The House of Commons has rejected the House of Lords’ first attempt to amend the Safety of Rwanda Bill – with the legislation sent back to the upper chamber.
A total of 10 amendments were put before MPs, but Conservatives voted each of them down.
Among the changes proposed by peers was scrapping the government’s plan to force judges to consider Rwanda as a safe country.
They also want to allow politicians and judges to consider evidence of whether Rwanda is safe – something which is prevented by the proposed law.
Another change suggested would prevent those who had served with or for the British armed forces from being sent to Rwanda if they arrived illegally in the UK.
The Commons debated the amendments for around four hours before voting began, with both Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer both in attendance when divisions began.
More on Rishi Sunak
Related Topics:
How MPs voted on the amendments
Amendment one: Seeks to ensure bill is fully compliant with rule of law – Rejected 328 to 250;
Amendment two: Removes claim that Rwanda is
Amendment three: Provides mechanism for parliament to be informed about treaty – Rejected 324 to 253;
Amendment four: Allows presumption Rwanda is safe to be rebutted with credible evidence – Rejected 321 to 252;
Amendment five: Allows courts to consider appeals based on the safety of Rwanda – Rejected 322 to 249;
Amendment six: Restores ability of courts and tribunals to consider if Rwanda is safe – Rejected 324 to 251;
Amendment seven: Courts can consider review claims regarding removals of children – Rejected 320 to 250;
Amendment eight: Parliament must be given a timeline for removals – Rejected 318 to 255;
Amendment nine: Seeks to protect victims of modern slavery from being deported – Rejected 320 to 251;
Amendment ten: Exempts armed forces personnel, their dependants and families from removal – Rejected 312 to 255.
MPs on opposition benches spoke in support of the amendments proposed by the upper chamber.
Labour’s shadow Home Office minister, Stephen Kinnock, said: “They each serve to make this shambolic mess of a Bill marginally less absurd, and as I will come to in a second, they would serve only to put in statute what ministers have actually promised from that despatch box.”
Advertisement
There was also opposition from the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, who said: “Based on the evidence I have read, and the evidence the Joint Committee on Human Rights has heard so far, based on what I heard and saw on the ground in Kigali, I remain of the view that Rwanda is still not a safe country for asylum seekers.”
The Green Party’s Caroline Lucas called the bill an “extraordinary and profound attack” on constitutional democracy.
And the Conservative former minister Sir Jeremy Wright said he was “troubled” by the “absolutist, if not eternalist, nature of the wording of the bill”.
Tory former minister Sir Robert Buckland said he was minded to support some of the amendments, and indeed voted in favour of the second and fourth.
But there was support for the government from its backbenches during the debate.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:31
Which countries send asylum seekers abroad?
Sir Bill Cash said one of the amendments threatened parliamentary sovereignty and was “one of the most serious and dangerous clauses that I have seen in recent statutory history”.
And Richard Graham said the amendments were “not relevant” to what the government was trying to do.
The Lords are set to consider the bill with its removed amendments on Wednesday.
Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson emphasised the government’s belief that Rwanda is safe, following the agreement of a new treaty.
This sought to address concerns raised by the Supreme Court when they ruled previous legislation incompatible with human rights laws.
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.
Mr Tomlinson said: “It is the treaty, the bill and the published evidence pack which together demonstrate that Rwanda is safe for relocated individuals and that the government’s approach is tough but fair and lawful.
“The government is clear that we’ve assessed Rwanda to be safe and we’ve published evidence to substantiate that point.”
The threat of physical attacks by Iran on people living in the UK has increased “significantly” since 2022, according to a new report by parliament’s intelligence watchdog.
Iran poses a “wide-ranging, persistent and unpredictable threat” to the UK, according to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
It also said Iran’s intelligence services were “willing and able – often through third party agents – to attempt assassination within the UK, and kidnap from the UK”.
Image: Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Pic: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/West Asia News Agency/Reuters
The report said there have been 15 murder or kidnap attempts against British citizens or UK-based individuals since the beginning of 2022 and August 2023.
Sky News has approached the Iranian embassy for a comment.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:30
Millions of Iranians unite in mourning
The report authors add: “Whilst Iran’s activity appears to be less strategic and on a smaller scale than Russia and China, Iran poses a wide-ranging threat to UK national security, which should not be underestimated: it is persistent and crucially – unpredictable.”
The committee also says that while the threat is often focused on dissidents and other opponents to the regime, there is also an increased threat to Jewish and Israeli interests in the UK.
More on Iran
Related Topics:
The report warns that while Iran has not developed a nuclear weapon, it has taken steps towards that goal.
It found that Iran had been “broadly compliant” with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aimed at limiting its nuclear ambitions.
But since Donald Trump withdrew from that deal in 2018, the report said the nuclear threat had increased and Tehran “had the capability to arm in a relatively short period”.
The UK government is also accused of “fire-fighting” rather than developing a real understanding of Iran.
Image: Iran’s president oversees a parade in Tehran in April showing off the country’s military hardware. Pic: West Asia News Agency/Reuters
Image: Missiles are paraded through the capital during the recent National Army Day ceremony. Pic: West Asia News Agency/Reuters
The report says: “The government’s policy on Iran has suffered from a focus on crisis management, driven by concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme, to the exclusion of other issues.
“As one of our expert witnesses told the committee: ‘Strategy is not a word that I think has crossed the lips of policy makers for a while, certainly not in relation to Iran’.”
The committee concluded its evidence-taking in August 2023, the result of two years of work, but the report authors say their conclusions “remain relevant”.
But the report authors questioned whether UK sanctions against individuals would “in practice deliver behavioural change. Or in fact unhelpfully push Iran towards China”.
The committee also said the British government should consider proscribing the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), although some argue it would limit the UK’s ability to talk to and influence Iran.
Responding to the report, a UK government spokesperson said: “The government will take action wherever necessary to protect national security, which is a foundation of our plan for change.
“We have already placed Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme and introduced further sanctions against individuals and entities linked to Iran, bringing the total number of sanctions to 450.”
British security services say Tehran uses criminal proxies to carry out its work in Britain.
In December, two Romanians were charged after a journalist working for a Persian language media organisation in London was stabbed in the leg. In May, three Iranian men appeared in court charged with assisting Iran’s foreign intelligence service and plotting violence against journalists.
Earlier this year, the UK government said it would require the Iranian state to register everything it does to exert political influence in the UK, because of what it called increasingly aggressive activity.
The first thing you notice when immigration officers stop a possible illegal moped delivery driver is the speed in which the suspect quickly taps on their mobile.
“We’re in their WhatsApp groups – they’ll be telling thousands now that we’re here… so our cover is blown,” the lead immigration officer tells me.
“It’s like a constant game of cat and mouse.”
Twelve Immigration Enforcement officers, part of the Home Office, are joining colleagues from Avon and Somerset Police in a crackdown on road offences and migrants working illegally.
The West of England and Wales has seen the highest number of arrests over the last year for illegal workers outside of London.
“It is a problem… we’re tackling it,” Murad Mohammed, from Immigration Enforcement, says. He covers all the devolved nations.
“This is just one of the operations going on around the country, every day of the week, every month of the year.”
Image: Murad Mohammed, from Immigration Enforcement, says his team are attempting to tackle the issue
Just outside the Cabot Circus shopping complex, we stop a young Albanian man who arrived in the UK on the back of a truck.
He’s on an expensive and fast-looking e-bike, with a new-looking Just Eat delivery bag.
He says he just uses it for “groceries” – but the officer isn’t buying it. He’s arrested, but then bailed instantly.
We don’t know the specifics of his case, but one officer tells me this suspected offence won’t count against his asylum claim.
Such is the scale of the problem – the backlog, loopholes and the complexity of cases – that trying to keep on top of it feels impossible.
This is one of many raids happening across the UK as part of what the government says is a “blitz” targeting illegal working hotspots.
Angela Eagle, the border security and asylum minister, joins the team for an hour at one of Bristol’sretail parks, scattered with fast food chains and, therefore, delivery bikes.
Image: Border security and asylum minister, Angela Eagle, speaks to Sky News
She says arrests for illegal working are up over the last year by 51% from the year before, to more than 7,000.
“If we find you working, you can lose access to the hotel or the support you have [been] given under false pretences,” she said.
“We are cracking down on that abuse, and we intend to keep doing so.”
There are reports that asylum seekers can rent legitimate delivery-driver accounts within hours of arriving in the country – skipping employment legality checks.
Uber Eats, Deliveroo, and Just Eat all told Sky News they’re continuing to strengthen the technology they use to remove anyone working illegally.
But a new Border Security Bill, working its way through Parliament, could see companies fined £60,000 for each illegal worker discovered, director disqualifications and potential prison sentences of up to five years.
“I had them all in to see me last week and I told them in no uncertain terms that we take a very tough line on this kind of abuse and they’ve got to change their systems so they can drive it out and off their platforms,” the minister tells me.
For some of those who arrive, a bike and a phone provide a way to repay debts to gang masters.
There were eight arrests today in Bristol, one or two taken into custody, but it was 12 hours of hard work by a dozen immigration officers and the support of the police.
As two mopeds are pushed onto a low-loader, you can’t help but feel, despite the best intentions, that at the moment, this is a losing battle.
We see the boat from a distance – the orange of the life jackets reflected in the rising sun.
And as we draw closer, we can make out dozens of people crowded on board as it sets off from the shore, from a beach near Dunkirk.
There is no sign of any police activity on the shore, and there are no police vessels in the water.
Instead, the migrants crammed into an inflatable dinghy are being watched by us, on board a private boat, and the looming figure of the Minck, a French search and rescue ship that soon arrives.
Image: Minck, a French search and rescue ship, shadows the boat
The dinghy meanders. It’s not heading towards Britain but rather hugging the coast.
A few of the passengers wave at us cheerfully, but then the boat starts to head back towards the shore.
Image: Sky’s Adam Parsons at the scene
As it nears a different beach, we see a police vehicle – a dune buggy – heading down to meet it.
Normal practice is for French police officers to slice through the material of any of these small boats that end up back on shore.
Two police officers get out of the buggy and wait. A police helicopter arrives and circles above, performing a tight circle over the heads of the migrants.
The police think they might be about to go back on to the beach; in fact, these passengers know that most of them are staying put.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
The boat stops a short distance from the shore and four people jump out. As they wade towards the beach, the boat turns and starts to head back out to sea.
We see the two police officers approach these four men and have a brief conversation.
They don’t appear to check the bags they are carrying and, if they do question them about why they left the boat, it is the most cursory of conversations.
In reality, these people probably don’t speak French but they were almost certainly involved in arranging this crossing, which is against the law. But all four walk away, disappearing into the dunes at the back of the beach.