Rwanda bill – live: Battle over Rishi Sunak’s asylum plan ramps up as Lords reject MPs’ plea

The House of Lords has snubbed ministerial calls to back down – and insisted by 245 votes to 208, majority 37, on a requirement that Rwanda cannot be treated as safe until promised protections are in place.

The fresh government setback means yet more wrangling at Westminster over the proposed law that aims to clear the way to send asylum-seekers who cross the Channel in small boats on a one-way flight to Kigali.

Peers have been urged to relent in their deadlock with the government over the Safety of Rwanda Bill.

Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson said allowing the Bill to pass now would “send a clear signal that if you come to the United Kingdom illegally you will not be able to stay”.

As MPs rejected four amendments to the Bill, Mr Tomlinson said: “We have made it abundantly clear that our priority is to stop the boats, we simply cannot stand by and allow people-smugglers to control who enters our country and to see more lives being lost at sea.

“We have an obligation to the public and to those who are being exploited by criminal gangs to stop this vile trade and to protect our borders.

“Letting this Bill pass now will send a clear signal that if you come to the United Kingdom illegally you will not be able to stay.”

Britain’s armed forces will struggle to recruit local allies if the government allows Afghan veterans to be deported to Rwanda, Labour has said.

MPs and peers have urged ministers to ensure those who worked with the UK military or government overseas, such as Afghan interpreters, are exempt from removal to Rwanda under the terms of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.

Shadow Home Office minister Stephen Kinnock told the Commons: “We owe a debt of honour and gratitude to the Afghans who so bravely fought alongside British troops and the idea that we might send them to Rwanda is simply unconscionable.

“But Lord Browne’s amendment is not only driven by a moral imperative, it is also underpinned by our national interest and by military logic for the simple and obvious reason that the ability of our armed forces to recruit local allies will be severely constrained if this Bill passes unamended.”

Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson earlier sought to downplay concerns, saying: “This Government recognises the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside.

“I repeat: we will not let them down.”

MPs voted 302 to 244, majority 58, to reject Lords’ amendment 10D, which would exempt agents, allies and employees of the UK overseas, such as Afghans who fought alongside the British armed forces, from being removed to Rwanda.

It was the fourth amendment by peers in a row that MPs rejected.

Ministers should give assurances that Afghans who served alongside UK armed forces will not be deported to Rwanda, a Conservative former justice secretary has said.

Sir Robert Buckland told the Commons: “I do think that there is still a class of people who have served this country, who have been brave and have exposed themselves to danger, who have not yet been dealt with.

“Many of them are in Pakistan, and I think that it would have been helpful to have perhaps seen an amendment in lieu to deal with that point, as (the minister) did with modern day slavery, for which I thank him.”

Sir Robert also insisted that checks on ensuring Rwanda was a safe country were “not a wrecking amendment”.

The Independent has campaigned for Afghan war heroes who served alongside British forces to be given refuge in the UK.