The House of Lords once again delayed the approval of the agreement to transfer refugees from the UK to Rwanda. The representatives urged full compliance with national and international laws in the agreement’s guarantees. House of Lords rejects Sunak’s Rwanda Bill, but the British government insists on its implementation. Parliamentarians will review the deal again on April 15. The House of Lords supported a plan based on which, with new legal and security guarantees, Rwanda can be considered a safe country for deporting refugees. This article deals with the issue of why there are internal and external objections to the deportation of asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda.
House of Lords rejects Sunak’s Rwanda Bill
House of Lords rejects Sunak’s Rwanda Bill, causing further political challenges. The political ping-pong between the House of Lords and the British government regarding the refugee transfer agreement to Rwanda continues. On Wednesday, March 20, the members of the House of Lords approved seven proposed changes to the agreement. The purpose of the new approvals is to provide more guarantees for compliance with national and international laws when implementing the agreement. Parliament tabled the current plan after the Supreme Court declared the initial deal between London and Kigali illegal. The plan asserts that Rwanda is a safe third country to which the UK can deport illegal immigrants under the new rules.
The need to comply with national and international laws regarding asylum seekers
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government aims to finalise and implement the plan to transfer refugees to Rwanda, closing potential opposition. However, during the voting on Wednesday, 271 opposing representatives against 228 supporting representatives emphasised that the agreement should take national and international laws into account. House of Lords rejects Sunak’s Rwanda Bill despite Sunak’s insistence on implementing this plan. The Home Secretary insists that nothing in the agreement conflicts with national and international laws. British law requires reevaluation and approval in the House of Representatives if the House of Lords dissents.
Sunak’s insistence on deporting illegal asylum seekers
The refugee crisis in 2015 caused a rift among the members of the European Union. London opposes refugee policies, a key factor in the UK’s withdrawal from the union due to the continent’s vulnerability. Now, the British government is looking to get rid of asylum seekers at any cost. The Prime Minister announced the deportation of illegal asylum seekers to Rwanda based on previous plans. House of Lords rejects Sunak’s Rwanda Bill, which could lead to a more complicated refugee crisis in the UK.
Deportation of refugees to Rwanda will begin in the spring
According to Reuters, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said, “I’m still committed to the timeline that I set out previously, which is we aim to get a flight off in the spring.” Regarding the problems caused by the refugee crisis in the UK, Sunak noted: “It is important that we get the Rwanda scheme up and running because we need to have a deterrent (to illegal migration).”
Deportation of asylum seekers despite opposition
The UK Supreme Court had previously opposed the plan to deport illegal asylum seekers to Rwanda. However, the British House of Commons approved this plan, and the British government is now looking to implement it. Despite the National Audit Office’s estimate of the high costs of the Rwandan anti-immigration agreement, the British Prime Minister still defended this plan and emphasised the need to implement it to deal with the influx of immigrants.
Increasing criticism of Sunak on the issue of asylum seekers
The controversial asylum deal to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda has cost British taxpayers up to half a billion pounds ($630 million), significantly more than previously announced, the UK’s National Audit Office said. In the election year, Rishi Sunak pushes his anti-immigration project to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, defying the Supreme Court. However, the criticism of the refugee deportation project has continued to rise and has created challenging conditions for him.
Labour’s opposition to the plan to deport refugees to Rwanda
The British Conservative government had already approved spending 290 million pounds ($366 million) for the project to deport refugees to Rwanda.
The Sunak government declined to say how much money London has given Rwanda. The opposition reacted angrily to these assessments. Yvette Cooper, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, said: “The British taxpayer is already paying out eye-watering sums on asylum hotels, and now it turns out the sites they promised would save money are costing the taxpayer even more. Rishi Sunak has taken the Tories’ chaos and failure in the asylum system to a new level.”
Failure to meet the cost of deporting refugees to Rwanda by the government
The British government’s presented Bill specifies that migrants who enter the country irregularly could, in the future, be sent from the UK to Rwanda, classified as a safe third country, without examining their asylum applications. The British government aims to deter the influx of migrants. An agreement has already been reached with the government of Rwanda on this matter. The British government has not yet provided an estimate of the cost of its deportation plan.
Estimates of the British Court of Accounts of the costs of the deportation of asylum seekers
According to a report by the National Audit Office, London will pay Rwanda £370 million for a partnership agreement alone, plus £20,000 for each deported refugee and another £120 million after the first 300 are deported.
After that, a further £150,874 per person will be paid over five years for operational and administrative costs. According to the National Audit Office report, this would cost more than £540m (€630m) for the first 300 people deported, roughly £2m each.
The ongoing controversy over the deportation of asylum seekers by the conservative government
The House of Lords has rejected Sunak’s Rwanda Bill, potentially leading to adverse political ramifications for Sunak. The proposed legislation by the British government aims to relocate refugees to Rwanda, an East African nation.
However, the assertion that Rwanda qualifies as a safe third country has sparked significant controversy within the UK. Opponents of the initiative, including the United Nations Refugee Agency, have vehemently opposed this British legislation.
Critics argue that there are no legal channels for asylum seekers to enter Rwanda and contend that these plans contravene obligations regarding refugee protection. Moreover, the government’s attempt to override decisions of the Constitutional Court through this law is seen as a violation of the principle of separation of powers.