Britain’s House of Lords dealt a sharp setback to the government on Wednesday, voting to amend the Conservative Party’s flagship immigration legislation and potentially delaying a controversial plan to put asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda.
It was an unusual show of defiance from the Lords, many of whom oppose the policy on legal and constitutional grounds. While the Conservative government, with a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, may eventually pass the bill, the standoff with the House of Lords, the unelected upper house of Parliament, could dash the government’s hopes of a quick start to a plan she sees as critical to her fortunes in an election year.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak argues that flights to Rwanda, a small country in East Africa, would be a vital deterrent that could stem the flow of tens of thousands of people who make dangerous, often illegal crossings from France to Britain each year with small, often unseaworthy vessels.
The government does not expect such flights until May and, following Wednesday’s action by the House of Lords, that timetable could now be pushed back to June. The prime minister’s office had no immediate comment.
Those selected for the first flight are expected to file legal challenges that could further block the plan.
Under the legislation, those deported from Britain will have their asylum claims assessed in Rwanda. But even if the claims were successful, the deportees would remain there and not be allowed to settle in Britain.
The policy was started by a former prime minister, Boris Johnson, almost two years ago. But despite paying hundreds of millions of pounds to Rwanda as part of its deal with that nation, the British government has so far failed to send a single asylum seeker there.
The government has come under heavy pressure over the arrival of small boats on British shores, which have become a symbol of its failure to curb immigration. Controlling Britain’s borders was a central promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign, championed by Mr Johnson and supported by Mr Sunak.
In June 2022, last-minute legal action halted the first scheduled flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda, and the policy has been suspended ever since. Last year Britain’s High Court ruled against the plan, saying Rwanda was not a safe destination for refugees and there was a risk some sent there could be returned to their countries of origin, where they could be at risk.
The bill debated on Wednesday reverses that decision, declaring Rwanda a safe country and instructing the courts to consider it as such. This approach has been heavily criticized in the House of Lords, whose members include many former lawmakers, lawyers, judges, civil servants and diplomats.
In a debate last month, Kenneth Clarke, a Conservative former chancellor of the exchequer, said the legislation set an “extremely dangerous precedent” going against the Supreme Court on a legal issue.
In its debates, the House of Lords advanced a series of amendments, but these were overturned this week by the elected and much more powerful House of Commons. On Wednesday, the Lords voted to reinstate seven amendments, including one requiring Rwanda to provide evidence that it is a safe destination for refugees.
The upper house can do no more than delay a bill and, without democratic legitimacy, always bows to the will of the House of Commons in the end. But that didn’t stop some members from taking a provocative tone.
“I know that some noble Lords believe that the Commons should have the final say,” said David Hope, a retired Scottish judge who is a non-partisan member of the House of Lords. “But on this occasion I really call upon those Lordships who have a mind to take that view to think very carefully.”
Vernon Coker, a member of the opposition Labor Party, which is against the plan, criticized the government for refusing to give any weight to earlier amendments tabled by the House of Lords. Any delays in deportation policy were the government’s fault, he said, because it controls the parliamentary timetable.
But he conceded the legislation will eventually pass. “We have said all along, and I repeat here, that it is not our intention to block the bill,” he said.
In addition to the legislation, known as the Rwanda Security (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the British government negotiated a new treaty with the Rwandan government to try to address the concerns raised by the High Court.
Under the latest version of the plan, even those whose asylum claims were rejected while in Rwanda would be allowed to remain there. This was designed to allay fears that they could be sent back to their countries of origin, where they may be at risk.
Even so, the bill has been heavily criticized by human rights groups. “All this could end now if the government abandons its harsh policy of refusing to decide asylum claims this country receives,” said Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International’s UK chief executive.
