ALMOST all of Scotland’s Tory MPs voted to reject the House of Lords’ amendments to Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda legislation – including calls to exempt victims of modern slavery from the scheme.
The parliamentary “ping-pong” is over the plans is set to continue as peers will once again debate legislation declaring the east African nation safe for refugees.
The Government successfully overturned six House of Lords amendments on Monday as MPs voted to return the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill to its original form two years after the UK first announced its deal with Rwanda.
READ MORE: Subscribe to The National for £20 for a whole YEAR
In the vote on Monday, MPs rejected six amendments, one of which would have granted a removal exemption for people who had supported the UK’s armed forces overseas.
The government also rejected calls to exempt victims of modern slavery from the Rwanda scheme, instead proposing its own amendment that would provide an annual report on the impact of the policy on victims.
Here’s how Scotland’s Tory MPs voted:
- Andrew Bowie – Aye
- Dr Lisa Cameron – Aye
- David Duguid – Did not vote.
- Alister Jack – Aye
- John Lamont – Aye
- David Mundell – Aye
- Douglas Ross – Aye
It is not yet clear if the Lords will make another attempt to amend the legislation, which it has already done twice now, or if peers will concede defeat and allow the legislation through.
The legislation will only receive royal assent and become law once both Houses have agreed on its final wording in a process known as parliamentary ping-pong.
Among the amendments overturned by MPs on Monday were proposals to ensure the bill has “due regard” for domestic and international law and that Rwanda is only regarded as safe for as long as the provisions of the UK’s treaty with that country are in place.
During Monday’s debate, veteran Conservative backbencher Sir Bill Cash urged peers to “calm down” and described their amendments as “ridiculous”.
Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson stressed that the “elected” Commons had voted in favour of an unamended Bill and called on MPs to “stand with the Government in upholding the will of the House of Commons”.
READ MORE: New Scottish Parliament constituencies – see all the proposed changes
But Labour’s shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock said the Rwanda scheme was “doomed to fail” and described the policy as “fundamentally unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful”.
The Government has previously said it wanted to get flights off the ground in the spring, but on Monday the Prime Minister’s official spokesman would only say it was committed to implementing the policy “as soon as possible”.
Monday’s debate took place the day after the busiest day so far this year for Channel crossings, with more than 500 migrants arriving in the UK.
The latest crossings took the provisional total for the year so far to 6265 – 28% higher than this time last year (4899) and 7% higher than the 5828 recorded at this point in 2022.
PA news agency analysis of the figures suggests 75,629 migrants have made the journey since then home secretary Dame Priti Patel signed what she called a “world first” agreement in Rwanda’s capital Kigali on April 14 2022.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel