Rishi Sunak will have been delighted last night to see his Rwanda Bill pass in the Commons, by 320 votes to 276. An expected Conservative rebellion was quelled, with only 11 Conservative MPs voting against the measure and no amendments accepted.
The vote exposed the posturing of the Conservative rebels. Fifty nine Conservative MPs were prepared to back an amendment tabled by Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, which would have meant that ‘interim measures’ made by the European Court of Human Rights would automatically be treated as not binding on the UK. But, when it came to the crunch, the vast majority of Conservative MPs could not bring themselves to reject the unamended Bill, whatever their concerns about its effectiveness.
Having rather preposterously dubbed themselves ‘the five families’, after the mafia crime syndicates operating in New York, the rebels looked less like Michael Corleone, taking care of business and rather more like the hapless Fredo, bungling a conspiracy against the boss.
The game is not up for opponents of the Rwanda scheme
Their strategy was curious. It was always clear that, absent votes from Labour and the SNP, they would never be in a position to pass amendments toughening up the already contentious Bill. Yet, even though they clearly didn’t have the numbers, they briefed the media ferociously that the government’s flagship immigration policy was, as Suella Braverman put it, ‘destined to fail’.
Arguably, all the rebels achieved was to weaken a government which is already on increasingly thin ice. This is particularly ironic given that the Rwanda scheme was, in part, designed to put the Labour party on the back foot. The whips might wish to remind them of the code of omertà when the Bill next returns to the Commons.
So what happens next? The scheme still faces two challenges. The government has to ratify the treaty with Rwanda and it has to get its legislation through the House of Lords without it being diluted by Peers, many of whom will have grave concerns about the Bill’s potential to breach international law.
In terms of ratification, amidst all the briefing yesterday, many may have overlooked the fact that two parliamentary select committees have already expressed concerns. The Commons Home Affairs Committee has argued that the government should provide time for a vote on the treaty, so that the House can record its view as to whether the treaty should be ratified. However, a motion that the agreement should not be ratified has, thus far, only received the signatures of 51 MPs.
In the Lords, the International Agreements Committee has stated that the treaty should not be ratified until ‘Parliament is satisfied that the protections it provides have been fully implemented’ by Rwanda. Clearly this could not happen in the short term. This report is due to be debated on 22 January and the tone of the debate will provide a useful impression of views in the Lords.
In truth, Parliament’s powers to block ratification of the treaty are very weak and Rishi Sunak is unlikely to face any real difficulties. Under the relevant legislation (the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010) the government is not obliged to provide time for a debate, or a vote, on the treaty in the Commons; and it will be entitled to ratify the treaty once it has been laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days (in this case the relevant period expires on 31 January).
This does not mean that the game is up for opponents of the scheme. The government will want its legislation in place before the treaty comes into force. Thus, all eyes will now turn to the House of Lords to see how it receives the Bill.
It seems inevitable that it will face a hostile reception. The International Agreements Committee has already argued that it would be ‘constitutionally inappropriate for Parliament to seek through statute to overturn findings of fact by the Supreme Court, especially when the Bill includes an ouster clause excluding judicial review.’
The UK has granted six people from Rwanda asylum since the government signed its deportation deal
While it is very unlikely that the Lords will simply refuse to pass the Bill on this basis, Peers will probably seek to introduce new safeguards which will weaken the more problematic elements of the proposed legislation.
The Lords will be particularly concerned about the provisions seeking to give ministers powers to ignore interim measures granted by the European Court of Human Rights, since the exercise of these powers would result in a breach of international law. However, they may also seek to amend other parts of the Bill that disempower the courts from considering certain types of claims. For example, it seems curious that, if the UK government believes that Rwanda will abide by the terms of the agreement, that courts and tribunals should be barred from hearing ‘any claim or complaint that the Republic of Rwanda will not act in accordance with the Rwanda Treaty.’
The fact that it has been reported that the UK has granted six people from Rwanda asylum since the government signed its deportation deal with the country in 2022 is only likely to bolster concerns. Lord Dubs has already said that this ‘makes a nonsense of a bill that deems Rwanda to be safe.’
The Lords may well be careful not to tread too heavily when amending the Bill, having seen that the government continues to have the backing of a large majority of MPs in the Commons. Any significant changes made in the Lords could easily be overturned. Yet it seems certain that some amendments will be made and compromises may have to be accepted, given that the government does not have the parliamentary time to force measures through using the Parliament Acts. No doubt this will further enrage the Conservative rebels.
Following the Supreme Court judgment in November last year, I suggested that the government ought to look for more pragmatic solutions. A number of other countries have explored the idea of offshoring asylum processing (rather than simply seeking to dump asylum seekers on poorer countries as an exercise in deterrence). Such a compromise might have made the debate on this issue somewhat less rancorous. As things stand, Sunak looks to be left with a costly, discredited, policy which has left his party divided and is likely to leave the electorate unimpressed.
Comments