After weeks of back-and-forth in parliament, MPs are set to face the final battle over the government's Rwanda bill.
The government has vowed to keep parliament in session late into the night if necessary to pass the Rwanda Security Bill (Asylum and Immigration Bill), which is crucial to the prime minister's pledge to “stop the boats”. I think there is.
Peers have repeatedly blocked the bill with a series of amendments, and debate on the “emergency law” has dragged on for more than four months, delaying flights ferrying asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Downing Street is hostile to the idea of making concessions and setting up a showdown with peers to ensure the bill's passage.
The bill seeks to overcome Supreme Court opposition by forcing judges to treat Rwanda as a safe country for asylum seekers and allowing ministers to ignore emergency injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights. It is the purpose.
Rishi Sunak said in a speech on Friday that his patience with those blocking the bill had “reached its limits”, adding: “No more procrastination, no more delays. We will continue until it's over. I’m going to sit there and vote.”
Last week, peers amended the bill again to include exemptions for Afghan nationals who have supported British troops and a clause that Rwanda cannot be treated as safe unless it is judged to be safe by an independent watchdog.
On Monday, MPs are expected to vote to overturn these changes before sending the bill back to the House of Lords, where some MPs may try to push for the amendments again. .
If so, the bill would return to the House for a further vote later Monday before being sent back to the Senate in a process known as “ping-pong,” which would take place far beyond the House's usual 10 p.m. It is possible that it will continue beyond .
But if a peer passes the exact same amendment twice, the House faces the choice of accepting the change or rejecting the bill under a rarely used process known as “double insistence.” become.
Lord Anderson, a crossbench colleague and former independent reviewer of the terrorism bill, raised this possibility and said the bill would be a 'post-truth bill' calling for Parliament to declare Rwanda to be safe even though it is not. He claimed that it was a bill.
