Rwanda bill returns to Lords with peers fighting on just one issue after ‘concession’ on protection for Afghan interpreters – UK politics live

Key events

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.”

The opposition did not press its demand for the bill to include an exemption from removal for Afghan nationals who assisted British troops, following what opponents hailed as a government concession.

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

Peers push back on Sunak's Rwanda bill

Peers have again dug in their heels over Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation plan and demanded MPs think again for a fifth time.

The House of Lords backed by 240 votes to 211, majority 29, a requirement that the east African country could not be treated as safe until the Secretary of State, having consulted an independent monitoring body, had made a statement to Parliament.

It means a continuation of the parliamentary tussle over the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. The bill will now go back to the Commons as parliamentary ‘ping-pong’ continues.

Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker says the bill is “inconsistent with the principles and traditions of our country”.

He says Labour would repeal the bill if it wins power at the next general election.

He adds:

We all agree that we need to stop the boats, the dispute in this place is to exactly the right way to go about that.

Peers have now divided to vote on the amendment.

Lord Carlile is now making points about the aeroplanes that will be used as part of the scheme.

He says:

We heard this morning form the prime minister that apparently there is a contract with a carrier. I hope he will tell the house if there really is a contract because I’m afraid given the fictions at the basis of this bill, I am not sure that I believe that there is a contract and whether there are pilots who have declared that they are willing to fly the planes carrying these refugees.

Labour peer Lord Browne of Ladyton is talking about courage and drawing parallels with prime minister Rishi Sunak.

He says:

Is it a desperate and unpopular prime minister threatening to keep some septuagenarians up all night if we do not bow to his will?

Or is it putting yourself or your family in mortal peril by fighting totalitarianism alongside British forces with no idea of how that struggle will end?

Peers begin Rwanda bill debate

The House of Lords has started debating the Rwanda bill, with the possibility of further amendments to follow.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom, a home office minister, says the Lords must “accept the will of the elected house”.

He says:

The government is satisfied that Rwanda is safe. I cannot of course predict what will happen in the future but we have established the right mechanisms so should the situation ever arise the government will respond as necessary and this would include a range of options to respond to the circumstances including any primary legislation as required.

The House of Lords has adjourned ahead of the return of the Rwanda Bill after MPs again rejected changes made by peers.

In case you missed it earlier, the Rwanda deportation scheme will not begin until the summer, Rishi Sunak admitted on Monday, acknowledging a further delay to the policy even as MPs and peers began debating it for the final time.

The prime minister told a press conference that the first flights taking asylum seekers to Kigali would not take off for another 10-12 weeks, despite having previously promised they would do so in the spring.

Amnesty International UK warned airline companies that they should be “mindful that many members of the public - including passengers, shareholders, and other contractors - may take an “extremely negative view” of any involvement in the policy.

The organisation’s chief executive Sacha Deshmukh said:

Though the government seems not to care about trashing the UK’s reputation as a law-abiding country, airline companies ought to view this entirely misguided enterprise very differently.

Any involvement by commercial airlines in Rwanda refugee flights may open them up to legal challenge on the grounds of complicity in the government’s human rights violations.

A reader asks:

Sunak says judges and caseworkers are standing by in Rwanda to consider asylum claims, but what will happen to refugees if claims fail? Rwanda has already pledged not to use refoulement. What is the point of assessing claims if all refugees will be allowed to stay in Rwanda?

According to the Home Office, people not granted asylum in Rwanda will “instead be granted permanent residence so that they are able to stay and integrate into Rwandan society”. As you say, this does suggest there is little point in people having their asylum applications assessed for Rwanda given they will be allowed to stay anyway.

That is all from me for now. My colleague Tom Ambrose is picking up now. I will be back later on this evening.

MPs send Rwanda bill back to Lords after voted down amendments passed by peers

The government won the third division by 309 votes to 37.

That means the reasons committee is being set up to sent a message to the Lords explaining why the bill is being sent back to them – although, as Dame Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, tells MPs, the committee has probably started work already.

UPDATE: It was SNP MPs who pushed for the vote, and most of the 37 MPs voting against were from the party.