Rishi Sunak has suffered further setbacks in the House of Lords over his controversial Rwandan deportation bill after peers defeated the government on all 10 votes.
Wednesday’s vote comes two days after the prime minister endured his heaviest defeat in the House of Lords when the archbishop of Canterbury and former Conservative ministers joined forces with the opposition to force through five amendments.
The succession of defeats in the upper chamber means the safety of Rwanda bill will be subjected to further political ping-pong on its return to the Commons.
Peers voted by 244 votes to 160 to exempt people who have put themselves in harm’s way by working with the UK armed forces or UK government overseas from removal to Rwanda. The Labour backbench amendment also exempts the partners and dependants of those people.
The government was also defeated on safeguards for victims of modern slavery. Peers voted by 246 to 171 to protect victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from being removed to Rwanda without their consent.
The amendment states that a person with a “reasonable grounds” decision from the National Referral Mechanism that they are a potential victim should not be removed until a “conclusive grounds” decision has been made.
A person with a “conclusive grounds” decision that they are a victim must not be removed without their consent if it would negatively affect their physical or mental health or their safety, including the risk of re-trafficking.
Peers also supported moves for ministers to publish a timetable for removals to the African country. The House of Lords voted by 228 to 184 to back Labour’s amendment 41 to the legislation.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the government publishes the number of people it plans to send to Kigali, and the timetable for their removal, in addition to information about arrangements for people not being sent to the country within the period covered by the UK’s treaty with Rwanda.
Lord Coaker, the party’s home affairs spokesperson in the Lords, earlier told peers: “We think that in the end the real number the government wants is one – one plane. The symbolism of one plane taking off is what the government wants.” He claimed that “number after number is not provided by the government” on the plan.
The Home Office minister, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, had told peers that Rwanda removal data would be included as part of the quarterly immigration statistics.
He said: “It’s not necessary to report the number of removals to parliament in the manner proposed … We have always been clear the scheme is uncapped.”
The government’s attempt to overturn a bid to circumvent the UK courts was also defeated. The move, backed by 278 votes to 189, scuppers the government’s bid to prevent continued legal challenges to the stalled deportation scheme after the supreme court ruled the plan unlawful.
As well as compelling judges to regard the east African country as safe, the bill would give ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions aimed at clearing the way for asylum seekers who cross the Channel in small boats to be sent on a one-way flight to Kigali.
The amendment agreed by the Lords restores the jurisdiction of domestic courts in relation to the safety of Rwanda and enables them to intervene.
On protections for asylum seekers claiming to be unaccompanied children, peers voted, by 265 to 181, to restore the ability of domestic courts to fully consider an appeal against an age assessment decision before the claimant is removed to Rwanda.
The Labour backbench amendment, put forward by Lady Lister of Burtersett, is based on the idea that the Rwanda treaty “does not cover unaccompanied children”.
