Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda plan was dealt fresh blows by unelected Peers as the Government suffered three more defeats in the House of Lords.
The second chamber voted to restore UK courts’ ability to ground deportation flights to Kigali – overturning a key element of the Home Office’s emergency legislation.
While it is extremely likely MPs will reject the amendment to the Rwanda Bill, it is another blow for Mr Sunak after five defeats on Monday.
The Prime Minister had previously warned the Lords against frustrating “the will of the people” by hampering the passage of the Bill, which has already been approved by MPs.
The move backed by 278 votes to 189, majority 89, effectively blows a hole in the controversial draft legislation intended to prevent continued legal challenges to the stalled deportation scheme after the Supreme Court ruled the plan was unlawful.
As well as compelling judges to regard the east African country as safe, the Bill would also give ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions, aimed at clearing the way to send asylum seekers who cross the Channel in small boats on a one-way flight to Kigali.
The amendment agreed by the Lords restores the jurisdiction of domestic courts in relation to the safety of Rwanda and enables them to intervene.
A Home Office minister has also revealed the Government will regularly update people on how many migrants have been deported to Rwanda.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom told peers Rwanda removal data would be included as part of the quarterly immigration statistics.
He said: “It’s not necessary to report the number of removals to Parliament in the manner proposed.
“Once the partnership is operationalised and flights commence as soon as practical following royal assent, removal data will be published online in the usual manner as part of the quarterly immigration statistics. This is standard practice.
“We have always been clear the scheme is uncapped.”
He added: “When the deterrent effect works, this will represent good value.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom also said the Government’s policy aims to deter adults from claiming to be children.
He said in the Lords: “It is important the Government takes decisive action to deter adults from claiming to be children, and to avoid lengthy legal challenges to age-assessment decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults.
“Assessing age is inherently difficult, but we must disincentivise adults from knowingly claiming to be children.
“This not only seeks to frustrate removals but also causes wider resource and financial implications, and it reduces both the availability and accessibility of services for genuine children in need of them.”
He added that he viewed the policy as “entirely necessary to safeguard genuine children and guard against those who seek to game the system”.
In response to the Bishop of Chelmsford’s question about whether they would want this policy to apply to their own children, he said: “I wouldn’t allow a child or a grandchild to make a dangerous, illegal Channel crossing from a safe country.”
Speaking during the debate, Tory former cabinet minister Lord Lilley told the upper chamber that there is a precedent for Parliament to declare certain countries as safe.
Addressing Mr Welby, who has been scathing of the Bill, the Conservative peer said: “What’s the difference? The first is that in those days the list were all white countries, now we’re dealing with a black country.
“And I just warn him that he better check his white privilege and his colonial assumptions or he might find himself in trouble with some of his bishops.”
