Peers unleash fresh onslaught against Rwanda Bill despite Cameron warning

By Nick Lester, David Lynch and Ben Hatton, Reporters12th February 2024News EnglandCourts / Justice, Government / Politics, Immigration, News England, Refugees / Asylum

Fresh criticism has been unleashed by peers against Rishi Sunak’s proposed Rwanda asylum law, despite a warning by Foreign Secretary David Cameron that the unelected chamber is “wrong” to frustrate it.

The Government was accused in Parliament of behaving like “despots and autocracies” over the draft legislation aimed at clearing the way to send asylum seekers who cross the Channel in small boats on a one-way flight to Kigali.

The latest onslaught came as the House of Lords started its line-by-line scrutiny of the Government’s Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.

The controversial draft legislation and a treaty with Rwanda are intended to prevent further legal challenges to the stalled deportation scheme after the Supreme Court ruled the plan was unlawful.

As well as compelling judges to regard the east African country as safe, it would also give ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions.

While the Bill cleared the Commons, it faces a rocky ride in the upper chamber.

Peers are set to seek numerous changes, putting them on a collision course with the Tory administration and an extended tussle between the Commons and Lords during “ping-pong”.

Speaking earlier during a visit to Scotland, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (pictured) warned: “I think they are wrong to frustrate this Bill.”

The Conservative Cabinet minister added: “Rwanda is a safe country in our view, they have made huge steps forward over recent years, they look after many refugees in Rwanda very well.

“And we need to get this Bill through Parliament, get some of these flights away to demonstrate that this country is not going to put up with large-scale illegal migration.”

But criticising the legislation, Tory peer Lord Tugendhat, whose nephew is security minister Tom Tugendhat, said: “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.”

Conservative peer Viscount Hailsham, who previously served in the Commons as Douglas Hogg, said: “We should not put onto the face of a Bill a statement which is manifestly untrue… The truth is that the safety of Rwanda is the opinion of the Government.”

He added: “We are in fact using a statutory and untrue pronouncement to reverse a recent finding by the Supreme Court.”

Signalling his support for the Bill, former Conservative party leader Lord Howard of Lympne challenged the suggestion the Supreme Court’s decision on Rwanda’s safety “was a finding of fact”, instead claiming it was “finding of opinion”.

He told peers: “In my view when the Supreme Court reaches a conclusion on a matter of opinion, it is entirely legitimate and entirely proper constitutionally for Parliament democratically accountable to the people as the House of Commons is and the Supreme Court is not, entirely proper for Parliament to substitute its own opinion.”

However, human rights campaigner Lord Alton of Liverpool said legislating that Rwanda is safe “doesn’t make it so”.

He said: “Just saying that an apple is a pear doesn’t make it such. Saying a dog is a cat doesn’t make it such. It may be your opinion but it isn’t true.”

Green Party peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb said: “I am arguing that this is an absurd Bill. It is nasty, it is inhumane and I don’t want any part of it.”

Former ambassador and crossbench peer Lord Kerr of Kinlochard said: “In think we are dealing with a Bill which it is very hard to make acceptable.”

Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights said the proposed Rwanda legislation was “fundamentally incompatible” with the UK’s human rights obligations and would flout international law.

While restating his party’s opposition to the legislation, Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker said: “Any Bill, any law that we pass of course should be compliant with international law.”

Responding, Home Office minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: “The overriding purpose of this Bill is to ensure that Parliament’s sovereign view that Rwanda is a safe country is accepted and interpreted by the courts to prevent legal challenge, which seek to delay removals and prevent us from taking control of our borders.”