Rejecting Rwanda would imperil Lords

The legislation intended to make possible the deportation of cross-channel migrants to Rwanda is before the House of Lords today, where it faces its possible demise. Peers showed their hostility by voting last week to delay the ratification of the treaty underpinning the Safety of Rwanda Bill. That was not binding, but if the Government lose the measure at Second Reading in the Upper House they would effectively kill it off.

It would be unprecedented in modern times for the Lords to block a major piece of legislation in this way, but such are the passions raised by the issue that nothing can be ruled out. A Liberal Democrat amendment declining further consideration of the Bill is unlikely to succeed and would trigger a major constitutional battle if it did. It is not the function of the Lords to block government legislation that has been passed by the Commons. Its role is as a revising chamber and the Bill is certain to be watered down as it goes through the House since the Tories have no majority there.

Peers are especially concerned about giving ministers powers to ignore interim rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. In contrast, the Government maintains that the Strasbourg court has unilaterally arrogated to itself the power to impose so-called Rule 39 injunctions.

But the head of the court last week said signatory states were “under a clear legal obligation” to accept its rulings, not ignore them.

The Attorney General has also been unable to declare the Bill compatible with the convention, while the measure seeks to declare Rwanda a safe country in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary. The matter has been complicated further by the disclosure that Britain has offered asylum to Rwandans because they have a wellfounded fear of persecution there.

The ramifications of this measure are only now becoming apparent. It could lead to a clash between parliament and the courts and between the two Houses of Parliament. Left-wingers normally critical of the unelected Upper House are urging peers to oppose the legislation while Right-wingers usually supportive of the Lords are calling for its abolition if the Bill is blocked.

Rishi Sunak can hardly have imagined that when he inherited the Rwanda policy – and embraced it enthusiastically – he might be creating a constitutional crisis. Whatever their misgivings, the House of Lords should think long and hard before causing one.