Rwanda bill close to becoming law after peers abandon final battle over safety amendment – UK politics live

Key events

The House of Lords is sitting again to consider the Rwanda bill.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom, a Home Office minister, opens the debate.

He urges peers to accept the version of the bill they have received from the Lords.

He says on Friday the Rwandan parliament passed legislation to set up a new asylum system.

Rwanda has “a proven track record of working constructively with domestic and international partners”, he says.

The government is satisfied Rwanda is safe. And, if that changes, the right mechanisms are in place to address that, he says.

This is from Sunder Katwala, head of the British Future thinktank, on one winner from tonight’s debates.

Many of tomorrow’s national newspaper front pages feature the Rwanda story, according to the BBC’s Neil Henderson.

The deadline has passed for an amendment to the Rwanda bill to be tabled for debate by peers, and no amendment has been tabled.

That means the government has won, and the bill will become law in the form it left the Commons about an hour ago.

Peers will formally start their debate on the bill within the next 10 minutes. It is not expected to last long.

Sir Robert Buckland, the Conservative former justice secretary, and Sir Jeremy Wright, the Conservative former attorney general and former culture secretary, voted against the government earlier this evening on the amendment giving the monitoring committee a role in declaring Rwanda safe. (See 5.55pm.)

But when the same issue came back to the Commons again, an hour ago, they both abstained.

Here is a video clip of the lights going out in the House of Lords earlier. (See 9.55am.) It was during a short debate on support for parents considering separation, not on Rwanda, but it’s a gift to the metaphor merchants nontheless.

Rwanda bill close to becoming law after peers abandon final battle, over monitoring committee safety amendment

The Lords will start debating the Rwanda bill at 11.45pm, we’re told (not 11.15am, as I suggested earlier).

It looks as though the government has now won. According to sources in the Lords, peers will not vote against the bill again, and they will not try to reinsert the Lord Hope amendment giving the independent monitoring committee a role in declaring Rwanda safe.

That means, after a short debate, the bill should have finished its passage through parliament. It will not have to return to the Commons.

It should then get royal assent very soon, probably on Tuesday.

Rwanda bill returns to Lords with peers fighting on just one issue after 'concession' on protection for Afghan interpreters

The government won the division on the reasons committee by 309 votes to 41.

That means the bill is now going back to the Lords.

Dame Rosie Winterton, the deputy speaker, told MPs she was suspending the sitting of the Commons, but that they might have to return if the Lords does not accept the Commons version of the bill.

When the Lords was debating the bill for the first time, peers inserted 10 amendments into the bill, that were all removed when it went back to the Commons. Since then, the Lords has sent the bill back another four times – the last time just about an hour ago.

There is now only one issue dividing the two houses – whether or not the bill should include the Lord Hope amendment saying that Rwanda should not be considered safe until the government has declared it is on the basis of advice from the indpendent monitoring committee.

Peers have already secured tonight what one of them has described as an “important concession” on Afghan interpreters. (See 9.38am.)

We will find out soon whether they are now minded to call it a day, whether some of them will fight on but without the support of enough colleagues to outvote the government, or whether they will try at least one more time to get ministers to vote again.

Good evening. I’m Andrew Sparrow, picking up from Tom Ambrose.

The Rwanda bill will be heading back towards the Lords soon, but first MPs are having another vote – on a procedural matter.

When the Commons sends a bill back to the Lords, it forms a reasons committee to draw up a note to the Lords saying why their amendment has been rejected. There has to be a vote to set one up. Normally this is a formality, and it goes through on the nod, but the SNP have pressed for a vote – as a means of showing their strong opposition to the bill, and delaying its passage for another 15 minutes. They did the same thing earlier. (See 5.57pm.)

MPs vote to reject amendment

MPs have voted 312 to 237, a majority of 75, to reject Lords amendment 3J.

It would mean Rwanda could not be treated as safe until ministers, having consulted an independent monitoring body, made a statement to parliament to that effect.

It will return to the House of Lords again.

Labour’s shadow minister Stephen Kinnock says the amendment is designed to ensure home secretary has to consult an independent body on the safety of Rwanda.

The bill is a “post-truth” bill that declares it to be safe “in perpetuity,” he says.

Meanwhile, the former cabinet minister Robert Buckland says:

In the context of where we are, there comes a time when the unelected house does have to cede to the authority of the elected house.

I will consider my position of whether I will vote in favour, perhaps if the government have made more concessions we wouldn’t have to wait so long.

The house is now voting.

Illegal immigration minister says amendment 'not necessary'

The debate is back underway in the Commons and the illegal immigration minister Michael Tomlinson has begun by branding the Lords amendment “not necessary”.

He says:

Just to confirm, I’ll make clear once again: we will only ratify the treaty when all necessary documentation is in place. The implementation will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee.

There is nothing new to this amendment, it was already rejected, enough is enough.

The power briefly went out in the House of Lords as peers continued their Monday evening sitting.

Lights in the chamber flickered before going out.

Television screens and microphones also turned off as justice minister Lord Bellamy was speaking at the despatch box.

Labour's Lord Browne says ministers have made 'important concession' on exemptions for Afghan interpreters

A Home Office minister said the government will not send those who are eligible under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) to Rwanda.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom told peers:

Once this review of Arap decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units has concluded, the government will not remove to Rwanda those who received a positive eligibility decision as a result of this review where they are already in the UK as of today.

Labour former defence secretary Lord Browne of Ladyton, who had been leading calls for such an assurance, said:

The minister does not believe this to be a concession, it is to him a restatement of what he has been telling us for some time, but in a different form.

However, pointing out it would now mean people not being removed, Lord Browne argued “that is a concession in anybody’s language”.

He added: “And it’s an extremely important concession, because these are the small number of people that... I have said are the target of my ambition that they will not be deported.”