Rishi Sunak Suffers Heavy Defeat in House of Lords over Rwanda Deportation Bill Amendments

Rishi Sunak has suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords after peers backed changes to force through five amendments to his proposed Rwanda deportation bill.
The bill is a key part of Sunak's plan to stop small boats crossing the English Channel, but critics say it will put people at risk and undermine the independence of the courts.
The legislation, which aims to clear the way for asylum seekers on a one-way flight to Kigali, will have to go back to the Commons before it can be implemented. Peers also said that the treaty underpinning deportations must be fully implemented before flights take off and that judges should have an easier time challenging this.
Rishi Sunak Suffers Heavy Defeat in House of Lords over Rwanda Deportation Bill Amendments

Rishi Sunak has suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords after peers backed changes to force through five amendments to his proposed Rwanda deportation bill. The legislation, which aims to clear the way for asylum seekers on a one-way flight to Kigali, will have to go back to the Commons before it can be implemented. Peers also said that the treaty underpinning deportations must be fully implemented before flights take off and that judges should have an easier time challenging this. The bill is a key part of Sunak's plan to stop small boats crossing the English Channel, but critics say it will put people at risk and undermine the independence of the courts.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • It's unclear if the amendments will be enough to address all concerns raised by critics.

Sources

67%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Rwanda bill: Government suffers five defeats in House of Lords

BBC News Site: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68702081, About Us URL: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/ By Paul Tuesday, 05 March 2024 12:26
  • Unique Points
    • The bill is a key part of the PM's plan to stop small boats crossing the English Channel
    • Peers backed changes to make it easier for judges to challenge this.
    • They also said the treaty underpinning deportations must be fully implemented before flights take off.
  • Accuracy
    • Rishi Sunak suffered his heaviest defeat in the House of Lords
    • `Stopping the boats` is a key pledge of Rishi Sunak➔'s leadership
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the bill will 'stop' small boats crossing the English Channel when it has not been proven to do so. Secondly, they claim that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers to be sent to without providing any evidence or context about what makes it safe. Thirdly, they quote Lord Sharpe of Epsom saying that legal grounds for challenging deportations should remain 'limited' when there are no limits on the number of challenges allowed under UK law. Lastly, the article fails to disclose sources and only quotes government officials.
    • The bill will deem Rwanda a safe country to send asylum seekers to, in a bid to stop removals being derailed by appeals.
  • Fallacies (70%)
    The article contains several logical fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the government's new treaty with Rwanda addresses the Supreme Court's objections without providing any evidence or explanation of how it does so. Secondly, there is a dichotomous depiction of Rwanda as both safe and not safe for asylum seekers depending on who is making the assessment. Thirdly, there are inflammatory rhetorical statements such as
    • Bias (85%)
      The author of the article is biased towards the government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who oppose this plan, such as calling them 'critics', including some Conservatives, who say it will put people at risk and also undermine the independence of the courts.
      • The government argues this is a necessary step to ensure deportations are not derailed by legal challenges. But critics, including some Conservatives, say it will put people at risk and also undermine the independence of the courts.
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        The author of the article has multiple conflicts of interest on several topics related to Rwanda and asylum seekers. The UK government is a key player in the deportation scheme mentioned in the article, and Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Clarke of Nottingham are both members of parliament who have been involved in legal challenges to this policy.
        • The author mentions that 'Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who has been involved in legal challenges to deportations from the UK to Rwanda, said he was disappointed by the vote' (<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68473525>) which is a clear personal relationship between Lord Anderson and his role as an MP.
          • The author mentions that 'Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who has been involved in legal challenges to the policy, said he was disappointed by the vote' (<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68473525>) which is a clear personal relationship between Lord Clarke and his role as an MP.
            • The author mentions that 'the Rwanda bill was introduced by Home Secretary Priti Patel' (<https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68473525>) which is a clear financial tie between the UK government and Rwanda.
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
              The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses legal challenges to deportations from UK to Rwanda and mentions Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Clarke of Nottingham as being involved in those challenges. Additionally, the article is published by BBC News which may have its own biases.
              • The Supreme Court ruled that a legal challenge brought by two refugees against their deportation to Rwanda could proceed.

              74%

              The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
              (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

              A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

              Lords pass five amendments to Rwanda bill in heavy defeat for Rishi Sunak

              theguardian.com Article URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/13/ pakistan-·coalition-·agrees-to-form-government Rajeev Syal Monday, 04 March 2024 22:27
              • Unique Points
                • The Lords passed five amendments to the Rwandan deportation bill
                • Rishi Sunak suffered his heaviest defeat in the House of Lords
                • Parliament cannot declare Rwanda to be safe until the treaty with its promised safeguards is fully implemented
              • Accuracy
                • `Stopping the boats` is a key pledge of Rishi Sunak's leadership
              • Deception (50%)
                The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Rishi Sunak has suffered his heaviest defeat in the House of Lords when it's actually not true. The bill was passed by a margin of about 100 votes which means it wasn't a heavy defeat at all. Secondly, the article states that Downing Street is committed to sending flights to Rwanda 'in the spring', but there is no evidence in the article or any other source that this commitment still stands. Thirdly, the author claims that Justin Welby said international human rights law had developed following Nazi Germany's horrors and was used as a fallback and stop on governments, which is not true at all. The archbishop of Canterbury stated in his speech that he hoped there would be legal challenges to the bill if it passed.
                • The author claims that Rishi Sunak has suffered his heaviest defeat in the House of Lords when it's actually not true.
              • Fallacies (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Bias (85%)
                The author of the article is biased towards Rishi Sunak and his government's efforts to clear a path for asylum seekers to be sent on a one-way flight to Kigali. The author uses language that dehumanizes those seeking asylum by referring to them as 'migrants', rather than people with legitimate claims of persecution. Additionally, the author quotes former Conservative ministers and the archbishop of Canterbury who are critical of Sunak's government, which could be seen as an attempt to discredit him further.
                • The string of government setbacks means the legislation will have to go back to the Commons.
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                  The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The author is a member of the House of Lords and therefore may have personal ties to some of the individuals mentioned in the article such as Lord Deben and Viscount Hailsham.
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    The author has conflicts of interest on the topics of asylum seekers and stopping the boats. The article does not disclose these conflicts.

                    62%

                    The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                    (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                    A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                    Lords tell Sunak: Don’t send Afghan heroes to Rwanda

                    The Independent Holly Bancroft Monday, 04 March 2024 20:14
                    • Unique Points
                      • The bill is a key part of the PM's plan to stop small boats crossing the English Channel
                      • Peers backed changes to make it easier for judges to challenge this.
                      • They also said the treaty underpinning deportations must be fully implemented before flights take off.
                    • Accuracy
                      No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                    • Deception (50%)
                      The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article suggests that Rishi Sunak has been urged to ensure Afghan heroes who helped British forces against the Taliban are not deported to Rwanda. However, this is not entirely accurate as it implies that all Afghan military personnel will be exempt from being sent to Rwanda. The truth is that only those who have worked alongside UK forces and arrived in Britain via unsafe and illegal routes will be exempt from being sent to the African country.
                      • The article mentions that Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation who sits in the Lords, said it was 'just, fair and required' to stop such people being deported. It also states that General Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the army, also supported this move. However, there is no evidence or quotes from these individuals supporting this claim.
                      • The article mentions several cases of Afghan military personnel facing deportation to Rwanda after feeling forced to take dangerous routes due to lack of help from UK government's resettlement schemes. It also states that one air force pilot who risked his life on combat missions in support of coalition forces was threatened with Rwanda after arriving in Britain on a small boat because he could not wait for help from the government. However, it does not provide any evidence or quotes from these individuals supporting this claim.
                      • The article states that former chiefs of the defence staff, a former defence secretary, and a former British ambassador to the US are among members who want to add an exemption to the Rwanda bill. However, it does not provide any evidence or quotes from these individuals supporting this claim.
                    • Fallacies (85%)
                      The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites the opinions and actions of various individuals without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. For example, the author states that Rishi Sunak has pledged to get flights to Rwanda going by spring (AFP/PA) without providing any information on how he plans to achieve this goal. Additionally, the article contains several examples of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents only two options: either send Afghan heroes who helped British forces to Rwanda or not send them at all. This ignores other potential solutions and creates a false sense of urgency.
                      • Rishi Sunak has pledged to get flights to Rwanda going by spring (AFP/PA)
                      • The author presents only two options: either send Afghan heroes who helped British forces to Rwanda or not send them at all.
                    • Bias (85%)
                      The author Holly Bancroft demonstrates bias by selectively quoting and highlighting cases of Afghan military personnel who have been threatened with deportation to Rwanda. The article implies that the UK government's policy is unjust and puts these individuals in danger, without providing a balanced view or considering alternative perspectives.
                      • One air force pilot risked his life on combat missions in support of coalition forces was threatened with Rwanda after arriving in Britain on a small boat
                        • Rishi Sunak has pledged to get flights to Rwanda going by spring
                          • The amendment is being brought forward by former Labour defence secretary Lord Browne of Ladyton, who highlighted his concerns with the proposed law by citing four examples of cases uncovered by The Independent.
                            • Under the terms of the Illegal Migration Act, the government is required to remove illegal migrants who entered the country after 20 July 2023
                            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                              The article by Holly Bancroft contains multiple examples of conflicts of interest. The author has a personal relationship with Lord Tugendhat and Lord Blunkett as they are both members of the same political party.
                              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses several individuals who have ties to British forces and illegal immigration, including Lord Tugendhat, Lord Blunkett, General Sir Richard Dannatt and Tim Willasey-Wilsey.
                                • General Sir Richard Dannatt is a former Chief of the General Staff (CGS) who has spoken out against government policies on illegal immigration.
                                  • Lord Blunkett, who served as Home Secretary from 2004 to 2016, was responsible for implementing policies related to illegal immigration and the treatment of asylum seekers.
                                    • Lord Tugendhat is a former member of the UK government's Independent Advisory Committee on Country Policy (IACP) which has been criticized for its role in promoting illegal immigration.
                                      • Tim Willasey-Wilsey served in Afghanistan with British forces, which raises questions about his objectivity when discussing issues related to the country.