MPs and peers are set for some late nights over the next few days as government and opposition race to complete six bills in time for parliament to be prorogued by the end of this week.
Though the House of Commons leader, Mark Spencer, said business would conclude by Thursday – which would give MPs next week to get some shoe leather on the pavements ahead of the local elections – the Lords may have other ideas.
It means whips may decide to have the Commons sit next Tuesday and Wednesday, potentially throwing some MPs’ election schedules into disarray.
The unpalatability of that prospect may force the government to compromise on amendments to legislation made by the House of Lords – who have signalled they are prepared to continue to send bills back to the Commons even at the 11th hour.
The parliamentary battles in the week ahead read like a rogues gallery of all the most difficult and controversial proposals that Boris Johnson has announced – from noisy protests, to offshoring asylum seekers, to costs for renters in unsafe buildings and changes to election law.
On Monday, peers amended the elections bill to strengthen the independence of the electoral commission, having previously also voted to prevent the use of voter ID.
The elections bill and the nationality and borders bill are among those where compromise appears the most likely in the coming days – which could have some significant ramifications. Peers made 12 amendments to the bill, which returns to the Lords on Tuesday without compromise.
At least six are expected to be returned to the Commons again on totemic issues such as the right of asylum seekers to work after six months, proposed by the Tory peer Philippa Stroud.
The Lords also voted to amend the controversial offshoring proposals in the bill, which would allow asylum seekers to be sent overseas to a third country for their claims to be processed. The government announced its policy of sending claimants to Rwanda for asylum since the last debate.
Another policy that peers are expected to double down on is an amendment from Labour peer Vernon Coaker to water down a provision in the bill on arriving in the UK without permission. It would clarify that the new offence applies only to those doing so in breach of a deportation order.
There are other bills where Lords sources believe the government could make concessions in order to get them through in time. On the judicial review and courts bill, peers are hopefully of a win – or at the very least a commitment to review – on an amendment on legal aid for the bereaved.
Peers are also likely to return their amendment to the policing bill, to change the proposed new law that would outlaw noisy protests.
On all these issues, it is possible the government will not give any further ground. Or the compromises offered could be acceptable but weak – a promise of a review of the policy in a certain time period, for example. Crossbenchers, on which many of the votes will ultimately depend, often lose appetite for inflicting defeats on the elected house.
But most peers who seek to change the legislation seem resolute – especially on the borders bill. It will be interesting to see if the bill about which Johnson and Priti Patel have been their noisiest will end up having some kind of quiet compromise on its most eye-watering proposals.
