Peers to begin voting on Rwanda bill amendments

Peers are to begin voting on proposed amendments to the government’s Safety of Rwanda Bill – with ministers once again calling on parliament’s unelected upper house to not block a bill which was approved by MPs.

On Monday afternoon the House of Lords will begin its report stage, where votes will take place on changes members have proposed.

The bill – which seeks to declare Rwanda a safe country – passed its third reading in the Commons in December last year.

Politics latest: Speculation mounts over pre-election budget

Peers had previously considered the bill, but will now decide what changes they want to make.

Speaking to Sky News this morning, Treasury minister Bim Afolami said: “We call on the House of Lords to listen to the democratically elected House of Commons, which passed [the bill] with a good majority.”

He added: “The Lords, yes, they have a right to scrutinise, but they ultimately shouldn’t block what is the will of the elected House of Commons and so I urge them to pass it without delay.”

Parliamentary convention prevents the Lords from blocking bills about money, and also policies that appear in election manifestos – neither of these apply to the Safety of Rwanda Bill.

Voting is expected to start mid-afternoon, and will continue into the evening. This will be repeated on Wednesday.

Currently, there are 48 amendments proposed, although not all of them will go to a vote.

Some that may come to a division include one which seeks to make sure the bill is “fully compliant” with the rule of law.

Another change which may be put to a vote is an amendment co-sponsored by Lord Ken Clarke, the former Tory chancellor, which would seek to allow the assertion that Rwanda is a “safe country” to be “rebutted by credible evidence”.

And a third that may be considered is one which will stop people who worked for or with the UK’s armed forces from being sent to Rwanda.

The UK’s top court in November ruled the government’s scheme to deport asylum seekers to the African country was unlawful, saying those sent to Rwanda would be at “real risk” of being returned home, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not – breaching international law.

👉 Listen above then tap here to follow Politics at Jack at Sam’s wherever you get your podcasts 👈

The Supreme Court ruling that Rwanda was not safe lead to the UK agreeing a new treaty with the African nation, which contains guarantees from Kigali that it will address the issues which led to the unsafe designation.

These include cases where asylum seekers in Rwanda have been sent back to their country of origin – known as refoulement – which is prohibited by numerous international agreements.

It is upon this treaty that the government is looking to force judges considering the cases of people appealing against being sent to Rwanda to consider the country safe.

While there is an ability within the Parliament Act which allows the Commons to overrule the Lords, it requires at least a year of cooling off before an act is reintroduced.

Due to the deadline for the general election being in January 2025, this is not an option the government can use.

This article was originally published by Sky.com. Read the original article here.

Articles You May Like