This blog is now closing, thanks for following. You can read our full report here: MPs back illegal migration bill by 289 votes to 230
A summary of today's developments
Suella Braverman failed to offer statistical evidence to back her claim that migrants crossing the English Channel are linked to “heightened levels of criminality” as the government’s immigration legislation cleared the Commons. The home secretary said people arriving in the UK in small boats have values which are “at odds with our country” ahead of MPs debating the Illegal Migration Bill. Asked later whether she had figures to support the statement, she said it was based on information she had gathered from police chiefs. It came as senior backbench Tories, including former prime minister Theresa May and ex-party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, voiced concerns in Parliament about the impact the Government’s flagship immigration reforms could have on modern slavery protections. But the Bill cleared the House of Commons without any drama in the votes after MPs gave it a third reading by 289 votes to 230, majority 59. The five amendments to the Bill were rejected in votes by MPs.
The government suffered a fourth defeat on its Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, after peers argued it had no right to legislate for Scotland and Wales on devolved matters like health and education. The House of Lords voted by 213 to 184, majority 29, to restrict the provisions of the Bill to England only. The crossbench amendment was backed by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Department of Health officials “raised concerns” about Steve Barclay’s alleged conduct towards civil servants, the Guardian has been told. Sources said the civil servants had informally complained to Chris Wormald, the department’s permanent secretary, about the way they believe they and colleagues have been treated by the health secretary. They said senior civil servants in the department had privately referred to “bullying” and other “bad behaviour” by Barclay towards his staff since he joined the Whitehall department in July last year. The alleged conduct is denied by Barclay’s allies. The department said it had not received any formal complaints over the behaviour of its ministers, but did not deny being alerted to concerns informally in the way sources described.
Lee Anderson, the deputy Conservative chair, and a member of the Commons home affairs committee, questioned Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police. They clashed on various issues, and Rowley told Anderson he was being “offensive” after Anderson said the Met would be better off without him.
Andrew Bridgen MP has been expelled from the Conservative party. The Conservatives suspended Bridgen in January for spreading misinformation about Covid vaccines and comparing their impact to the Holocaust.
More than 400 workers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will go on strike for 18 days in May and June.
The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) Union said 432 of its members working as customer service advisers in Glasgow and Newcastle-upon-Tyne will walk out on May 10-12, 15-19, 22-26, 29-31 and June 1-2.
The announcement came amid a dispute over pay, pensions, jobs and redundancy between the PCS and the Government.
Suella Braverman has failed to offer statistical evidence to back her claim that migrants crossing the English Channel are linked to “heightened levels of criminality” as the Government’s immigration legislation cleared the Commons.
The Home Secretary said people arriving in the UK in small boats have values which are “at odds with our country” ahead of MPs debating the Illegal Migration Bill.
Asked later whether she had figures to support the statement, she said it was based on information she had gathered from police chiefs.
It came as senior backbench Tories, including former prime minister Theresa May and ex-party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, voiced concerns in Parliament about the impact the Government’s flagship immigration reforms could have on modern slavery protections.
But the Bill cleared the House of Commons without any drama in the votes after MPs gave it a third reading by 289 votes to 230, majority 59.
“I think that the people coming here illegally do possess values which are at odds with our country,” the Home Secretary said earlier.
At an event later in Westminster, she added: “Not in all cases, but it is becoming a notable feature of everyday crime-fighting in England and Wales.
“Many people are coming here illegally and they’re getting very quickly involved in the drugs trade, in other forms of exploitation.”
Asked whether that claim was based on empirical evidence, she said: “I consider police chiefs experts in their field and authoritative sources of information.”
Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director, said: “Suella Braverman’s dog-whistle remarks about the ‘values’ of migrants being ‘at odds’ with British ‘norms’ are appallingly divisive and shamelessly intended to stoke fear and hatred of people seeking refuge in this country.”
Commenting on peers voting to stop frontline workers being sacked for exercising their right to strike, the TUC general secretary, Paul Nowak, said: “No one should be sacked for trying to win a better deal at work.
“That’s why peers have done the right thing and voted to stop nurses, teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers getting sacked for exercising their right to strike.
“Lords, MPs and rights groups are queueing up to condemn this spiteful bill.
“Now it’s time for an urgent rethink – the government must ditch this draconian bill for good and protect the right to strike.”
Updated
Here are more details on the controversial strikes law aimed at curbing the impact of walkouts on key services, which has suffered numerous defeats in the House of Lords.
The government setbacks in the House of Lords to the Strikes (Minimum Services Levels) bill sets the stage for a showdown between the unelected chamber and the Commons – where the administration has a majority – known as parliamentary ping-pong.
Labour has promised to repeal the law if it takes office.
One of the key changes made to the bill by peers was a measure that would ensure that staff who fail to comply with a work notice on strike days do not face the sack or disciplinary action.
The Lords also backed ditching part of the legislation that would strip protections from unions and to limit it to England only, with concerns it would infringe on services devolved to Wales and Scotland.
In addition, peers demanded consultation before the use of key ministerial powers to specify minimum services levels, including the involvement of parliament.
Criticising the power to “requisition” people to work or face losing their job, former TUC general secretary Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway said: “Most right-minded people find that disproportionate, dictatorial and fundamentally unfair.”
Government minister Lord Callanan said the aim of the changes proposed was an “attempt to disrupt the balance between the ability to strike with the rights and freedoms of others to go about their lawful business which is ultimately at the heart of this bill”.
Updated
Responding to the Guardian’s story that officials in the Department of Health and Social Care have “raised concerns” about secretary of state Steve Barclay’s behaviour, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for health and social care, Daisy Cooper, said: “This government hasn’t got a shred of integrity left. Each day we see more chaos, more sleaze and more scandal.
“These latest reports are deeply disturbing and must be investigated immediately by the Cabinet Office. Britain has had enough of bullies running the country.
“Steve Barclay now joins a long list of Conservative ministers to have allegations made against them for inappropriate behaviour.
“These latest reports cannot be brushed under the carpet by Rishi Sunak – he must launch an investigation immediately. No staff should ever be subjected to working with or for a bully.”
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “The department has not received any formal complaints relating to the behaviour of its ministers. Any complaints relating to ministers or members of staff would be investigated in line with departmental guidance.”
Updated
Illegal Migration Bill passes to House of Lords
MPs have voted to accept the Illegal Migration Bill at third reading, by 289 votes to 230. A majority of 59.
Updated
MPs have now divided to vote on the Illegal Migration Bill at third reading.
MPs have voted to reject the amendment by 231 votes to 286 – a majority of 55.
MPs are now voting on Page 14, Amendment 2 to the Illegal Migration Bill, which exempts unaccompanied children, people with at least one dependant child and pregnant women from certain measures and sanctions in the Bill.
Away from the Illegal Migration Bill for a moment, the government suffered a fourth defeat on its Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, after peers argued it had no right to legislate for Scotland and Wales on devolved matters like health and education.
The House of Lords voted by 213 to 184, majority 29, to restrict the provisions of the Bill to England only.
The crossbench amendment was backed by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
MPs have voted to reject the amendment by 231 votes to 290 – a majority of 59.
MPs are now voting on Amendment 45, an SNP amendment which would compel the Bill to be compatible with numerous conventions including the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking
MPs have voted to reject the amendment by 219 votes to 284 – a majority of 65.
MPs are now voting on whether New Clause 15 should be added to the Bill, which would compel to the government to remove a person from the UK if certain conditions relating to the Bill and the Prevention and Investigation and Measures Act 2011 are met.
MPs have voted to reject the amendment by 231 votes to 290 – a majority of 59.
MPs are now voting on New Clause 10, a Labour amendment which would compel the government to issue regulations establishing an expedited asylum process for applicants from specified countries who have arrived in the UK without permission.
MPs voted against Labour’s new clause 9 by 285 votes to 233 – a majority of 52.
They are now voting on another Labour amendment, new clause 10, that would require the government to fast track asylum claims by people from specified countries.
That is all from me for today. My colleague Nadeem Badshah is now taking over.
Braverman fails to provide data to back her claim about small boat migrants being more likely to be engaged in crime
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, was also asked to justify her claim about people arriving in the UK on small boats being disproprotionately criminal in a briefing with journalists earlier. (See 5.21pm.) She replied:
Not in all cases, but it is becoming a notable feature of everyday crime-fighting in England and Wales.
Many people are coming here illegally and they’re getting very quickly involved in the drugs trade, in other forms of exploitation.
Asked whether that claim was based on empirical evidence, she said:
I consider police chiefs experts in their field and authoritative sources of information.
Evans calls the first vote, on new clause 9.
This is a Labour amendment that would put the government under an obligation to consult on where refugees are housed.
MPs are now voting.
Nigel Evans, the deputy speaker, says he expects five votes between now and 7pm.
Jenrick is winding up now. The British people want to stop the boats, he says. And the only way to do that is to severe the link between being able to cross the Channel and being able to stay in the UK.
Only the Conservative party will do this, he says.
Jenrick is now addressing the point raised by Sir Geoffrey Cox. (See 2.56pm.) He says the government would only take a decision to ignore a European court of human rights injunction “judiciously”.
Jenrick is now addressing the concerns about modern slavery.
He says he has not been able to settle the matter today. But he says he hopes Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May will continue to work with the government on this issue.
Chris Bryant (Lab) urges the government not to move amendment 95. If it is moved, it will be taken out in the Lords, he says.
(This is the one strongly attacked by Duncan Smith and May.)
Jenrick defends the amendment.
May says the amendment does not allow people who are in the UK participating in a modern slavery inquiry can stay. It says the assumption is that they will go. In doing so, it has reversed that the government originally proposed (an assumption in favour of victims staying).
Jenrick says people would only be removed to a safe third country, where they could be protected. The agreements struck with Albania and Rwanda promise this. Individuals could go to Rwanda and continue to participate in a UK police inquiry into modern slavery, he says.
Jenrick says the government does want to provide safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum in the UK. Those routes exist today, he says. But he says he accepts that MPs want more. He says the government will bring forward its consultation with councils on this, and over the course of the next year the government will “set up or expand the existing safe and legal routes so that the UK can be an even greater force for good in the world”.
Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, is summing up for the government now.
He has already said enough to satisfy Conservative MPs seeking greater protection for child asylum seekers. But Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, still wants to hear more assurances relating to the vicitms of modern slavery. (See 4.18pm and 5.09pm.)
Danny Kruger (Con) tells MPs he welcomes new clause 26 (NC26), the one allowing the home secretary to ignore European court of human rights’ injunctions. But he says his objections to the European convention on human rights go beyond that.
He is not proposing leaving the EHCR now, he says. But if there were a further challenge by the court to the UK, then at that point the government should give way to the superior authority of parliament.
Back in the Commons Sir Bill Cash, the veteran Tory Eurosceptic, is speaking now. He said he would have supported the European convention on human rights in its entirety in the 1950s, but that now the small boats problem means parliament needs new powers.
This is not just an issue for the UK, he says. He cites Italy as an example of another country trying to deal with a refugee crisis.
He welcomes the government amendments that would allow the Home Office to ignore European court of human rights’ injunctions. But he says he would have preferred a “notwithstanding” clause – a broader power to ignore the ECtHR.
How Home Office defends Braverman's claim that small boat arrivals have 'heightened levels of criminality'
In an interview this morning Suella Braverman, the home secretary, said people arriving in the UK on small boats had a higher than normal chance of being criminal. (See 9.13am.) She said:
I think that the people coming here illegally do possess values which are at odds with our country.
We are seeing heightened levels of criminality when related to the people who’ve come on boats related to drug dealing, exploitation, prostitution.
I asked the Home Office this morning what evidence they had to back that up. In response they say Braverman has been told by chief constables, and other senior police officer, as part of her regular engagement with them, that they are seeing “increased criminality” relating to people who entered the UK on small boats.
Braverman also takes the view that people who enter the UK on small boats are breaking the law by definition, because entering the country through this route, without proper paperwork, is illegal, the Home Office says.
Health department officials ‘raised concerns’ about Steve Barclay’s behaviour
Officials from the Department of Health have “raised concerns” about Steve Barclay’s alleged conduct towards civil servants, Pippa Crerar, Denis Campbell and Aubrey Allegretti report.
In his speech in the debate Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader who, with Theresa May, has tabled amendment 4, which would restore protections for asylum-seeking victims of modern slavery that are being removed under the bill, said the government’s amendment 95 (see 4.13pm) was “disastrous” because it meant slavery victims would not feel confident about coming forward and giving evidence. He ended his speech saying:
I really, really ask the government before we make a decision about whether this [amendment 4] is moved, to make it very clear at the end of this debate that they will take this away and they will genuinely look to see what those unintended consequences are now coming together to become.
Tim Loughton, the Tory former children’s minister, said under the bill a 12-year-old child claiming asylym could be held in a detention centre for 27 days. That was not right, he said.
The bill should include time limits for child detention, he said. He suggested ministers should amend the bill in the Lords to address this.
He said he was taking the assurances he had received from the minister on trust. (See 2.26pm.) As a result, he would not push his amendments to a vote, he said. But he said he expected further movement.
May said Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, had told MPs that he wanted to address this issue. She said the best solution would be for it to accept amendment 4.
Amendment 4 is the one tabled by May and Iain Duncan Smith, another former Tory leader. Their description of what it would do says:
This amendment is intended to exempt people who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK from provisions which would otherwise require their removal during the statutory recovery period and prohibit them being granted limited leave to remain.
May claims government's illegal migration bill will lead to more people being consigned to modern slavery
May said not all modern slavery victims wanted to stay in the UK.
The bill as drafted implied that slavery was secondary to immigration status, she said.
She said modern slavery was the greatest human rights issue of our times. And this bill would consign more people to slavery, she said.
It would give another tool to traffickers wanting hold people in slavery, because if people tried to escape, traffickers would find it easy to say: “Don’t even think about trying to escape from the misery of your life, from the suffering we are subjecting you to – all the UK government will do is send you away and probably send you to Rwanda.”
UPDATE: May said:
Modern slavery is the greatest human rights issue of our time. The approach in this bill, I believe, will have several ramifications. I believe it will consign victims to remain in slavery.
The government will be ensuring that more people will stay enslaved and in exploitation as a result of this bill because it will give the slavedrivers, it will give the traffickers, another weapon to hold people in that slavery and exploitation, because it’ll be very easy to say to them, ‘Don’t even think about trying to escape from the misery of your life, from the suffering we’re subjecting you to because all the UK government will do is send you away and probably send you to Rwanda’.
The Modern Slavery Act gave hope to victims, this bill removes that hope. I genuinely believe that, if enacted as it is currently proposed, this bill will leave more people, more men, women and children, in slavery in the UK.
Updated
Theresa May says government amendment on modern slavery 'slap in face' to people who care about victims
Theresa May, the former prime minister, started her speech in the debate by saying she did not accept the governnment’s claim the Modern Slavery Act was being abused by asylum seekers.
She said she had thought the government was trying to improve the bill. But amendment 95 makes it worse, she said. It was hard to see that as an example of good faith. She went on:
I would say, rather, it’s a slap in the face of those of us who actually care about the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking.
She said the amendment said victims of modern slavery would not need to be in the UK to give evidence against abusers. Sending victims back to a third country would “at best make them feel less secure, and at worse drive them back into the arms of the slave traffickers and slave drivers”.
The amendment did not help victims, she said. Instead it would undermine the fight against people traffickers.
'It's a slap in the face of those of us who actually care about the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking'@theresa_may warns the illegal immigration bill reforms will leave more people at risk of slavery in the UK https://t.co/cz8GAV9U1s pic.twitter.com/tnL3pQklX3
— ITV News Politics (@ITVNewsPolitics) April 26, 2023
Updated
UN refugee agency says Braverman was wrong to claim someone fleeing Sudan could seek asylum in UK via UNHCR
In an interview this morning Suella Braverman was asked what the government would do about anyone fleeing Sudan coming to the UK on a small boat to claim asylum. Braverman told Sky News that there was no good reason for someone to do this. She said that the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, was operating in the region and “they are the right mechanism by which people should apply if they do want to seek asylum in the Unitd Kingdom”.
"There is no good reason for anybody to get into a small boat to cross the Channel in search of a new life in the UK."@SuellaBraverman is asked what will happen if people fleeing the war in Sudan attempt to cross the Channel.
— Sky News (@SkyNews) April 26, 2023
More: https://t.co/oLwydfQf16
📺 Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/4kMNAXM8yk
But the UNHCR has put out a statement saying Braverman was wrong. It says:
UNHCR is aware of recent public statements suggesting that refugees wishing to apply for asylum in the United Kingdom should do so via the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ respective offices in their home region. UNHCR wishes to clarify that there is no mechanism through which refugees can approach UNHCR with the intention of seeking asylum in the UK. There is no asylum visa or ‘queue’ for the United Kingdom.
Updated
Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration minister, told MPs that Labour had tabled amendments to the illegal migration bill incorporated parts of the party’s plan to tackle small boats.
Labour wanted a “new, elite” cross-border police force to tackle people smugglers, he said. And it wanted a returns agreement with the EU. He went on:
This is essential. Since the party opposite botched the Brexit negotiations and Britain left the Dublin convention, which had provided agreements on returns, the number of Channel crossings has gone up by an astonishing 2,400%.
Updated
As Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, was near the end of his speech on the illegal migration bill, the former Conservative prime minister Theresa May intervened to say modern slavery protections were already being weakened as a result of the government’s previous migration bill, the Nationality and Borders Act.
May read out a message from Greater Manchester police which suggested that the Act was having an impact on victims of modern slavery. She said the message claimed that “four in five potential victims are not able to access immediate support from the national modern slavery and human trafficking victim care providers” as a result of changes in the law.
She went on:
Is he as worried about that as I am? And if he is not worried, is it because he feels that the impact of the Nationality and Borders Act is already working, in which case why does he need modern slavery provisions in this bill?
Jenrick said he did not want to comment on remarks he had not seen.
He insisted that modern slavery provisions were subject to “significant abuse”, with 70% of detained migrants at risk of deportation now making slavery claims.
Updated
Met chief Mark Rowley clashes with Tory deputy chair Lee Anderson over MP's 'offensive' questions
There was a time when the Conservative party was always on the side of the police. But there was no sign of that this morning when Lee Anderson, the deputy Conservative chair, and a member of the Commons home affairs committee, questioned Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police. They clashed on various issues, and Rowley told Anderson he was being “offensive” after Anderson said the Met would be better off without him.
Updated
Tory former attorney general Geoffrey Cox accuses government of 'deliberate breach' of international law obligations with bill
Jenrick is now talking about the amendment to the bill that would allow the government to ignore injunctions from the European court of human rights. (See 11.42am.)
He says ministers would exercise discretion when using this power.
Sir Geoffrey Cox, the Tory former attorney general, intervenes. He asks Jenrick to exlain why the government is asking MPs “to give legislative sanction to at least the possibility that the minister of the crown will deliberately disobey the international law obligations of this country”.
Jenrick says the government would only use this power “highly judiciously”.
But that is not enough for Cox, who intervenes again. He says a minister can ignore an indication from the ECHR under rule 39 (the interim injunction provision) under the current system. But the government is asking MPs to approve “a deliberate breach of our obligations under the convention”, he says.
Cox says, if a minister were to ignore a rule 39 order, that would be amount to a dispute between states. But by putting this into law, the government is giving “legislative authority” to this sort of breach of the convention, he says.
Jenrick just repeats the point about how ministers would have discretion, under this amendment, when deciding whether or not to ignore an EHCR injunction.
This intervention is significant because Cox is hardly a “lefty lawyer”, to use the terminology deployed by Rishi Sunak and other ministers to dismiss legal experts who criticise the government on human rights grounds. Cox is an enthusiastic Brexiter, and he served as attorney general under Boris Johnson.
The i’s Paul Waugh has the clip.
Former Tory attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox is not remotely happy about Illegal Migration bill allowing ministers to "deliberately disobey" the UK's international obligations. pic.twitter.com/K8nMDM9Tdh
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) April 26, 2023
Updated
Jenrick is now talking about an amendment tabled by Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May, who are both former Tory leaders, that would restore protections for asylum seekers who are victims of modern slavery.
The bill as drafted prevents asylum seekers from avoiding removal from the UK by saying they are victims of modern slavery. The government included these measures because it claims the modern slavery laws are being exploited by asylum seekers who are using them as a means of fighting deportation.
Jenrick says the government is concerned about creating exemptions to the bill. It will think about this issue carefully, he says.
Jenrick says Tim Loughton and other MPs have raised concerns about the detention of unaccompanied children under this bill.
He says the government has tabled amendments 134 and 136 to address this. These will impose time limits, he says.
(The amendments only give the home secretary the power to set time limits. They do not say what those time limits should be.)
Jenrick says he hopes these will persuade Loughton not to push his own amendment on this to a vote.
Jenrick also says he can give MPs an assurance that, if there is no age dispute (ie, an assumption that a child is actually an adult), it is the government’s intention to ensure that children are not detained “for any longer than is absolutely necessary with particular regard to the risk of absconding and suffering significant harm”.
Jenrick is now talking about child refugees.
He says the power to remove unaccompanied children in the bill would only be used in very limited circumstances.
He says government amendment 174 clarifies this.
Here is the government explanation of this amendment.
This amendment limits the power in clause 3(2) to make arrangements for the removal of an unaccompanied child from the United Kingdom so that it may only be exercised for the purposes of reunion with the child’s parent, where the person is to be removed to a safe country of origin, where the person has not made a protection claim, or in other circumstances specified in regulations made by the secretary of state.
Jenrick says government accepting two amendments from Tories seeking clarification about safe and legal asylum routes
Jenrick is now talking about Tim Loughton, the Tory MP who has tabled amendments relating to safe and legal routes.
He says the government is accepting Loughton’s new clause 8 and amendment 11.
NC8 would oblige the government to publish a report on the safe and legal routes that asylum seekers could use to enter the UK.
The amendment does not say when this report would have to be published, but Jenrick says this would happen by the end of 2024.
He says the government wants to expand safe and legal routes over the next 12 months.
And amendment 11 says that within three months of the bill being passed, the goverment must consult on the maximum number of people who will be allowed into the UK under safe and legal routes.
These amendments, and all the others being debated today, are here.
Jenrick says most people arriving on small boats are 'essentially asylum shoppers' as MPs resume debate on migration bill
Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, is opening the report stage debate on the illegal migration bill.
He says if people come to the UK illegally to claim asylum, they undermine the immigration system.
The vast majority of people coming to the UK on small boats are coming from a place of safety, France. They are “essentially asylum shoppers”, even if they originally came from somewhere dangerous.
UPDATE: Jenrick said:
Illegal migration undermines the integrity our immigration system. It puts an unsustainable pressure on our housing, health, education and welfare services and it undermines public confidence in our democratic processes and the rule of law.
That’s why we want to stop the boats and secure our borders, and this bill is dedicated to that goal. It will send a clear message that if you enter the UK illegally, you will not be able to build a life here.
Instead you’re liable to be detained and you will be removed either back to your home country if it’s safe to do so or a safe third country such as Rwanda.
The vast majority of those individuals coming on small boats are coming from an obvious place of safety in France with a fully functioning asylum system, so they’re choosing to make that additional crossing.
They are essentially asylum shoppers, even if they ultimately came from a place of danger and they’re doing that because they believe the UK is a better place for them to make their claim and to build a future.
Updated
Andrew Bridgen has claimed that “corruption, collusion and cover-ups” are factors in the decision to expel him from the Conservative party. (See 1.49pm.) In a statement, he said:
My expulsion from the Conservative Party under false pretences only confirms the culture of corruption, collusion and cover-ups which plagues our political system.
I have been a vocal critic of the vaccine rollout and the party have been sure to make an example of me.
I am grateful for my newfound freedom and will continue to fight for justice for all those harmed, injured and bereaved due to governmental incompetence.
I will continue to serve my constituents as I was elected to do and intend to stand again at the next election.
Andrew Bridgen MP expelled from Conservative party after comparing impact of Covid vaccines to Holocaust
Andrew Bridgen MP has been expelled from the Conservative party, it has announced this afternoon. A spokesperson said:
Mr Bridgen was expelled from the Conservative Party on April 12 following the recommendation of a disciplinary panel. He has 28 days from this date to appeal.
The Conservatives suspended Bridgen in January for spreading misinformation about Covid vaccines and comparing their impact to the Holocaust.
Around the same time Bridgen was also suspended from the Commons for breaking lobbying rules, which is also a factor in the party’s decision to expel him, according to PA Media.
Commons speaker suggests ministers should have allowed more time for illegal migration bill debate
In the Commons Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, is using a procedure to request an emergency debate on the illegal migration bill. He says the time set aside for the new amendments to be debate tonight is insufficient.
It is up to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, to decide whether to grant the emergency debate and says he is not convinced one is justified.
But he says he sympathises with what Flynn said about not enough time being set aside for the debate. He says in future he might take a different view.
The standing order precludes me from giving reasons for my decision to the house. However I do wish to make clear that I find the merits of this application, I sympathise with members trying to scrutinise a very large number of amendments to an already densely drafted bill.
Updated
PMQs - snap verdict
Readers often ask why the Guardian doesn’t publish a fact-check analysis of PMQs every week. The answer is that it would take so long that, by the time it was finished, PMQs might be long forgotten, but anyone attempting such an exercise today would be in for a particularly long afternoon. The exchanges between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer were particularly grim; often there is an argument of sorts, but today it just felt like a carnival of sloganising and half-truths.
Did we learn anything? Only that there’s an election coming (the English local elections, a week tomorrow). What we saw today were two party leaders who had no time for nuance and how were just honing their electoral message. Starmer wasn’t innocent on the misrepresentation front (Sunak never “boasted’” about not having working class friends), but Sunak was worse. (“On Monday in the House of Lords [Labour] decided to side with extremist protesters, just yesterday they sided with polluters, and tonight we will see them siding with the people smugglers.”) It was all rather grim and unedifying.
The attack lines are familiar. Starmer depicts Sunak as an out-of-touch plutocrat, clueless about ordinary life, trying to defend the record of a government that has little to show for its 13 years. Sunak depicts Starmer as leader of a party short on ideas, weak on crime and committed to higher taxes. What’s new is that Sunak is now leaning into culture war attacks more enthusiastically than ever. Even before Starmer got his first question in, Sunak went full Daily Express on gender. (See 12.03pm.) When he took over as PM, he seemed to have little appetite for such crude and divisive campaigning. Perhaps he just hid it well. Or perhaps, 15 points behind in the polls and with few other messages that resonate, electoral gravity has made this inevitable.
There was one clear winner at PMQs today; the SNP’s Stephen Flynn skewered Sunak very effectively with his question about safe routes and Sudan. (See 12.14pm.) Labour’s Bell Ribeiro-Addy also got an interesting answer from Sunak to her question about reparations and an apology for slavery. (See 12.26pm.)
Updated
Peter Grant (SNP) say many Tory MPs have defended Dominic Raab, and agreed with his claim to be the victim of the bullying investigation.
Sunak says he set up the inquiry. “It is somewhat odd to be getting lectures right now on values from the SNP,” he says.
And that’s it. PMQs is over.
Sarah Atherton (Con) asks Sunak to join her in congratulating Wrexham, her local football club, on its return to the Football league.
Sunak wishes Wrexham every success, and says Atherton deserves credit for backing them.
Robert Goodwill (Con) asks what Sunak thinks of someone who spends time with President Putin, and refers to him as a dear friend. (He seems to be referring to Xi Jinping, the Chinese president.)
Sunak says his views on Putin are well known.
Angela Crawley (SNP) asks if Sunak agrees with the Bank of England’s chief economist, who says the poorerst should just accept being poor.
Sunak does not answer the question directly, but lists some of the support available to help people with the cost of living.
Updated
Sunak says he will not apologise for Britain's record on slavery, saying 'trying to unpick our history' not right approach
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Lab) asks about the late Bernie Grant MP, and says before he left the Commons he asked for an apology for slavery. Will the PM give a full and meaningful apology, and commit to reperatory justice.
No, says Sunak. He says his priority is to have a society that is inclusive and tolerant. But “trying to unpick our history” is not the way forward, and not what the government should be focusing on.
UPDATE: Ribeiro-Addy asked:
Prime ministers and heads of state have only ever expressed sorrow or deep regret. These are not sentiments that are befitting one of the greatest atrocities in human history.
There has been no acknowledgement of the wealth that has been amassed or the fact that our country took out the largest loan it ever has to pay off the slave owners, and not the enslaved.
Will he do what Bernie Grant asked all those years ago, what I have asked, and what countless others have asked since, and offer a full and meaningful apology for our country’s role in slavery and colonialism, and commit to reparatory justice?
And Sunak replied:
No. What I think our focus should now be on doing is, of course, understanding our history and all its parts, not running away from it, but right now making sure that we have a society which is inclusive and tolerant of people from all backgrounds.
“That’s something that we on this side of the House are committed to doing and will continue to deliver, but trying to unpick our history is not the right way forward, and it’s not something that we will focus our energies on.
Updated
James Morris (Con) says Shakespeare plays are seen as a beacon of hope around the world. In Ukraine, people have been putting on his plays in air raid shelters. Does the PM agree.
Sunak says one of the first gifts he gave President Zelenskiy was a copy of Henry V, so he agrees.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lab) invites Sunak to condemn Turning Point UK for seeking to spread division and hatred.
Sunak says he is not aware of the protest in her constituency that Foxcroft is referring to, but he says everyone should be treated with respect.
Kerry McCarthy (Lab) says the Trussell Trust is helping a record number of people attending food banks. That should not be necessary, she says.
Sunak says the government is spending money to help low-paid families.
Rob Roberts (independent) asks about plans to house asylum seekers in his Delyn constituency.
Sunak says this is why the government needs to take action. It is costing the taxpayer up to £6m a day to house asylum seekers.
Fabian Hamilton (Lab) asks about a constituent who lost his daughter in a road accident that should never have happened. Will the government give councils the money they need to stop these accidents?
Sunak says the government should do everything it can to improve road safety.
Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster, says anyone wanting to go from south Wales to north Wales by train has to travel through England. Addressing this would cost £2bn. He asks Sunak to agree that Wales is losing out from HS2 investment.
Sunak says Wales is losing out from the Welsh government’s plan to ban new roads.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, asks what safe and legal route would be available to a child refugee seeking to flee Sudan.
Sunak says the government’s priority has been to evacuate Britons from Sudan. It is reasonable, legal and fair to prioritise Britons, he says.
Flynn says children are dying in Sudan already. We need some more humanity in this debate. Now that the PM has confirmed there is no safe and legal route, would the government detain and support a child refugee from Sudan coming to the UK.
Sunak says the government has spent £250m on aid to Sudan. The government has welcomed almost 500,000 vulnerable people to the UK, including children. That is why it is worth protecting the system.
Starmer says there is a difference; he says he would scrap the tax benefit, even if he lost out. Sunak keeps it. He says Sunak once boasted about having no working class friends. No wonder he looks at a petrol pump as if he has arrived from Mars.
Sunak says Labour has sided this week with extremist protesters, yesterday they sided with polluters, and today they will side with people smugglers. The government has put 20,000 more police officers on the street, he says. It is siding with the British people.
Starmer and Sunak clash over taxes
Referring to non-dom status, Starmer says Sunak has voted to put taxes up for working people while protecting a tax avoidance scheme that happens to benefit his family.
Sunak says the very wealthy pay more tax than under Labour. And he accuses Starmer of “rank hypocrisy”. Starmer has a special pension scheme. It is “literally one law for him”.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
He calls it ‘this non-dom thing’, let’s be honest about what his refusal to scrap the non-dom status means. It means that at every possible opportunity he has voted to put taxes up on working people while at the same time taking every possible opportunity to protect a tax avoidance scheme that helped his own finances.
Why is the prime minister telling people across the country that their taxes must go up so that his can stay low?
Sunak replied:
The fact is the wealthiest pay more tax and the poorest pay less tax today than under … the last Labour government.
The rank hypocrisy of it, as we saw last week when it comes to his own special pensions scheme. I said it last week, but I will say it again, it is literally one law for him and a tax rise for everybody else.
Sunak was referring to a pensions concession granted to Starmer when he stood down as director of public prosecutions, in line with what had been offered to previous DPPs. Starmer says he has not taken advantage of this tax break.
Updated
Starmer says the government could stop handouts to oil companies, or scrap Sunak’s beloved non-dom status.
Sunak says there are record number of people in work, and fewer people in poverty. It is the same old Labour party. “They are always running out of other people’s money,” he says.
Starmer suggests Sunak 'clueless about life outside his bubble'
Starmer asks if Sunak genuinely thinks everything is fine outside his bubble, or is he just clueless?
People are £1,600 worse off. I’m genuinely fascinated to know, does he really think that everything’s fine or is he just clueless about life outside of his bubble?
Sunak says Labour is just offering more spending, more taxes, more borrowing. It is the same old Labour party.
A working couple on low income with two children will get £1,800. That’s what delivering for working Britain looks like, but if he has any actual ideas for the economy he should say so because all I hear from the party opposite, it’s more spending, more borrowing, higher inflation, higher interest rates, it’s the same old Labour party.
Updated
Keir Starmer asks if Sunak agrees with what George Osborne said about Liz Truss and her allies being economic vandals.
Sunak says the fact that the government has come through the economic shock of Covid is a triumph.
Sunak claims Starmer's record on women 'questionable at best'
Tim Loughton (Con) says, given Keir Starmer does not know what a woman is, and given he won’t stand up for women in his party, does the PM think Labour is in any position to teach anyone about respect for women?
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, says Sunak is not responsible for opposition policy. But he lets Sunak reply anyway.
Sunak says Stamer’s record on women is “questionable at best”. He says he knows what a woman is. Does Starmer?
UPDATE: Sunak said:
[Loughton] is absolutely right. The leader of the opposition’s record on women is questionable at best. Before Labour do start preaching about this issue, they should work out the answer to one very simple question: I’m certain what a woman is, is he?
Updated
Rishi Sunak starts by saying the UK will continue to work to end the bloodshed in Sudan. The government has begun an evacuation. He pays tribute to those involved.
Updated
In the Commons Kemi Badenoch is taking questions on matters relating to women and equalities. Michael Fabricant (Con) told her he was concerned trans people were being “demonised”. Badenoch said that she wanted to take the toxicity out of the debate, and that everyone should be treated with dignity.
Rishi Sunak facing Keir Starmer at PMQs
PMQs is starting in 10 minutes.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
Home Office argues new power in illegal migration bill to ignore Strasbourg injunctions 'not incompatible' with ECHR
The Home Office has published a new memo today setting out the government’s arguments about how its amendments to the illegal migration bill being debated today may be compliant with the European convention on human rights.
The most controversial change may be the one allowing the government to ignore injunctions from the European court of human rights. The memo stresses that ministers would have the option of ignoring these injunctions; they would not be under a duty to do so.
It goes on:
The government considers that the provision in general and the discretion in particular are capable of being operated compatibly with convention rights, in the sense that they will not necessarily give rise to an unjustified interference of those rights, meaning that the legislation itself will not be incompatible.
The wording of this suggests Home Office lawyers have significant doubts about this measure. “Capable of being operated compatibly with convention rights” is not the same as just being compatible.
Updated
Crime should be treated as choice, not 'illness to be treated', says Braverman
In her speech to the Public Safety Foundation, Suella Braverman, the home secretary, complained that for too long people in authority have treated crime as an “illness to be treated” rather than a “destructive option” chosen by perpetrators.
She complained that that mindset served to “diminish individual responsibility and culpability”. She went on:
[This] displaces the old-fashioned and just retributive consideration of the criminal events themselves and the effect they have.
She also said that the police should not be spending money on diversity training that featured “contested ideology.
'When Police Chiefs spend taxpayers money that could have been spent fighting crime on diversity training that promotes contested ideology'@SuellaBraverman says police officers must be seen as politically impartial on the 'side of the law' https://t.co/38Urm7tDPh pic.twitter.com/15OKIpquYb
— ITV News Politics (@ITVNewsPolitics) April 26, 2023
Chris Philp, the policing minister, is making a statement on policing numbers later. That means the debate on the illegal migration bill will not start until about 1.30pm.
Q: [From Matthew Barber, the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley] What can the Home Office do to cut bureaucracy for the police?
Braverman says, if someone is having a mental health crisis, there should be a healthcare response, not a police response. She says police officers are having to spend too much time in hospital with people.
Q: [From the producer of a policing podcast] How can members of the public support the police more?
Braverman says she wants to maintain the non-degree entry route for policing, so a wider range of people can join.
Q: [From the Isle of Wight’s police commissioner] What changes to governance might be coming for the police and the fire service?
Braverman says the case for reform with the fire service is clear.
She says she is very supportive of the role played by police and crime commissioners. They speak for the people.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has just finished giving a speech at the launch of the Public Safety Foundation. I will post some extracts shortly.
She is now taking questions from non-journalists in the audience.
Q: What more can you do to empower the police?
Braverman says she is listening to the police. She wants to liberate them to do their job more effectively. She is “in the market” for ideas to help them go further in this respect, she says.
Greg Hands, the Conservative party chairman, has posted this on Twitter responding to Labour’s response to the announcement about an extra 20,000 police officers being recruited.
Instead of welcoming today’s news on 20,000 extra police officers and backing our police, Labour is pointing to a reduction in police numbers back in 2010.
— Greg Hands (@GregHands) April 26, 2023
But the British people won’t forget that Labour left us 2010 with “no money”
Great news to see our manifesto pledge made! pic.twitter.com/jFKUALozBg
Hands has repeatedly quoted the note left by Liam Byrne, chief secretary to the Treasury, saying there was “no money left” after the 2010 election. Byrne expected to be replaced by Philip Hammond, his Tory shadow, with whom he had a cordial relationship, but the coalition agreement resulted in the new chief secretary to the Treasury being David Laws, a Lib Dem, and he published the letter.
David Cameron exploited the letter endlessly, to reinforce his claim that the Labour government was profligate.
But, as the FT’s Jim Pickard points out, 13 years on it is much harder for the Conservatives to pose as the party of fiscal prudence.
narrator: Britain’s debt has more than doubled since 2010 https://t.co/A9pbr3XF4p
— Jim Pickard 🐋 (@PickardJE) April 25, 2023
Another problem is that the Byrne letter was, quite literally, a joke.
In an interview this morning Suella Braverman, the home secretary, appeared to revive her concerns about the way four police officers, plus a trainee, seized golly dolls from a pub in Essex in response to complaints having them on display was racist.
The story first emerged in rightwing papers claiming that Braverman had reprimanded Essex police over the incident because she viewed it as an over-reaction. The Home Office subsequently apologised to Essex police for the briefing because there had been no reprimand.
On LBC Nick Ferrari, the presenter, said it did not make sense for the police to send five people to deal with an incident like that. Braverman said she could not comment on a live investigation.
But when pressed by Ferrari, Braverman replied:
I do have concerns more generally about the police responding to complaints about hurt feelings or offence taken. I’m afraid lawful debate does necessarily involve people getting offended and feelings being hurt. That’s not the job of the police.
That’s why the new guidance that I’ve introduced on non-crime hate incidents raises the threshold, whereby police should take action only really if there’s a serious risk of significant harm … Lawful exchange of views, even where people may be offended, that really shouldn’t be terrain for which the police should be involved.
Northern Ireland teachers and civil servants stage biggest strike for decade
Hundreds of teachers and civil servants are striking in what trade unions have described as the biggest industrial action in Northern Ireland in more than a decade, PA Media reports. PA says:
Most schools in the region are closed on Wednesday as a result of the action.
Nipsa (Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance), the largest union in Northern Ireland, has been joined by members of PCS, GMB, Unite and teachers’ unions at picket lines.
The unions say the scale of action means people across Northern Ireland will be directly impacted.
All five teaching unions in Northern Ireland are involved, with the National Association of Head Teachers striking for the first time in its history in relation to pay.
Labour says 20,000 extra police officers announced by Home Office don't replace numbers cut since 2010
A total of 20,951 new police officers have been recruited in England and Wales in the past three years, meeting a Conservative 2019 election manifesto pledge for 20,000 officers by March 2023, according to provisional figures from the Home Office.
Of the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales, 42 have met or exceeded their target for new officers, PA Media reports.
The one exception is the Metropolitan police, which has missed its target by more than 1,000. The Met had a target of 4,557 new officers but had provisionally recruited only 3,468 by March 2023.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, says there are still 9,000 fewer police officers than there would have been if numbers had increased in line with population growth since 2010.
Tories are trying to take country for fools on policing
— Yvette Cooper (@YvetteCooperMP) April 26, 2023
They CUT 20,000 police officers.
Now they’re just trying to patch up their own cuts.
But there are still 6,000 fewer police on the beat
And 9,000 fewer police than if they’d increased with population growth since 2010
Braverman says illegal migration bill will stop ECHR injunctions undermining 'democratically-elected government'
Here are some more lines from what Suella Braverman said about the illegal migration bill in her interviews this morning.
Braverman, the home secretary, defended the decision to amend the bill to give the government the power to ignore injunctions from the European court of human rights, saying the ECHR ruling undermined elected governments. She told the Today programme:
We saw last year an unacceptable situation whereby the home secretary made a decision to relocate people to Rwanda and that decision was upheld in the courts, injunctions were refused by the English courts and, at the 11th hour, pursuant to an opaque process in which the UK was not represented, a judge in Strasbourg overruled that decision, undermining a democratically-elected government and a decision to take appropriate action.
We want to avoid a re-run of that scenario. That’s why we have included measures in our bill to afford the home secretary a discretion to consider the case upon its particular merits and circumstances.
She said the government wanted to find space to detain hundreds or thousands more people arriving on small boats – but declined to say quite how many spaces were needed. She told the Today programme “some hundreds, thousands” of extra places would be needed. She explained:
We’ve got an existing detention capacity of 1-2,000 places at the moment. We need to increase that – I’m not going to give you a precise figure.
But what I’m saying is, we don’t need to increase it by 45,000 [the number who arrived by small boat in 2022], no one is saying that we need 45,000 or 100,000 new detention places.
That’s because we want to design a scheme whereby if you arrive here illegally you will be detained and thereafter relocated to a safe country like Rwanda, or your home country if it’s safe.
She said she disagreed with the assessment from the Equality and Human Rights Commission that the bill posed a risk to children. Asked about their claim, she told LBC:
I disagree with their view. The measures that we have proposed are lawful, they comply with international law, and actually they’re humanitarian at core.
Updated
Braverman says people coming to UK illegally have ‘values at odds with our country’ as MPs prepare to debate illegal migration bill
Good morning. MPs will debate the illegal migration bill for the final time today before it goes to the Lords. The report stage debate is where significant amendments get passed and Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has already tabled amendments to make the bill even more draconian (and potentially even more incompatible with international law), as a concession to the Tory right. (Concession is probably the wrong word; Braverman is the Tory right, and although Rishi Sunak may have needed some persuading to accept these, she didn’t.) The key one would allow the government to ignore interim injunctions from the European court of human rights (like the one used to block the first flight carrying migrants to Rwanda).
Conservative “moderates” have also been pushing for their own amendments to the bill. They have having less success with the Home Office, but in some respects they are in a better negotiating position than the anti-migrant hardliners. (If the “moderates” line up with the opposition, they could defeat the government; but hardliners don’t have parliamentary allies, and can’t win votes without government support.) Ministers may offer them something later. As Eleni Courea writes in the London Playbook briefing, two amendments are being discussed.
The government was tied up in talks yesterday over two amendments, one by Tim Loughton (with 22 Tory names next to it) seeking to restrict the detention of unaccompanied children, and one by Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May (with 10 Tory names) to exempt migrants who have suffered exploitation in the UK. Rebels make the point that the Sudan crisis underlines the importance of a compassionate policy toward refugees.
You can read all the amendments that have been tabled for debate today here.
Normally governments pass legislation because they want to change the law, but sometimes legislation can have a performative function and that seems to be at least part of what is happening with this bill. “The bill is conceived more as a campaign aid than a workable policy measure,” Rafael Behr writes in his Guardian column today. And that may explain why yesterday Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, floated a new argument to defend the government’s anti small boats crusade. The people arriving weren’t just imposing an economic cost on the country, he argued; they were imposing a social cost. He told the Policy Exchange thinktank:
Those crossing tend to have completely different lifestyles and values to those in the UK and tend to settle in already hyper-diverse areas, undermining the cultural cohesiveness that binds diverse groups together and makes our proud multi-ethnic democracy so successful.
Braverman has been giving interviews this morning and she told LBC she agreed with Jenrick. She said:
I think that uncontrolled and unprecedented levels of illegal migration are totally unacceptable to our country and to our values.
Asked whether she agreed with Jenrick’s view that uncontrolled migration “threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public”, Braverman replied:
I think that the people coming here illegally do possess values which are at odds with our country.
We are seeing heightened levels of criminality when related to the people who’ve come on boats related to drug dealing, exploitation, prostitution.
There are real challenges which go beyond the migration issue of people coming here illegally. We need to ensure that we bring an end to the boat crossings.
I will post more from her interviews shortly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: The Home Office is expected to release figures showing the government has met its manifesto target of increasing police numbers by 20,000. (Labour says this will only repair the damage done by Tory cuts before 2019.)
9.30am: Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee on policing.
10am: Suella Braverman, the home secretary, gives a speech at the launch of the Public Safety Foundation.
10.15am: Lord Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, and Lord Macpherson, the former Treasury permanent secretary, give evidence to the Lords constitution committee on the appointment and dismissal of senior civil servants.
Noon: Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.
After 12.45pm: MPs begin the final day of Commons debate on the illegal migration bill. Votes on amendments will take place at 6pm.
If you want to contact me, do try the new “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. (It is not available on the app yet.) This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
