Labour would repeal Rwanda Bill if it wins next election
Labour’s Lord Coaker says his party would repeal the Rwanda Bill if it wins the next election.
But he insists Labour Lords are not seeking to block the legislation.
“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,” he says.
But the bill is “inconsistent with the principles and traditions of our country”, he adds.
Lords begin debate
The House of Lords has started debating the Rwanda Bill and could again insist on amendments.
Home Office minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom says the Lords must “accept the will of the elected house”.
“The government is satisfied that Rwanda is safe,” he adds.
“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.”
Rwanda Bill heads back to the Lords
MPs voted to reject both of the Lords amendment.
The legislation is sent back to peers for debate.
Two Tories back amendments
Two Tory MPs voted against the government and backed Lords amendments.
Both Sir Jeremy Wright, the former attorney general, and Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, supported amendment 3G, which stated that Rwanda would not be treated as safe until a monitoring committee ruled it as such.
Sir Robert was the only Tory MP to vote against the government on the amendment which would protect Afghan interpreters from deportation.
MPs reject peer amendment on Afghan interpreters
The government won the second vote by 305 votes to 234.
It means an amendment to protect Afghan interpreters, and others who have served British forces abroad, from deportation to Rwanda is rejected.
Tories ‘stringing out’ Rwanda Bill, suggests Labour
Conservative ministers deliberately extended the process of the Rwanda Bill to “make some grubby political capital”, shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock suggests.
“You could be forgiven for concluding that the truth of the matter is that ministers have been deliberately stringing this out, for two reasons,” he says.
“Firstly, because they thought that they could make some grubby political capital from the delay and secondly, because they’ve been scrambling to get a flight organised and all the other logistics that are not in place.
“Indeed the Prime Minister admitted this in his somewhat whinging and buck-passing press conference this morning, that the first flight to Rwanda won’t take off until, checks notes, July.
“I mean July, really, today is April 22, we were initially told that this was emergency legislation, and yet we’re now being told there’ll be a 10 to 12 week delay in getting the first flight off the ground.”
Stephen Kinnock
PA Archive
Second vote begins…
MPs are now voting on the second Lords amendment.
It is the one that states people who worked with UK forces, including Afghan interpreters, should be protected from deportation to Rwanda.
MPs reject first amendment
MPs reject the first Lords amendment by 306 votes to 229.
MPs begin voting
MPs are now having the first of two votes on the amendments the House of Lords is pushing.
The first vote is on amendment 3G, which states that Rwanda will not be treated as safe until the independent monitoring committee says it is safe.
Afghans who helped UK forces will not be deported, says Minister
The government will not send those who are eligible to stay in Britain under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) to Rwanda, Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson tells the Commons.
“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 United Kingdom,” he says.
Intervening Labour MP for Walthamstow Stella Creasy says a constituent of hers is not eligible for ARAP because he is a British citizen and his family are unable to join him in the UK.
She said: “If (Mr Tomlinson) takes five minutes just to read the story of my constituent who gave so much of his life to support our forces in Afghanistan, he will understand why when he stands at that despatch box and says that there are legal safe routes for those who are eminently eligible, it is simply not sustainable as an argument to make.”
Mr Tomlinson said the Lords’ amendment is “unnecessary” adding: “There is already existing legislation, including but not limited to the Illegal Migration Act.”
