Peers threaten to oppose Rishi Sunak’s ‘post-truth’ Rwanda bill in crucial House of Commons showdown

Peers threatened to oppose Rishi Sunak’s ‘post-truth’ Rwanda Bill in a constitutional showdown.

They were expected to again oppose government legislation seeking to declare the Central African country safe for asylum seekers from Britain, after the British Supreme Court ruled that this was not the case.

The bill was back in parliament on Monday for a new round of parliamentary ‘ping-pong’.

MPs would reject amendments supported by the Lords.

Colleagues are expected to ultimately assert the will of the elected House and end their opposition, but possibly not before raising new objections.

But if peers pass the exact same amendment twice, the House of Commons would be faced with the choice of accepting the amendment or losing the bill under a rarely used process known as ‘double pushing’.

Former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Anderson, indicated that some crossbenchers could continue to support Labor in its opposition to the bill, and raised the possibility of “double pushing”.

He tweeted on Sunday: “This ‘post-truth’ bill asks Parliament to declare that Rwanda is safe (which it is not yet) and will always be safe (which is of course unknowable).”

Leading barrister and independent advocate Lord Carlile of Berriew said the current Rwanda law is “ill-considered, poorly drafted, inappropriate” and “illegal under current UK and international law”, ahead of key votes on the legislation in Parliament on Monday .

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “This is, in my opinion, the most inexplicable and insensitive day I have seen in any House of Parliament in almost 40 years.”

“What Rishi Sunak is asking Parliament to do is say that a falsehood is a truth,” he added.

“The Supreme Court ruled, at least provisionally, that Rwanda is not a safe country and it remains the case that Rwanda has not implemented all the promises it made in the treaty it signed with Britain.”

Last week, colleagues amended the bill again to include an exemption for Afghan nationals helping British forces and a provision that meant Rwanda could not be treated as safe unless deemed so by an independent oversight body that would verify that the protections provided for in a new treaty with Kigali are being implemented.

But Deputy Foreign Secretary Andrew Mitchell on Monday defended the government’s legislation and rejected calls from colleagues to exempt Afghans helping British troops from the risk of being sent to Rwanda.

He stressed that a “safe and legal route” was available for them to get to Britain, and urged the House of Lords to “accept the will” of the House of Commons and the British people.

Mr Mitchell told Times Radio: “We have an absolute obligation to Afghan interpreters, people who served the British army, served our country during the Afghan crisis.

“But I am pleased to say that thanks to the scheme the government has put in place, the Arap program (Afghan Relocation and Aid Policy), around 16,100 Afghans have been settled in Britain.

“So I don’t think this amendment is necessary. There is already a safe and legal route for Afghan interpreters and others who have served the military.”

Mr Mitchell said he hoped the Lords “will now accept the will of the elected House and allow the Bill to pass” as “that is what the British people want”.

“We know overwhelmingly that they agree that we have to stop the boats. The government has a clear plan, no one else has a clear plan.”

Former Interior Minister Suella Braverman said the Rwanda law is “fatally flawed” and contains “too many loopholes.”

She added: “I don’t think it will stop the boats, and that is the test of its effectiveness.”

The government has promised to keep Parliament sitting until the early hourst if necessary to pass the Rwanda Security (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which is seen as essential to the Prime Minister’s promise to “stop the boats”.

Peers have repeatedly blocked the legislation with a series of amendments, stretching the debate on the “emergency legislation” over more than four months and delaying flights taking asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Downing Street is hostile to the idea of ​​making concessions to secure passage of the bill, sparking a confrontation with colleagues.

The bill aims to overcome Supreme Court objections by forcing judges to treat Rwanda as a safe country for asylum seekers and allowing ministers to ignore emergency orders from the European Court of Human Rights while the government boats’ is trying to tackle. Canal crisis.

Rishi Sunak said on Friday that he had “run out of patience” with those who held up the bill, adding: “No more excuses, no more delays. We’ll sit there and vote until it’s done.