The Foreign Secretary said the scheme is “absolutely essential” to stopping illegal migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats.
His intervention comes after the House of Lords voted against the ratification of the UK’s new treaty with Rwanda.
Further battles with peers are expected when the domestic legislation underpinning the deal to send some asylum seekers to the East African country is debated in the Lords next week.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has previously warned the unelected House not to block the “will of the people” when the Safety of Rwanda Bill is debated.
Weighing in to the row, Lord Cameron said: “What the Government will do is, having passed the Bill through the House of Commons, bring the Bill to the House of Lords, and I’ll be urging fellow peers in the House of Lords to vote for that Bill because it’s absolutely essential that we stop the boats and that we fulfil the Prime Minister’s plan.”
“It’s not acceptable to have people travelling from a perfectly safe country – France – to another safe country – Britain – and to be able to stay, and that’s what the Rwanda plan is all about and why I urge the House of Lords to pass this Bill.”
On Monday peers supported a call by the Lords International Agreements Committee (IAC) that Parliament should not ratify the treaty until ministers can show Rwanda is safe.
The Government agreed the legally-binding treaty with Kigali in December, saying it addressed concerns raised by the Supreme Court about the possibility of asylum seekers deported to Rwanda then being transferred to a country where they could be at risk.
But the cross-party committee said promised safeguards in the agreement are “incomplete” and must be implemented before it can be endorsed.
Unlike the Commons, which has the power to delay ratification of a treaty, the Lords can only advise.
However, ignoring the demand by peers could later be used in a legal challenge against the Government.
Just one Conservative peer – the Earl of Dundee – voted with Labour, the Liberal Democrats and dozens of crossbench peers for the motion to delay ratification.
