The Contentious Rwanda Deportation Bill: A Battle for Rule of Law and Human Rights in the UK Parliament

The Rwanda deportation bill, a contentious piece of legislation, has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate in the UK Parliament. The bill, which aims to prevent further legal challenges to the government’s plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, has been met with criticism from various quarters, with opponents arguing that it threatens both the domestic rule of law and international human rights safeguards.

The bill, which began its committee stage in the House of Lords on Monday, follows the Supreme Court’s ruling in November 2022 that the government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. The ruling, which was a significant blow to the government’s efforts to curb illegal migration across the English Channel, was met with frustration from the government, which saw the bill as a necessary measure to demonstrate its commitment to stopping large-scale illegal migration.

The debate in the Lords marked the second of three days of detailed scrutiny of the bill, during which peers combed through the draft legislation line by line, considering nearly 100 amendments. After votes on amendments at report stage, peers will have the chance to hold a final vote before sending the legislation back to MPs to consider further.

Opponents of the bill argue that it threatens the domestic rule of law, specifically the separation of powers, and the international rules-based order. Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti warned that the bill “threatens both the domestic rule of law, especially the separation of powers, and the international rules-based order.” Former Conservative party leader Lord Howard countered that the Supreme Court judgement was a “finding of opinion” and suggested that the government was therefore correct to override it where necessary.

However, Tory peer Lord Tugendhat, whose nephew is security minister Tom Tugendhat, argued that the government’s actions represented the behavior of despots and autocracies, not an established democracy. Independent peer Lord Alton of Liverpool added that simply legislating that Rwanda is safe “doesn’t make it so.”

Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron, speaking on a visit to Scotland, defended the bill, stating that Rwanda is a safe country and that the government needed to get the bill through Parliament to demonstrate its commitment to stopping large-scale illegal migration.

The debate comes as the UK considers recognizing Palestine as a state, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak urging Lords to back the Rwanda bill. The Lords are also urging action on electric car misinformation and are considering recognizing Carmen Smith as a new peer.

The asylum plan, which has been criticized for being incompatible with UK human rights safeguards, has been a key priority for the government, with stopping migrant crossings of the Channel in small boats one of the prime minister’s five priorities. The prime minister has made it clear that he will not tolerate large-scale illegal migration and that the Rwanda bill is necessary to demonstrate the government’s commitment to this goal.

Despite the intense debate and criticism, the bill has won majority support from MPs in the Commons and is making its way through the Lords. The outcome of the debate remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the Rwanda deportation bill is a significant test of the UK’s commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and the debate in the House of Lords is just the beginning of a larger conversation about the role of the government in shaping immigration policy and upholding international human rights standards.

In conclusion, the Rwanda deportation bill is a contentious piece of legislation that has sparked intense debate and criticism in the UK Parliament. The bill, which aims to prevent further legal challenges to the government’s plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, has been met with opposition from various quarters, with opponents arguing that it threatens both the domestic rule of law and international human rights safeguards. The outcome of the debate in the House of Lords remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the Rwanda deportation bill is a significant test of the UK’s commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and the debate in the House of Lords is just the beginning of a larger conversation about the role of the government in shaping immigration policy and upholding international human rights standards.