Peers know the Rwanda bill is flawed and dangerous. We must use every power to oppose it | Simon McDonald

But the government believes that “” is important enough to override the UK’s traditional respect for human rights; it argues that the scheme will have such a powerful deterrent effect that potential asylum seekers won’t cross the Channel.

First, the bill declares as a fact that Rwanda is safe enough to provide shelter for vulnerable people fleeing persecution in their home countries.

And the best our government can manage when challenged over the treatment of the LGBTQ+ community is that Rwanda does better than its neighbours, some of the world’s most notoriously hostile countries towards LGBTQ+ people.

The House of Lords international agreements committee concurs and has set out 10 tests it believes need to be passed before the treaty can safely come into force.

Originally the bill had two provisions: to treat all cases of poisoning as treason and to stipulate death by boiling for anyone found guilty.

When an amendment in identical language is resubmitted, the Commons and the government have a choice: either accept the repeated view of the House of Lords, or lose the bill entirely.