The recent decision by the House of Lords to vote against the ratification of the UK-Rwanda treaty marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the UK’s approach to handling asylum seekers. The treaty, which was signed in December, forms a central part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s strategy to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. However, the motion passed by the Lords, though non-binding, indicates substantial opposition to this plan.
The House of Lords, in a historic move, voted by a margin of 214 to 171 in favor of delaying the ratification of the treaty until Rwanda demonstrates improvements in its asylum procedures. This vote was the first of its kind under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act of 2010, which established new procedures for the Lords to challenge treaty ratification.
While the treaty is separate from the Rwanda Safety Bill, which is set to be debated in the Lords next week, the outcome of this vote suggests that the bill may face considerable challenges. Notably, only one Conservative peer, the Earl of Dundee, voted against the government in this instance.
The UK-Rwanda Treaty, drafted in response to a Supreme Court ruling that deemed the Rwanda policy unlawful, includes provisions to ensure that relocated individuals are not returned to countries where they would face threats to their life or freedom. This process, known as non-refoulement, is a key aspect of the treaty. Additionally, the treaty outlines the creation of a new appeal body, staffed by judges with expertise in asylum cases from various countries, and establishes a monitoring committee to oversee the implementation of the treaty.
Despite these measures, concerns remain regarding the efficacy and readiness of Rwanda’s asylum system. The House of Lords’ decision to delay ratification aligns with a report published by the cross-party International Agreements Committee, which highlighted several unresolved issues in the Rwandan system. Lord Goldsmith, a Labour former Attorney General and proposer of the motion, emphasized that the government has yet to demonstrate that Rwanda is currently a safe destination for asylum seekers, as the necessary measures are not yet operational.
The government, however, remains committed to implementing the treaty and has indicated plans to commence deportations this spring. This development comes amidst broader discussions and critiques of the UK’s approach to managing the influx of migrants, particularly those crossing the Channel in small boats. The debate continues to evolve, balancing concerns over national security and immigration control with the obligations towards international asylum laws and human rights standards.