RISHI Sunak’s Rwanda deportation plan has been hit by a further delay after defiant peers dug their heels in and inflicted a fresh defeat against the policy.
The House of Lords voted by 271 to 228, majority 43, to press their demand that the legislation has “due regard” for domestic and international law.
The latest UK Government setback means a continuation of the stand-off at Westminster over the proposed law that aims to clear the way to send asylum seekers who cross the Channel in small boats on a one-way flight to Kigali.
It means there is little or no chance of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill clearing Parliament before MPs leave Westminster for the Easter break next Tuesday.
READ MORE: Holocaust-denier 'disrupting Scottish elections with Green front'
It has been claimed in Parliament dates set aside to consider further changes to the draft legislation before the recess have “disappeared”.
However, No 10 officials have insisted that even if the bill is not passed until after Easter, the Prime Minister can still meet his goal of having the first deportation flights take off this spring.
MPs overturned 10 amendments made by the Lords when the bill was in the Commons on Monday, and ministers had urged the unelected chamber to agree to the legislation in its current form.
But peers held out in a bid to secure changes to the proposed law during so-called “ping pong”, where the bill is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached.
The legislation and a treaty with Rwanda are intended to prevent further legal challenges to the stalled deportation scheme after the Supreme Court ruled the plan was unlawful.
As well as compelling judges to regard the east African country as safe, it would also give ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions.
Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker said: “It is not our intention to block the Bill but it is also part of constitutional convention that the other place (the Commons) reflects on what the Lords has said and doesn’t just carte blanche reject them, which is what has happened now.
“Who’s not respecting constitutional convention now?”
He also said the Commons would not now consider further changes to the legislation before the Easter break, with dates set aside next week “gone, disappeared”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here