In an unprecedented move, Peers voted to advise the Rwanda treaty be delayed until ministers can prove Rwanda is a safe country.
Image: Unsplash
Tonight, in an unprecedented move, peers in the House of Lords voted by 214 to 171 to not ratify the treaty.
(Ratification is the formal process by which a treaty can be signed or agreed upon.)
By voting against the ratification of the treaty, the chamber has supported calls by the Lords International Agreements Committee that Parliament shouldn’t sign the treaty until they prove Rwanda is a safe country.
Whilst the Government agreed the legally binding treaty with the Rwandan Government in Kigali in December, saying it did address the issues raised by the Supreme Court, the Lords clearly believe more needs to be done to prove Rwanda is a safe country for anyone deported there.
(The Supreme Court previously unanimously found the government’s Rwanda scheme to be unlawful - believing there were substantial grounds that migrants sent to Rwanda could face a risk of ill-treatment.)
Unlike the House of Commons, who could delay the signing of the treaty/bill, the Lords can only advise - they cannot delay.
However, the reason as to why this vote and advice matters, lies in the legalities: by the Lords not signing the agreement, it could strengthen appeal cases brought against the government, as it could further compel judges to regard the country as unsafe.
This vote result comes despite the Prime Minister’s ‘bizarre’ urging of the independent House of Lords not to block the ‘will of the people', last week.
Downing Street said earlier today the government is still aiming to get flights off the ground this spring.
The bill will be debated in the Lords from next week.