On Tuesday 12 December the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill passed second reading by 313 votes to 269, a majority of 44. No Conservative MPs voted against the bill, though 29 abstained. So what happens next? With Conservative right-wing rebels warning that the legislation requires “major surgery”, this explainer sets out the next legislative stages for the Safety of Rwanda Bill and how – and when – MPs and peers could try and force changes to a bill which home secretary James Cleverley describes as "very much pushing at the edge of the envelope... [but] within the framework of international law."  ⁴ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/12/rishi-sunak-survives-rwanda-bill-commons-vote?ref=lite.improvethenews.org

What further Commons stages are required for the bill to become law?

Having agreed to give the bill a second reading, MPs also signed off the government’s proposed timetable for the remaining scrutiny of the bill in the House of Commons. The ‘programme motion’ provided for two or three days of further scrutiny, beginning with two days of debate in ‘committee of the whole house’ (CWH) – an opportunity for all MPs to participate in ‘line by line’ scrutiny of its provisions. At this stage, most bills are sent to be scrutinised by a small cross-party ‘public bill committee’, but it is normal for a bill of constitutional significance or urgency to be considered in CWH. MPs can propose changes to the content of the bill (amendments), suggest new material (new clauses) or propose content be removed. 

Whether there is a third day of Commons scrutiny will depend on whether any amendments are made to the bill during CWH. If not, then the Commons will move straight onto third reading the same day. Third reading is a general debate on the content of the bill following its Commons stages – any discussion of what is not in the bill but ought to be is out of scope. This final stage is normally a formality – a brief debate in which the minister thanks his or her team before the bill is dispatched to the House of Lords. Only trivial tidying up amendments are allowed and these are very unusual. However, it is possible to halt the progress of the bill by voting against the motion to give it a third reading. 

If amendments are made to the bill during CWH then there will be a pause of several days and then a third opportunity for debate known as report stage. Again, detailed amendments and new clauses can be suggested and debated. Not all will be voted on – the decision on how to marshal amendments for discussion and which ones should be voted on is for the Speaker. Immediately following report stage the Commons will move to the third reading debate as discussed above. 

What scrutiny will take place in the Lords?

The key difference between Commons and Lords scrutiny is that legislative stages in the Lords are not timetabled. The scrutiny carries on for as long as there is appetite from peers to table and discuss amendments. Given the political and constitutional significance of the bill it is reasonable to anticipate that the Lords will take their time in digging into its provisions. 

Lords scrutiny consists of the same stages as the Commons – 1st and 2nd reading, committee stage, report stage and 3rd reading. All peers can participate in the committee stage should they wish to do so.

What happens when the Lords has finished scrutinising the bill? 

The Lords will return to the Commons the amendments it suggests to the text it received from the lower house. The Commons then considers those specific changes – it cannot return to any aspect of the bill where no amendments have been proposed. It can accept or reject amendments or reject and propose an alternative form of wording. The Commons decides on each amendment and then sends the bill back to the Lords. This process of ‘ping pong’ continues until a final text is agreed.

The Conservative rebels who want to tighten up the bill (the so-called ‘five families’) are likely to focus on removing ministers’ discretion about whether to block interim injunctions from the ECHR, narrowing the list of reasons for which an individual migrant could challenge their removal and disapplying section 4 of the Human Rights Act. Their best chance of success is if the government accepts their arguments before CWH takes place (probably in the third week of January) and tables its own amendments addressing one or more of these points. This will encourage other Conservative MPs to vote for the changes. The alternative is that the rebels themselves table amendments, which would make wider Conservative support less certain. A key figure could be Robert Jenrick, who quit as immigration minister in protest at the bill. He has stated that "this bill could be so much better. Let’s make it better.”

Meanwhile the One Nation group of centrist Conservatives is said to be considering its own amendments designed to strengthen the adherence of the legislation to the rule of law and the UK’s international commitments. Amendments tabled by this group would enable the government to reinforce its commitment to respecting the rule of law and could attract support from opposition parties. A key figure in this group is former deputy prime minister Damian Green, who has warned that One Nation MPs would accept only “very minor” amendments from the right, as the bill in its current form “goes right to the edge of what is acceptable”.

Ultimately both camps will reserve the option of voting against the bill at third reading if it is changed – or indeed if it is not changed – in ways that make it palatable to them. Rishi Sunak’s challenge will be to determine whether either side is bluffing. And even if the bill makes it through third reading, he will need to consider the potential impact of any amendments made in the Commons on the attitude which the Lords takes to the proposed legislation.