DOMINIC LAWSON: Blockers in the Lords must now drop their insincere objections ... trends now
Long after sensible readers of this newspaper are tucked up in bed, MPs and peers will late tonight, or even in the early hours of tomorrow morning, be concluding a high-stakes series of 'parliamentary ping-pong'.
This is the term given for the to-and-fro when the House of Lords repeatedly rejects or amends legislation passed by the House of Commons. But convention dictates that, eventually, the Lords must recognise that the elected House's will must prevail.
In this case, the ball has been ping- ponging back and forth between the two Houses over the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration Bill).
After the Government's measure — to make all those coming illegally across the Channel subject to removal to Rwanda — was yet again knocked back in the Lords last week, the Prime Minister said he would 'accept no more delay' and warned that Parliament must 'sit there and vote until it's done'.
Airlines have not exactly been queueing up for the business. Even RwandAir, the country's national airline, is one of those companies who are said to have rejected the idea of participating. Pictured, members of staff board a plane reported to be the first to transport migrants to Rwanda
It is questionable whether, if a few flights do begin to take place in the summer, the Rwanda scheme really will, as Rishi Sunak somewhat rashly promised, 'stop the boats'
A member of the Government told the Mail that, today, peers 'should bring their sleeping bags' if they plan to defy the Commons yet again.
One of the two remaining Lords amendments seems, on the face of it, to be quite reasonable.
Backed by a number of former military figures and ex-defence ministers in the Lords, it would make any Afghans arriving in 'the small boats' who had served alongside British forces in that ill-fated military campaign exempt from deportation to Rwanda.
But there already exists a number of schemes, notably the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, giving those who assisted our troops (for example, interpreters) the right to relocate to the UK, along with 'a partner, dependent children and additional family members also deemed eligible'.
By the end of last year, the number of Afghans who have been legally re-located here via these schemes had reached almost 28,000.
Doubtless there will be more who are eligible. It is possible that some have been rejected who should not have been. The point, however, is that there already exists a safe and legal route for such Afghans and their families — who may indeed be at risk from the Taliban government because of their work with the British Army — to settle here.
And the refusal of many Labour and crossbench peers to accept this argument raises doubts about the sincerity of those same people when they argue that the answer to the small boats crisis is, as the Refugee Council repeatedly urges, 'to expand safe and legal routes'. That is precisely what is being provided for Afghans who worked with our forces. And if there are shortcomings in its implementation, that should be dealt with at source, not via a form of people trafficking.
There is a second point against the apparently minor amendment being put forward tonight (yet again) in the Lords. If, as the Government intends, the scheme operates as a deterrent to the business model of the people smugglers, it needs to be clear that there will be absolutely no exemptions: that anyone who attempts to come here by such illegal means faces deportation to Rwanda. The policy has a chance to work only if it is seen to be free of loopholes.
It is questionable whether, if a few flights do begin to take place in the summer, the Rwanda scheme really will, as Rishi Sunak somewhat rashly promised, 'stop the boats'. But it is notable that a number of European
