Rishi Sunak 's desperate bid to get flights to Rwanda in the air were boosted last night as Tories rejected a string of safeguards. MPs struck down a series of demands after the plan was savaged by the House of Lords. Among these were measures to prevent modern slavery and trafficking victims being sent 6,000 miles to the African nation, and safeguards for children. Tories also voted against an amendment that would stop people who helped
British forces overseas from being deported to Rwanda. A total of 10 measures put forward by peers were ripped up in the Commons. Other rejected measures included a delay to make sure the Rwandan government carries out the work it's promised before asylum seekers can be sent there. And tellingly MPs voted down a demand for the Safety of Rwanda BIll to comply with
UK and international law - a move likely to cause fury in the House of Lords. On Wednesday peers will get another chance to pick through the Bill. They may make further amendments, meaning it would have to go back to the Commons, or wave it through - in which case the controversial legislation is likely to become law by Easter. Last time it was in the Lords a number of Tory heavyweights - including former Home Secretary Ken Clarke and the uncle of a Tory Home Office minister - were among those who blasted Mr Sunak's plan . The Bill was designed to get around a
Supreme Court ruling after top judges ruled that Rwanda isn't a safe place to send asylum seekers. Here we look at the demands MPs turned down as the Bill heads back to the House of Lords. Home Secretary James Cleverly and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta sign a new treaty in December ( Image: PA Wire/PA Images) Forcing Bill to comply with UK and international law This is one of the key things Mr Sunak wants to avoid. The whole purpose of the Bill is to navigate around a Supreme Court ruling in November which declared Rwanda isn't a safe country. The Government wants to shut as many routes for appeal as possible. And it also wants to give the Home Secretary the power to defy orders by the European Court of Human Rights. But this caused an outcry in the Lords, where peers from all sides of the House were horrified over plans to flout the law. Several pointed out that Margaret Thatcher, one of Mr Sunak's biggest idols, would have been horrified. The first amendment MPs threw out was to add the crucial words “while maintaining full compliance with domestic and international law”. In effect this would tear open the likelihood of numerous court showdowns - making it far harder to implement. Waiting until Rwanda makes changes it promised In a desperate effort to keep the controversial scheme alive, the Government swiftly negotiated a new Treaty with Rwanda - but it's still not been fully implemented. The treaty is designed to tackle some of the concerns raised by Supreme Court judges, particularly the risk of asylum seekers being sent back to their homelands. But there's no requirement for the changes agreed between the two nations to actually be in place before flights start taking off. One amendment the Tories voted down was that Rwanda could only be considered a safe country once the treaty measures "have been fully implemented and are being adhered to in practice". In reality this would lead to a long delay. Better monitoring of Rwanda Treaty This one went even further than the amendment above. Not only did it insist that the Treaty must be fully implemented, it also creates a new monitoring committee to ensure the terms are kept. If this committee finds Rwanda isn't doing as it promised, the Lords agreed, the Home Secretary must face MPs. It was put forward as Lords were worried there weren't enough safeguards to ensure Rwanda was living up to the treaty terms, but it was turned down. Allowing new evidence that Rwanda isn't safe If the Government gets its way, the new law will "conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country". But what if something changes, the Lords asked. There is plenty of concern that a war could break out between Rwanda and its nearest neighbour, the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) . And the Bill as it stands doesn't tackle the risk of
Human Rights abuses emerging that MPs didn't know about before. This amendment would have given Parliament a way to re-assess Rwanda's safety in the light of any changes. But like the other nine, it was voted down. Giving powers back to the courts Mr Sunak's Bill strips courts of the power to review decisions to send people to Rwanda on the basis that it's not a safe country. This means judges will be barred from considering claims that those sent won't be treated fairly or have their asylum claims properly decided on. It will also bar courts and tribunals from assessing whether Rwanda will actually live up to the promises it made in the new Treaty. But an amendment put before MPs wants to scrap this and hand power back to the courts. Again, it was rejected. Letting courts prevent or delay deportations There was a lot of discomfort among peers over the way the Bill would strip courts of their powers. Another amendment voted down by MPs would have seen judges allowed to introduce 'interim remedies' in cases where there are serious concerns about safety. The amendment allows courts or tribunals to hear reviews or appeals of decisions to sent individuals to Rwanda. Judges would also be able to decide whether there's a risk of people being sent from Rwanda to a country that isn't safe. Deportation of children One of the big talking points when peers looked at Mr Sunak's Bill was the treatment of children. Last night MPs were urged to put a protection in place to prevent unaccompanied children who look older from being sent. This amendment says in cases where the Home Office has ruled an asylum seeker is not a child, even though they say they are, the person should not be sent to Rwanda. Exempting victims of modern slavery and trafficking Critics of the scheme are alarmed that victims of human trafficking and modern slavery could be sent to Rwanda if the Bill is not changed. One of the proposed changes MPs turned down was whether to create an exemption for these people. One amendment says people who the National Referral Mechanism says may be victims shouldn't be sent to Rwanda until a "conclusive decision" is made. It adds that officials must not deport any victims to Rwanda without considering the impact on their physical and mental health, and the risk of them being re-trafficked. Not sending people who have helped the UK
MILITARY The Lords wanted to see a new safeguard preventing people who have supported UK forces overseas. It follows concerns that hundreds of people from
Afghanistan have arrived by small boats after fleeing the
Taliban after working with the British military. An exemption from deportation to Rwanda would shield "agents or allies" who supported British forces in an "exposed or meaningful manner". This would also include their partners and dependants. Forcing Home Secretary to give updates on deportations This amendment would see the Home Secretary required to give an update to the Commons within 60 days of the Bill becoming law. MPs would be told the number of people due to be removed, the timetable for these removals, as well as arrangements for people who aren't due to be sent there. It follows question marks over the number of asylum seekers the African nation will actually be able to take. Read More Join our Mirror Politics
WhatsApp community for all the latest from Westminster Read More Join our Mirror Politics WhatsApp community for all the latest from Westminster