House of Lords inflict more defeats on Rwanda bill

The government has suffered five further defeats in the House of Lords over its Rwanda bill.

The proposed law aims to ensure the UK can deport asylum seekers to Rwanda by declaring it to be a safe place.

Peers in the House of Lords made several changes to the bill including allowing courts to question the safety of the East African nation.

However, the government is likely to overturn the changes when the bill returns to the House of Commons.

The House of Lords had already inflicted five defeats over the bill on Monday evening, meaning the government has lost all ten votes on the proposed law at this stage of the process.

The government introduced the legislation after its plan to deter small boat crossings in the English Channel by deporting arrivals to Rwanda was blocked by the courts.

The Supreme Court had ruled the policy was unlawful arguing it could lead to human rights breaches.

In a bid to avoid future legal challenges the government drew up its Safety of Rwanda Bill - in which it states that Rwanda is a safe country in UK law and restricts the ability of the courts to block removals on human rights grounds.

The bill passed the House of Commons, albeit with a small rebellion from some Conservative MPs.

However, it has faced a tougher battle in the House of Lords, where the government does not have a majority.

On Wednesday, peers backed an amendment by a majority of 89 votes to allow courts to consider the safety of Rwanda.

Backing the change, Conservative Viscount Hailsham said it was "very dangerous" to stop people "from having recourse to the courts".

However, senior government law officer Lord Stewart of Dirleton said there were "ample safeguards" in place and that the amendment would "undermine completely" the aims of the bill.

The House of Lords also backed rewording the bill to allow legal challenges in cases where an individual felt they had wrongly been labelled an adult.

The UK has said it would not relocate unaccompanied children to Rwanda, but Baroness Lister argued the methods for assessing age were "notoriously unreliable".

She said her amendment would minimise the risk of unaccompanied children being sent to Rwanda.

Home Office minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom agreed it was "inherently difficult" to determine age but said "we must disincentivise adults from knowingly claiming to be children".

Other amendments backed by peers would prevent people being relocated if they had previously supported British troops overseas or had been a victim of modern slavery and trafficking.

Once peers have finished scrutinising the bill, it will go back to the House of Commons, where the government has a majority and is likely to overturn the changes.