Rishi Sunak’s flagship Rwanda legislation has been approved by MPs, but getting deportation flights off the ground remains far from a done deal.
Speaking the day after he saw off a rebellion from his own MPs over the bill – who wanted it to be more hardline – he has thrown down the gauntlet to the House of Lords to get the “emergency” law passed.
But what exactly happens next, can the bill be changed – and could it even be stopped from becoming law?
Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge
Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm.
Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.
Speaking from a lectern in Downing Street, Mr Sunak made clear he plans to heap political pressure on the upper chamber of parliament.
He said: “It’s now time for the Lords to pass this Bill. This is an urgent national priority.
“The treaty with Rwanda is signed and the legislation which deems Rwanda a safe country has been passed unamended in our elected chamber.
“There is now only one question. Will the opposition in the appointed House of Lords try and frustrate the will of the people as expressed by the elected House? Or will they get on board and do the right thing?”
He added: “Will the House of Lords understand the country’s frustration, see the will of the elected House and move as quickly as we have to support this legislation so we can get it on the statute books and then get flights up and running?”
This includes an initial vote – and then if it passes, peers can propose amendments. These would then be debated and voted on.
Due to the Lords regulating itself, the restrictions on the amount of time that can be taken to debate are looser, and so things can move slightly slower than in the Commons.
Unlike in the Commons, the Lords is not bound in the same way by government restrictions on what can be discussed or how long for.
After the House votes on what substantial amendments it wants to make, members “tidy-up” the bill to make sure there are no loopholes.
It is at this point that “ping pong” begins; the bill will bounce between the Commons and Lords, with each house voting on whether to accept the other’s amendments.
There is a potential that the Lords could delay the bill until the next general election – but that is something which will be covered in a later section.
It is worth noting the government does not have a majority in the Lords – with 270 of 785 peers belonging to the Conservative Party.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Another question is when the Lords will start considering the bill, and when voting will take place.
As with many things to do with the Westminster parliamentary process, very little is set in stone and the best we can do is take an educated guess.
One Labour source set out their expectation of how the next few months will go.
They said the earliest the Lords could have a debate and a vote is in the week starting 29 January.
Image: The House of Lords – seen here during the King’s speech – could block the law
The next step – when the upper chamber debates the bill and any potential changes – could take place between 12 February and 14 February, when the Commons is in recess.
The next set of voting in the Lords would likely take place towards the end of February or the start of March.
Ping pong would likely begin in the second week of March. If the government gets the bill passed, then it is likely to take a few months for things to be put in place for flights to Rwanda to take off.
Could the Lords block the bill?
In short, yes.
In the first instance, members could simply vote down the legislation, although that is quite unlikely.
Labour has also indicated it plans to abide by the convention of not blocking laws passed in the Commons.
It could also be held up during the ping pong stage.
This would see the two houses adding and removing each other’s amendments on repeated occasions.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
The Lords’ ability to hold up legislation is normally balanced by the fact that a government can reintroduce a bill in a subsequent parliamentary session – which would mean after a King’s Speech – and pass it without the Lords’ consent.
But this step – included in the Parliament Act – also requires a minimum of a year between the first Commons vote on the legislation, and it passing the same House in the subsequent parliament.
Because an election needs to be called in December this year at the latest, it is possible for the Lords to wait out the clock until then – preventing the use of the Parliament Act.
In what may prove a difficult development for the government, a committee set up to evaluate international treaties on behalf of the Lords has recommended the treaty upon which the Safety of Rwanda Bill is based should not be ratified.
The International Agreements Committee said ratification “should wait until parliament is satisfied that the protections it provides have been fully implemented since parliament is being asked to make a judgement, based on the treaty, about whether Rwanda is safe“.
In common with many parents across the country, here’s a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually).
Me: “So it’s 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both.”
Daughter: “Ummmm, I want to watch TV.”
Me: “That’s fine, but it’s bed after that, you can’t do a jigsaw as well.”
Fast-forward 15 minutes.
Me: “Right, TV off now please, bedtime.”
(Pause)
Daughter: “I want to do a jigsaw.”
Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:36
Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma
That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend.
In essence: you’ve had your welfare U-turn, so there’s no money left for the two-child cap to go as well.
As an aside – and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society – yes, I hear you, and that’s part of my point.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:11
Welfare U-turn ‘has come at cost’
For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading.
So what can be done?
Well, the government could change the rules.
Altering the fiscal rules is – and will likely remain – an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour’s proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:31
Welfare: ‘Didn’t get process right’ – PM
A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself.
Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on.
That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don’t really understand what this prime minister stands for – and by extension, what all these “difficult decisions” are in aid of.
The downside is whether it will actually raise much money.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
16:02
Is Corbyn an existential risk to Labour?
The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client’s cash away from the prying eyes of the state.
Or, of course, they could just leave – as many are doing already.
In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict.
If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable.
And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.
The UK has re-established diplomatic ties with Syria, David Lammy has said, as he made the first visit to the country by a British minister for 14 years.
The foreign secretary visited Damascus and met with interim president Ahmed al Sharaa, also the leader of the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and foreign minister Asaad al Shaibani.
In a statement, Mr Lammy said a “stable Syria is in the UK’s interests” and added: “I’ve seen first-hand the remarkable progress Syrians have made in rebuilding their lives and their country.
“After over a decade of conflict, there is renewed hope for the Syrian people.
“The UK is re-establishing diplomatic relations because it is in our interests to support the new government to deliver their commitment to build a stable, more secure and prosperous future for all Syrians.”
Image: Foreign Secretary David Lammy with Syria’s interim president Ahmed al Sharaa in Damascus. Pic: X / @DavidLammy
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also announced a £94.5m support package for urgent humanitarian aid and to support the country’s long-term recovery, after a number of British sanctions against the country were lifted in April.
While HTS is still classified as a proscribed terror group, Sir Keir Starmer said last year that it could be removed from the list.
The Syrian president’s office also said on Saturday that the president and Mr Lammy discussed co-operation, as well as the latest developments in the Middle East.
Since Assad fled Syria in December, a transitional government headed by Mr al Sharaa was announced in March and a number of western countries have restored ties.
In May, US President Donald Trump said the United States would lift long-standing sanctions on Syria and normalise relations during a speech at the US-Saudi investment conference.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:12
From May: Trump says US will end sanctions for Syria
He said he wanted to give the country “a chance at peace” and added: “There is a new government that will hopefully succeed.
“I say good luck, Syria. Show us something special.”
Secret Service quietly amasses one of the world’s largest crypto cold wallets with $400 million seized, exposing scams through blockchain sleuthing and VPN missteps.