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.”
Scientists are turning detective to work out what British dolphins are up to beneath the waves – by using forensic-style DNA techniques on their poo.
Conservationists have been studying the 250 or so bottlenose dolphins living in Cardigan Bay, west Wales, over many decades.
Up to now, they have only been able to observe the dolphins as they surface to breathe or play, identifying the animals from the unique marks on their dorsal fins to establish which animals were hanging out together and where.
Image: Dolphins in Cardigan Bay. Pic: Sarah Perry/WTSWW
But now for the first time scientists are using DNA excreted by the dolphins in their poo to build a more complete picture of their lives.
It allows them to identify the sex of individuals and how they are related to other animals. Signficantly, it also shows what the dolphins have been eating.
Image: Dolphin poo. Pic: Sarah Perry/WTSWW
Dr Sarah Perry, marine conservation manager at The Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales, said: “In order to be able to conserve them, we need to know why they’re here and a big a missing part of that is, what they’re feeding on.
“Is that changing at different times of the year? Are certain species of fish more important to them early on in the year, in the spring, and the summer months, and then does that change over the autumn and winter months?
“Are certain species important for younger animals? We don’t know that, so that kind of information, we need to find out.”
Image: Dr Sarah Perry
Catching dolphin poo involves a large element of luck.
The animals occasionally eject a cloud of waste material as they swim.
But it quickly sinks, so the scientists’ boat needs to be close enough for them to scoop it out of the sea with a fine-meshed net.
A sample is then sent to a lab at the University of Aberystwyth, where DNA is extracted for analysis.
Results so far suggest the dolphins are having to adapt to a change in fish species as the water warms.
Image: Dr Niall McKeown
Dr Niall McKeown, a marine biologist at the university, said: “We are seeing large amounts of sardine, sprat, and anchovy.
“This is quite interesting because these are species that are known to have increased in abundance in Welsh waters in recent years in response, we believe, to climate change.”
Image: Dr Niall analyses a sample
Scientists unsure why dolphin numbers are falling
But questions remain about the dolphins.
The number in Cardigan Bay seems to be falling, but scientists are not sure whether that’s a natural cycle or a response to other factors.
Boat noise and disturbance from some fishing activities, such as scallop dredging, could impact the animals, which rely on sound to communicate.
Dr Parry said: “How lucky are we to have such an important population of dolphins here? It’s crazy that we really don’t know that much about them.”
Sir Alan Bates has accused the government of presiding over a “quasi kangaroo court” for Post Office compensation.
Writing in The Sunday Times, the campaigner, who led a years-long effort for justice for sub-postmasters, revealed he had been given a “take it or leave it” offer that was less than half of his original claim.
“The sub-postmaster compensation schemes have been turned into quasi-kangaroo courts in which the Department for Business and Trade sits in judgement of the claims and alters the goal posts as and when it chooses,” he said.
“Claims are, and have been, knocked back on the basis that legally you would not be able to make them, or that the parameters of the scheme do not extend to certain items.”
More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 after faulty Horizon accounting software made it look as if money was missing from their accounts.
Many are still waiting for compensation despite the previous government saying those who had their convictions quashed were eligible for £600,000 payouts.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:36
‘It still gives me nightmares’
After the Post Office terminated his contract over a false shortfall in 2003, Sir Alan began seeking out other sub-postmasters and eventually took the Post Office to court.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
A group litigation order (GLO) scheme was set up to achieve redress for 555 claimants who took the Post Office to the High Court between 2017 and 2019.
Sir Alan, who was portrayed by actor Toby Jones in ITV drama Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, has called for an independent body to be created to deliver compensation.
He added that promises the compensation schemes would be “non-legalistic” had turned out to be “worthless”.
It is understood around 80% of postmasters in Sir Alan’s group have accepted a full and final redress, or been paid most of their offer.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:29
‘Lives were destroyed’
A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson told Sky News: “We pay tribute to all the postmasters who’ve suffered from this scandal, including Sir Alan for his tireless campaign for justice, and we have quadrupled the total amount paid to postmasters since entering government.
“We recognise there will be an absence of evidence given the length of time which has passed, and we therefore aim to give the benefit of the doubt to postmasters as far as possible.
“Anyone unhappy with their offer can have their case reviewed by a panel of experts, which is independent of the government.”
Sir Keir Starmer could decide to lift the two-child benefit cap in the autumn budget, amid further pressure from Nigel Farage to appeal to traditional Labour voters.
The Reform leader will use a speech this week to commit his party to scrapping the two-child cap, as well as reinstating winter fuel payments in full.
There are now mounting suggestions an easing of the controversial benefit restriction may be unveiled when the chancellor delivers the budget later this year.
According to The Observer, Sir Keir told cabinet ministers he wanted to axe the measure – and asked the Treasury to look for ways to fund the move.
The Financial Times reported it may be done by restoring the benefit to all pensioners, with the cash needed being clawed back from the wealthy through the tax system.
The payment was taken from more than 10 million pensioners this winter after it became means-tested, and its unpopularity was a big factor in Labour’s battering at recent elections.
Before Wednesday’s PMQs, the prime minister and chancellor had insisted there would be no U-turn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:20
Will winter fuel U-turn happen?
Many Labour MPs have called for the government to do more to help the poorest in society, amid mounting concern over the impact of wider benefit reforms.
Former prime minister Gordon Brown this week told Sky News the two-child cap was “pretty discriminatory” and could be scrapped by raising money through a tax on the gambling industry.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:22
Brown questioned over winter fuel U-turn
Mr Farage, who believes Reform UK can win the next election, will this week accuse Sir Keir of being “out of touch with working people”.
In a speech first reported by The Sunday Telegraph, he is expected to say: “It’s going to be these very same working people that will vote Reform at the next election and kick Labour out of government.”