Four key Rwanda amendments that could cause a headache for Rishi Sunak and why

Peers will begin voting on the Government’s controversial Rwanda Bill this week as the legislation enters its final stages in Parliament.

The House of Lords will have the chance to debate the contents of the bill, and almost 50 amendments have been tabled, many of which seek to strengthen its compliance with international law.

Any amendments that are approved by peers are then sent to MPs for debate and votes – but the Lords can send fresh amendments back if MPs reject them in a process sometimes known as parliamentary ping-pong.

The Illegal Migration Bill, which strengthened the Government’s powers to remove asylum seekers, went through three such ping-pongs in 2023 before it was passed into law.

As ministers try to get flights to Rwanda off the ground before the next election, here are the amendments they are up against:

Providing evidence that Rwanda is a safe country

Baroness Shami Chakrabarti, a barrister and human rights activist who formerly was director of advocacy group Liberty, has tabled several amendments on a similar theme all of which require ministers to provide evidence that Rwanda is a safe country.

One of these amendments requires the Home Secretary to “consider all relevant evidence and lay a statement of satisfaction” that Rwanda is safe before any deportations can take place.

Another of Baroness Chakrabarti’s amendment’s stated aims is to restore the ability of the courts to consider whether Rwanda is safe and ensure their power to grant interim injunctions against the deportation scheme.

Why these amendments matter: The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on the assumption that Rwanda was not a safe country to send asylum seekers to, and the Law Society has warned there is currently “no evidence” this has changed. Regardless of whether this amendment is passed, it sheds fresh light on the Government’s repeated claims that Rwanda is safe and highlights any evidence to the contrary.

Ensuring compliance with international law

Baroness Chakrabarti has presented an amendment requiring the Home Secretary to make a statement to Parliament, and for both Houses to be given a chance to debate, if the Rwanda policy is found to be incompatible with international human rights law.

Several peers have also put their names to amendments seeking to clarify that the Human Rights Act applies “in its entirety” to the Rwanda legislation – something the Government is trying to avoid.

Other amendments focus on ensuring compliance with the Refugee Convention and the European Convention of Human Rights.

But another amendment, backed by former chief EU negotiator Lord David Frost, seeks to strengthen the legislation exemptions from international law, spelling out in more detail than the original text that the bill is exempt from both international and domestic laws.

Why these amendments matter: If passed, these amendments would require ministers to justify whether the Rwanda policy complies with international law – a very controversial issue for the Government. 

Ensuring a new immigration inspector is appointed

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Paul Scriven has tabled an amendment requiring that the Home Secretary make a statement claiming they are “satisfied” that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration can monitor the legislation.

This role is currently vacant after David Neal, who had held the post since March 2021, was sacked last week after he publicly criticised border security measures at City Airport

This amendment effectively prevents the legislation from taking effect until his replacement is appointed, which could mean a lengthy delay.

The Lib Dems have argued that no independent inspections will be able to be conducted in the interim.

Why this amendments matters: The Home Office have suggested it could take well over six months to find Mr Neal’s replacement. If this amendment passes, it could delay the legislation until the autumn, scuppering the Government’s chances of getting flights to Rwanda before the next election

Giving asylum seeks in Rwanda the option to return to the UK

Lord David Blunkett, a Labour peer who served as home secretary under Tony Blair, has presented an amendment giving those granted refugee status the right to return to the UK

“This amendment… seeks to ensure that those granted refugee status are automatically presumed to have the option of returning to the United Kingdom, and that on being granted refugee status, they are facilitated in relocating to the United Kingdom,” it states.

Under the Rwanda scheme, those who arrive illegally in the UK are sent to the country for their claims to be processed, and they are then required to settle in Rwanda or return to a third country.

Why this amendment matters: The Government wants being deported to Rwanda to be a deterrent to crossing the Channel illegally. The main point is that if you’re sent there, you can’t settle in the UK. This amendment would undermine the key thrust of the legislation.