- By Jennifer McKiernan and Ben Wright
- BBC News
Rishi Sunak’s landmark Rwanda bill is finally set to become law after months of wrangling ended with a parliamentary showdown shortly before midnight.
It marks Rwanda as a safe country and is a key part of the government’s plans to send some asylum seekers there.
The bill was heavily criticized by opposition parties, but the Lords overruled their objections on Monday evening.
Mr Sunak said flights to Rwanda would take off within 10 to 12 weeks, missing his original spring target.
But departures could still be delayed in court or delays in securing the planes on which asylum seekers would travel.
Home Secretary James Cleverly said the passage of the bill was a “historic moment in our plan to stop the boats”.
In a video posted on social media, he said: “I promised to do what was necessary to pave the way for the first flight. That’s what we did.”
“Now we are working day after day to get the flights off the ground.”
But shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper called the Rwandan plan an “extremely expensive gimmick”.
Earlier on Monday, the prime minister said flights were booked to take off as soon as the legislation was passed and that 500 staff were ready to escort the migrants “all the way to Rwanda”.
“Plans are in place. And these flights will take place, no matter what,” he said, adding that he wanted to create “a rhythm of several flights per month… because it’s like that’s how we build a systematic deterrent and that’s how we’re going to stop the boats.”
Mr Sunak had pledged to make MPs work all night if necessary to get his bill passed and flights off the ground.
A long struggle between the Commons and the House of Lords continued for many hours, with peers sending the bill back to MPs five times.
But the grueling parliamentary debate ended when peers decided not to press their opposition further, and the final debate concluded shortly after midnight.
This means that the government was able to win its case, despite fierce criticism from opposition parties and its peers across the Lords.
After so many setbacks, the passage of the bill represents a political victory for Rishi Sunak.
But his commitment to stopping small boats crossing the Channel now depends on the deterrent he promised. On the eve of the general election, the Prime Minister does not have long to prove that his plan will work.
It was supported by Lord Carlile who said: “This is something that is poorly judged, poorly drafted, inappropriate, illegal in current British and international law, and the House of Lords is absolutely right in saying that we want to maintain our legal standards in this country, and there are better ways to solve this problem anyway. »
“An extremely important concession”
The other amendment, proposed by Lord Browne of Ladyton, sought to exempt Afghan veterans who had assisted the British army from deportation.
The Labor colleague criticized the government’s approach and called on government spokesman Lord Sharpe to reiterate an earlier commitment, in which he said Afghan veterans with a “credible link” to Afghan special forces would have their applications reassessed by an independent body and that those whose declarations were verified would not be expelled.
Lord Browne said this was an “extremely important concession”, although he had to “take their word for it” as the commitment was not in the wording of the legislation, and he decided to abandon his amendment.
Back in the Commons, shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock praised the “tenacity” of his colleagues in the Lords for resisting what he also called “a significant concession”.
But the government maintained its categorical rejection of the final amendment.
As the bill was sent back through the corridors of the Palace of Westminster, Lord Anderson decided to relent.
Speaking at the “funeral” of the latest amendment, he said: “The aim of ping-pong is to persuade the government, by force of argument, to come to the table and agree a compromise.
“They have clearly refused to do so…Now is the time to recognize the primacy of the elected House and withdraw from the fray.”
Defending the bill, Home Secretary Lord Sharpe of Epsom said it was consistent with international law and was “deeply moral and patriotic to defend the integrity of our borders”.
Royal assent is expected to be given by King Charles in the coming days, officially passing the bill into law.
Opposition parties are not the only ones to oppose the Rwandan government’s plan. Human rights groups say the plan poses a “significant threat to the rule of law” by undermining what protects people from abuse of state power.
The charity Freedom from Torture, alongside Amnesty International and Liberty, said in a statement: “We all deserve the chance to live a safe life and seek protection when we need it most.
“This shameful bill undermines the constitution and international law while putting torture survivors and other refugees at risk of a dangerous future in Rwanda. »