10 challenges that could torpedo Rishi Sunak's Rwanda Bill in Lords clash
Some of the UK's most senior bishops including the Archbishop of Canterbury will try to tear Rishi Sunak's latest Rwanda Bill to shreds this week.
The Government is set for a bitter clash with Church of England leaders demanding a string of changes - including giving refugees the right to return to the UK, extra power for courts and protections for children. If accepted they could effectively torpedo the PM's controversial Safety of Rwanda Bill, which will be put in front of the House of Lords.
Five bishops have put their names to 29 demands as the Government braces for a bruising battle with peers. It comes after the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, warned the Bill is "leading the nation down a damaging path".
Other changes that Bishops want to see brought in are a two year limit on a new law declaring Rwanda is safe. A string of amendments backed by religious leaders also want more powers to be given to courts - the very thing the Government wants to strip away.
And the Archbishop of Canterbury has demanded the UN Human Rights Commissioner - who has previously said the Rwanda deal is illegal - gives a ruling before any flights can go ahead. Peers will pick through the Bill on Monday and Wednesday in what is expected to be a difficult two days for Mr Sunak.
Reporter and her aristocrat family to apologise for their slave trade shame
Any amendments accepted by peers will be sent back to MPs to consider in what could be a damaging back-and-forth for the PM. The Government wants Parliament to declare the African nation is a safe place to send asylum seekers after the Supreme Court ruled in November that it's not. Here we look at some of the things that senior Bishops who sit in the House of Lords want to make.
Home Secretary James Cleverly and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta sign a new treaty in December (PA Wire/PA Images)Giving refugees the right to come back to UK
One of the biggest potential changes put forward by church leaders is a demand for refugees to be allowed to return to the UK. This would defeat the purpose of the Government's plan, with ministers desperate to ensure those who arrive in the UK without authorisation aren't allowed to stay.
Two bishops, the Lord Bishop of Edmunsbury and Ipswich and the Lord Bishop of Bristol want to see people awarded refugee status in Rwanda to be helped to return to the UK. The amendment is backed by former Labour Home Secretary Lord David Blunkett.
UN Commissioner must say Rwanda is safe
The Archbishop of Canterbury has put his name to a string of calls for deportations to be delayed until the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) gives a positive assessment.
One amendment says positive UNHCR advice on the safety of Rwanda should be put before MPs before any asylum claims can be processed there. The Archbishop also wants to limit the Home Secretary's ability to challenge UNHCR advice.
Archbishop Justin Welby, along with former Supreme Court President Baroness Hale and Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti, say no asylum seekers should be sent to Rwanda until the UN Human Rights Commissioner declares it safe. Just a fortnight ago the commissioner, Filippo Grandi, accused the UK of "responsibility shifting" and said it would be acting illegally if it goes ahead.
The Supreme Court ruled the Rwanda plan was illegal back in November (Amer Ghazzal/REX/Shutterstock)Giving power back to courts
The driving force behind the PM's latest Bill is to stop courts overturning deportations. But a number of Bishops want this scrubbed out giving those affected the right to appeal.
In the Government's version of the Bill, every court and tribunal must "conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country". But the Lord Bishop of Manchester wants the word "conclusively" scratched out.
This would mean it can be overturned by "credible evidence" that Rwanda isn't safe. It would require decision makers, such as courts and tribunals, to consider such evidence. In another amendment, the Bishop says the words “unless presented with credible evidence to the contrary” added.
The Bill also says courts and tribunals "must not consider" reviews or appeals against individuals' deportations to Rwanda. The Lord Bishop of Manchester wants this section deleted.
Priests could stop using male pronouns 'He' and 'Him' when referring to God
A similar string of amendments have been put forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury, calling for parts of the Bill stripping courts of their ability to rule on deportations to be taken out.
Bill should expire after two years
The Safety of Rwanda Act should only be in effect for two years if it passes into law, the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford says. She wants to insert a new clause meaning that MPs would have to vote to renew the legislation.
In order for MPs to make an informed decision, she says, the Government will have to provide evidence that Rwanda is meeting the requirements of the treaty agreed with the UK.
Delay so Rwanda can make changes
Rather than rush the latest Bill through, the Lord Bishop of Edmunsbury and Ipswich argues, the Government should wait until Rwanda has delivered on the terms of a new treaty. In December the Government announced a new treaty had been agreed with the African nation with a string of measures responding to Supreme Court concerns.
These include sweeping improvements to the Rwandan asylum system. This would scupper Mr Sunak's plan to get flights in the air by the spring.
A similar amendment backed by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford makes a similar demand, saying that the Government must closely monitor whether Rwanda is sticking to its side of the deal. The amendment says the Home Secretary should be given reports every three months by the cross-party Monitoring Committee that the treaty is in force. If the committee says conditions aren't being met, the Home Secretary should make a statement to Parliament as soon as possible.
Acknowledging judges think Rwanda isn't safe
The Lord Bishop of Manchester wants to see the final Safety of Rwanda Bill acknowledge that the Supreme Court has previously ruled against the Government. He wants the words "thus replacing a previous finding of fact by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that Rwanda was not a safe country” inserted.
The Bishop and fellow backers behind the amendment say the words "make it plain" that the Bill "replaces a judicial finding of fact". Although it wouldn't prevent the controversial plan going ahead, it would set in black and white that Parliament's position is different to that of top judges.
Protecting welfare of children
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford has called for measures protecting children to be inserted. She's called for the Bill to be clarified to ensure unaccompanied children aren't accidentally sent to Rwanda. She and fellow peers point out that the UK-Rwanda Treaty doesn't cover unaccompanied kids.
Another amendment the Bishop has put her name to calls says the Home Secretary mustn't just send kids and their families to be sent to Rwanda. Instead it says the Government must consult the Independent Family Returns Panel. This will provide guidance on how children can be protected and safeguarded.
Ministers 'must comply with international law'
The Archbishop of Canterbury says that the Government "must comply with international law" if interim measures are put in place stopping people being removed. Ministers insist they will not let the European Court of Human Rights stand in the way of sending people.
But the leader of the Church of England has called for the Bill to be changed ensuring that "proper regard" is given to interim measures from the court. He says this is "in accordance to international law".
Stopping slavery and trafficking victims being sent
The Lord Bishop of Bristol wants to see the Bill changed to stop victims of modern slavery and human trafficking being sent against their will. She said that if those affected by these abuses shouldn't be sent until the impact on their physical and mental health or safety is assessed.
If it's decided that it will have a negative impact, they should not be sent, the Bishop says.
Ministers must face MPs over Human Rights Act rulings
The Government must face MPs if a court rules the Rwanda legislation goes against the Human Rights Act, the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford says. A minister will be required to explain why they think there is a reason to proceed.
MPs should then be given the right to debate the Government's position - potentially opening the door for a vote that could prevent it going ahead.
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
