Rishi’s plans for Rwanda achieve success after months of political negotiations

Both MPs and Peers burned the midnight oil as they sent the legislation between the House of Commons and the House of Lords – and not even a brief power cut in the Lords stopped the debate from raging on.

The Lords had been engaged in an extended tussle over the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, sending it back to the Commons five times in a bid to secure changes.

But they ended the deadlock after MPs rejected a requirement that Rwanda could not be treated as safe until the secretary of state, having consulted an independent monitoring body, made a statement to parliament to that effect.

The government said the Lords amendment was ‘almost identical’ to the previous ones overturned by MPs.

Earlier in the Lords, the opposition did not press its demand for the bill to include an exemption from removal for Afghan nationals who assisted British troops after what critics hailed as a concession.

A Home Office minister said the government will not send those who are eligible under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) to Rwanda.

Rishi Sunak believes the legislation – branded ‘dangerous and ‘authoritarian’ by Human Rights Watch – is vital to his plan to stop asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel.

Denisa Delić, director of advocacy at International Rescue Committee UK, said: ‘Irrespective of today’s passage of the Safety of Rwanda Bill, sending refugees to Rwanda is an ineffective, unnecessarily cruel and costly approach.

‘Rather than outsourcing its responsibilities under international law, we urge the government to abandon this misguided plan and instead focus on delivering a more humane and orderly immigration system at home.

‘This includes scaling up safe routes, such as resettlement and family reunion, and upholding the right to seek asylum.

‘Sending refugees to Rwanda, or anywhere else, will never be an effective solution.’