our worldwide authorized obligations.

“So amendments in this group seek to offer a way through the stalemate for people of good will from all sides of your Lordships House.”

Former justice secretary Lord Falconer advised peers that the bill, in its present type, might open the door to deprave prime ministers overruling the courts to assist their cronies.

He mentioned: “Suppose the prime minister has a buddy or a crony within the House of Commons who’s convicted in a courtroom of corruption of some kind, and then the prime minister presents a bill to Parliament saying it it the judgment of Parliament that ‘Snooks MP’ truly wasn’t in a position to current this new proof to the legal courtroom that convicted him, so it’s the judgment of Parliament that Snooks MP is harmless.

“That is the route that this particular Bill takes Parliament down.”