THE House of Lords have inflicted the first defeat against Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation plan.
Peers voted to seek to delay a treaty with the east African nation that paves the way for the asylum scheme on Monday evening.
The UK Government agreed the legally-binding pact with Kigali in December, saying it addressed concerns raised by the Supreme Court about the possibility of asylum seekers deported to Rwanda then being transferred to a country where they could be at risk.
The call to delay the treaty was made by Labour peer Lord Goldsmith, the chairman of the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (IAC). Peers backed it by 214 votes to 171, majority 43,
Goldsmith also said protections must be up and running before Parliament can judge Rwanda safe to send asylum seekers to.
But the cross-party committee said promised safeguards in the agreement are “incomplete” and must be implemented before it can be endorsed.
The treaty underpins the UK Government’s Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill which compels judges to regard Rwanda as safe.
Former attorney general Lord Goldsmith said: “In total our report identifies at least 10 sets of issues where on the basis of the Government’s evidence significant additional legal and practical steps are needed in order to implement the protections the treaty is designed to provide. The difficulty is that the Government has already presented a bill to Parliament asking it to make a judgment that Rwanda is safe now.
READ MORE: Scottish Government discussed how Covid changed case for independence
“And yet on the Home Secretary’s own evidence it cannot be so because the measures are not in place and have not been shown to be effective. The treaty is held up by the Government as the justification for the measures in the Bill and yet the treaty cannot at present provide a basis for Parliament to judge that Rwanda is safe while so many aspects of the treaty remain unimplemented and untested.”
Lord Goldsmith added: “We are not saying the treaty should never be ratified but we are saying that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty and its implementing measures in full before it makes a judgment about Rwanda is safe.”
Conservative former Cabinet minister Lord Howell of Guildford warned over the “rather patronising tone one hears in some comments about Rwanda and its judiciary and legal system as though it could not possibly have high enough standards”.
READ MORE: Liz Truss to launch new 'Popular Conservatism' movement
Pointing out the country was a member of the Commonwealth, he said: “I can understand the Rwandan Government’s exasperation and that of senior legal figures at the implication that their system somehow has got to be reinforced, made over and renewed to bring it up to scratch and be called safe.”
He added: “What does safe mean? It is an entirely subjective concept and always will be.
“In our own judicial system, is that safe? I don’t know. I am not sure all our postmasters would agree about the safety of our own judicial system.”
This was a reference to the hundreds of branch managers in the UK wrongly convicted because of a faulty accounting IT system in one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British legal history.
Lord Howell warned no amount of monitoring, training or appeals bodies would convince those “who don’t want to be convinced that Rwanda is safe”.
Independent crossbencher and former diplomat Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a member of the IAC, said: “The considerations of international law and national reputation… convince me that it wouldn’t be right to ratify this treaty at any time. Arguments from history suggest that it would be very reckless to do so any time soon. But these are my personal views.
“The IAC read its remit rather narrowly. What we did was to consider whether the treaty can be said now, today, to meet the Supreme Court’s concerns. And our unanimous answer, based on the overwhelming weight of the evidence we received was no, not today, not yet.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel