Rishi Sunak faces another round of parliamentary wrangling as he attempts to pass his flagship Rwanda security bill.
The prime minister wants to send asylum seekers to the East African country for processing and resettlement to act as a deterrent to those crossing the Channel in small boats. Downing Street said: “This week Parliament has the opportunity to pass a bill that will save the lives of people being exploited by human-trafficking gangs.” But charities have criticized the scheme as cruel and ineffective, while Labor say it is a waste of money, having already cost millions of pounds.
MPs have rejected amendments to Rwanda’s security bill by the House of Lords, which suffered several defeats against the controversial policy before rising for spring break. The government removed changes made by peers who wanted additional legal safeguards, including a provision to ensure “due respect” for domestic and international law.
Peers are expected to consider the Rwanda bill on Tuesday (April 16) and then send it back to the Commons with amendments at the end of the week, prolonging the process known as parliamentary ping-pong, where both Laws are debated between the houses.
What is Rwanda bill?
The government wants to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing and resettlement, which has become Sunak’s flagship legislation. The Home Office believes this will act as a deterrent to migrants crossing the Channel on small boats, although donors have questioned whether it would work.
However, the policy was originally declared illegal by the Supreme Court because it puts asylum seekers at risk of “return”, which is when they are sent back to their home country where they are at risk. Are. Sunak hopes to combat this with a dual approach, firstly, signing a treaty with Rwanda stating that no one deported by Britain can be deported from the East African country.
The second part is this bill, which unilaterally declares Rwanda safe for asylum seekers arriving on small boats, and does not enforce parts of the Human Rights Act to limit the number of legal challenges made by migrants. Does. The government says individuals can legally protest their deportation only if they can prove they would suffer serious and irreversible harm – such as being pregnant or suffering from a very serious illness.
This section is particularly controversial as it does not effectively apply UK and international law. This means that if an asylum seeker makes a legal challenge and cites the European Convention on Human Rights, a government minister will decide whether to deport them and ignore the ECHR. It would also mean that refugees would not be able to cite certain sections of the Human Rights Act when arguing that being taken to Rwanda is unlawful.