The paper says that the first test will come on Monday when peers debate a motion laid by former Labour attorney general Peter Goldsmith, which seeks to delay the ratification of the new Rwanda treaty until the government can show the country is safe.
However, a more severe test awaits the Prime Minister when his new bill, which is now heading into the House of Lords after a torrid passage last week through the Commons, and which seeks to make clear in law that Rwanda is safe, is finally scrutinised by peers:
Liberal Democrats are also set to launch a challenge on the Rwanda bill which will seek to kill off its passage through parliament for good. Lib Dem peers are set to table a “fatal motion” which will say that the current plan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda breaches international law and will waste millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that could be better spent on public services.
The Lib Dem leader Ed Davey said: “Millions of pounds and months of squabbling later, there is still absolutely nothing to show for their failing Rwanda scheme. Our country cannot afford to waste any more time on a scheme that even senior Conservatives admit won’t work.”
To be successful, the motion would need to be backed by Labour and cross-bench peers. If passed, it would prevent the Rwanda bill receiving a second reading in the upper chamber. Fatal motions are not often successful but if it were to be, it could force the government back to the drawing board.
Sunak has sought to head off this challenge by urging peers not to “frustrate” what he called “the will of the people”.
Given this policy has not appeared in any manifesto. nor been tested in a General Election it is difficult to justify this claim. As somebody else said this week, the Rwanda Bill is barely even the settled will of the parliamentary Tory party.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.
Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.
I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.
Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.
The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.