The House of Commons rejected the first attempt by the House of Lords to amend the Rwanda Security Bill and sent the bill back to the House of Lords.

A 10 modifications in total It was put to MPs but the Conservatives rejected it.

Among the changes proposed by peers is to scrap the government’s plan to force judges to consider Rwanda as a safe country.

Latest politics: Sunak could ‘accidentally’ face confidence vote

Sophie Rich’s Political Center

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.

Click here to learn more

They also want to allow politicians and judges to consider evidence of whether Rwanda is safe – something the proposed law prevents.

Another proposed change is that people who have served in or for the British Armed Forces will not be sent to Rwanda if they arrive in the UK illegally.

The amendment was debated for about four hours in the House of Commons before the vote began, with both sides agreeing Rishi Sunak Sir Keir Starmer was in attendance as the division kicked off.

Opposition MPs spoke in support of the amendment proposed by the House of Lords.

Stephen Kinnock, Labour’s shadow home office secretary, said: “The role of each of them is to make this messy bill slightly less ridiculous and, as I will get to later, they will just push ministers The actual content of the promise is written into the regulations.” It was taken out of the express box. “

The SNP’s Joanna Cherry also objected, saying: “From the evidence I have read, Evidence heard by the Joint Committee on Human Rights So far, based on what I’ve heard and seen on the ground in Kigali, I still don’t think Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers. “

read more:
Four Rwandans granted asylum in UK amid fears of persecution
Leadership issues for Rwanda plan as important as policy issues | Beth Rigby

The Green Party’s Caroline Lucas called the bill an “extraordinary and profound attack” on constitutional democracy.

Former Conservative minister Sir Jeremy Wright said he was “disturbed” by the “absolutist, if not eternalist, nature” of the bill’s wording.

Sir Robert Buckland, a former Conservative minister, said he intended to support some of the amendments and did vote for the second and fourth amendments.

But during the debate, backbenchers expressed support for the government.

Sir Bill Cash said one of the amendments threatened parliamentary sovereignty and was “one of the most serious and dangerous provisions I have seen in recent statutory history”.

Richard Graham said the amendments had “nothing to do” with what the government was trying to do.

The House of Lords is due to consider the bill and its deleted amendments on Wednesday.

Home Affairs Minister Michael Tomlinson stressed that the government believed Rwanda was safe following the new treaty.

This is intended to address concerns raised by the Supreme Court when it ruled that previous legislation was incompatible with human rights law.

👉 Listen above, then click here to follow The Politics of Sam Jack wherever you get your podcasts 👈

Mr Tomlinson said: “The Treaty, the Act and the published evidence package combine to demonstrate that Rwanda is safe for resettled individuals and that the Government’s approach is tough but fair and legal.

“The government is clear that we have assessed Rwanda to be safe and we have published evidence to confirm this.”