Sunak faces final showdown with Lords over Rwanda bill

Rwanda bill: The UK’s annual inflation rate fell by less than expected in March to 3.2%, complicating the timing of a first Bank of England interest rate cut, Richard Partington reports.

But that has not stopped Rishi Sunak claiming the latest figures show his economic policy is working. In a clip for broadcasters he said:

Today’s figures show that after a tough couple of years, our economic plan is working and inflation continues to fall.

Having been 11% when I became prime minister, it’s now fallen to just over 3%, the lowest level in two-and-a-half years.

We have also seen energy bills falling, mortgage rates falling and, just this week, data showed people’s wages have been rising faster than inflation for nine months in a row.

My simple message would be: if we stick to the plan, we can ensure that everyone has a brighter future.

Graeme Wearden has more reaction to the inflation figures on his business live blog.

Good morning. It is now more than five months since Rishi Sunak promised “emergency” legislation to address the supreme court judgment saying the government’s Rwanda deportation policy was unlawful. It has not proceeded at the pace of normal emergency legislation, but the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill is now expected to clear parliament within the next 24/36 hours, and it should become law by the end of the week. (It does not became law until the king grants royal assent, and it can take a few hours to get Charles to sign the relevant bit of paper.)

But before parliamentary officials can send the bill to the Palace, the Commons and the Lords have to agree, and there are still four outstanding issues unresolved. Last night peers passed four amendments inserting safeguards into the bill. They would:

1) Include a provision making explicit that the bill has to be enforced in accordance with international law.

2) Ensure that Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country until the independent monitoring committee has confirmed that it is safe, and also give the committee the right to say if Rwanda no longer remains a safe country.

3) Allow officials to rule that Rwanda is not safe for particular asylum seekers.

4) Exempt people who have worked for the British army in countries like Afghanistan from deportation to Afghanistan.

Normally the “ping pong” process, when a bill is shuttling between the Lords and the Commons as the two sides try to reach agreement, ends with peers capitulating, and the government getting its way. Peers are not elected and, although in theory they can block a bill at this point, most of them think they do not have the democratic right to do that.

But with some bills peers hold out for as long as possible in the hope of securing a last-minute concession, and this morning there are signs that they are going to keep pushing a bit more on at least two of the issues – 2) and 4).

On the Today programme David Anderson, a crossbench peer and the former independent reviewer of terrorist legislation for the government, confirmed that members of the Lords felt particularly strongly about these issues.

On protection for asylum seekers who have helped the British army [point 4)], Anderson pointed out that the majority in the Lords in favour of this last night was particularly large – 57 votes. The Labour party is focusing on this issue, and this morning Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, retweeted a letter from colleagues urging the government to back down on this point.

But Anderson said he felt particularly strongly about point 2), which he said addressed the “lie” at the centre of the bill, the claim that Rwanda is a safe country. He said the bill as drafted says Rwanda will be judged as safe “for all time” and that “there is simply no mechanism to change it”. He went on:

The problem is, we have no evidence that Rwanda is safe. All the evidence that is put before us demonstrates that at the moment it is not. The supreme court said in November it wasn’t safe. We signed a treaty with Rwanda which was supposed to remedy the defects, and this Act will come into force when the treaty comes into force. But even the treaty itself accepts that signing the treaty doesn’t make Rwanda safe.

Anderson said the “very modest” amendment being pushed by the Lords would say Rwanda will only be considered safe when the government’s monitoring committee confirms that. He said its members were handpicked by the government and included Alexander Downer, a former Australian foreign minister who is a “great proponent of the offshoring of asylum seekers”. Anderson went on:

All this amendment would say is that, instead of us in parliament in London being expected to assert in legislation that Rwanda is safe, when the evidence is including, from the government itself last night, that it isn’t currently safe, it’s a work in progress – instead of having to sign up to that untruth, the government would invite the monitoring committee to certify that Rwanda is safe and when it is safe, the flights can begin.

And should by any chance Rwanda ever cease to be a safe country, well the monitoring committee should say that as well.

Anderson also said any amendments that might have delayed the bill, or blocked it, had been dropped by the Lords.

Here is the agenda for the day.

12pm: Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.

After 12.45pm: MPs debate on the latest Lords amendments to the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill. There are four Lords amendments the government wants to vote down and the divisions will take place after a debate lasting up to an hour.

Afternoon: Peers are expected to vote again on the Rwanda bill.

Also, David Cameron is in Israel, where he is due to meet a range of leaders, including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

If you want to contact me, do use the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.