Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Nadeem Badshah (now) and Andrew Sparrow (earlier)

MPs back Rwanda bill in boost to Rishi Sunak despite rebellion by rightwing MPs – as it happened

​​Rishi Sunak Rwanda No 10 (Facility) Danny Kruger Jonathan Gullis Miriam Cates Jill Mortimer Marco Longhi Sir Keir Starmer Downing Street

A summary of today's developments

  • MPs backed the contentious Rwanda bill despite a rebellion by rightwing MPs. The government won the first division with 337 votes. On the second division it had 313 votes. At least 25 Tory MPs definitely abstained on the Rwanda bill as an act of rebellion.

  • Prior to the vote, Illegal Migration minister Michael Tomlinson told MPs he expects hundreds of people to be deported to Rwanda in 2024.

  • Only 10% of voters think the government has done a good job managing immigration, new polling from Ipsos suggests. About 79% of people think the government has done a bad job.

  • The National Audit Office has announced that it will publish a report on the costs of the Rwanda scheme next year.

  • Nick Brown, a former chief whip, has announced he is standing down as an MP at the next election – and resigning his Labour party membership in protest at the way an allegation against him is being investigated. The MP for Newcastle upon Tyne East has had the whip suspended for more than a year after a complaint was lodged against him under the party’s independent complaints procedure. Brown said the complaint was made by a political rival and related to something alleged to have happened more than 25 years ago. He also said the accusations were “entirely false”.

Wednesday’s Guardian.

Updated

The front of the Daily Mail.

Wednesday’s i.

In response to this evening’s House of Commons vote on the Government’s Rwanda bill, Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “Stripping people of their rights and shipping them off to Rwanda when they’re seeking asylum in the UK is a clear dereliction of this country’s responsibilities toward some of the world’s most desperate people. It is an attack on the basic principle that human rights are universal.

“People who’ve fled persecution and war in countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Ethiopia are entitled to seek a place of safety, and they deserve far better than this.

“This bill should be dropped in its entirety along with this Government’s policy to avoid properly processing people’s asylum claims in the UK.”

Wednesday’s Metro.

Here are some of Wednesday’s front pages starting with the FT.

Labour MP Peter Kyle has outlined the reasons for him voting against the Bill.

The SNP’s home affairs spokesperson, Alison Thewliss MP said: “This cruel Westminster Bill, which ignores the Supreme Court ruling and breaches international law, was not passed in Scotland’s name.

“It in no way reflects Scotland’s values of compassion, humanity and upholding international law. Nor does it take into account that migration benefits Scotland’s economy and our public services.

“That is why SNP MPs voted against it and tabled an amendment to try to stop the Bill in its tracks.”

Following the decision by the House of Commons to allow the Rwanda Bill to progress, Green Party peer Natalie Bennett said if it reaches the House of Lords, it will be its “constitutional duty to safeguard the rule of law”, knowing that it can definitively stop the Bill.

Bennett, said: “The Lords have a duty to protect the rule of law from a government that is showing a typically Hard Right disregard for the rule of law.

“The Lords have the power to stop this legislation and must not hide behind the mask of being ‘an unelected House’ in failing to do so.”

“The Rwanda Bill excludes the courts from their proper constitutional function of upholding Parliament’s laws. If the courts are prevented from doing their job, Ministers could ignore the laws made by parliament, or apply them incorrectly.

“The government is seeking to put Ministers above the law. We need a strong second chamber acting as a watchdog of the rule of law.”

ITV’s Robert Peston has posted this on X in the past few minutes about the abstentions:

Late on Tuesday afternoon, a couple of dozen Conservative rightwingers hustled into the Wilson Room in Portcullis House, parliament’s modern extension.

There were two goals for the meeting. Ostensibly, it was to agree how they would vote in Tuesday night’s crunch vote on the Rwanda bill – a moment they knew could define Rishi Sunak’s premiership.

But there was also a second reason for meeting so close the vote itself: to make sure that after a frantic 36 hours of lobbying by the prime minister and his officials, the members of the loose affiliation of Tory MPs would not falter at the last and vote in favour of the bill.

Members emerged minutes before the voting began, with representatives from five major backbench groups – dubbed the five families after the New York mafia – announcing they would not support the bill.

The meeting, and the subsequent dramatic walk down to the chamber of the House of Commons to vote, capped an extraordinary two days in Westminster which saw internal Tory battles play out publicly in a way not seen since the Brexit wars of 2017-19.

From Labour MP Jess Phillips.

Around two-dozen Tory rightwingers did not vote, among them Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, who was sacked last month, and Robert Jenrick, who resigned as immigration minister last week over the bill.

Miriam Cates, from the New Conservatives, said: “We agree that the bill is defective as it is. We don’t believe it will stop the boats. There are too many opportunities for legal challenge. We do support the principle of the bill, which is to stop the boats.”

Despite voting to support the Bill, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said he could always rescind his backing at a later date.

He said: “We always reserve the right to do what we have to do when we think it doesn’t work, my personal view is I want to see the government listen and engage.

“Right now this was a very difficult Bill to get through, very contentious, it was the toughest bit of legislation concerning people’s rights, in terms of asylum seekers, that we’ve seen, and that’s because the crisis is big and many people are dying in the channel.

“It’s happening all over Europe – France is in defiance of the European court, sending people back.

“Denmark passed legislation to send people back, Sweden is doing the same, Germany is in turmoil, Italy is talking about defying the court – this is not just the UK.

“It’s part of the problem that all around Europe we’re facing, so this is the issue here on our island and we have to resolve it, otherwise it creates chaos.”

Ben Riley-Smith from the Telegraph says by his count 29 Tory MPs abstained as an act of rebellion.

**29 Tory MPs rebelled**

- 37 Tory MPs abstained
(Stats updated, wrongly said 38)

- 8 of the 37 were paired
(Per both Tories + Labour)

So 29 rebels, listed below

Maybe enough just to force defeat next time

By chance, 29 is the figure quoted as the number of Tory MPs who would need to vote against a bill for it to be defeated.

That’s all from me for today. Nadeem Badshah is taking over now.

Updated

Sir Robert Syms is listed on the division list as not voting for the Rwanda bill. But he says he did vote for it.

It is not unusual for the early division lists to include errors. Presumably it will get amended when it has been checked.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said tonight’s vote showed how weak Rishi Sunak has become. In a statement she said:

The Conservatives’ civil war is continuing, and the country is paying the price for this chaos. Today’s debate shows how weak Rishi Sunak is with this Tory psychodrama now dragging on into the New Year.

The costs of the failing Rwanda scheme are apparently rising to £400 million of taxpayers’ money, while no one has yet been sent and this scheme is only likely to cover less than 1% of those arriving in the UK.

They’ve broken the Tory party, broken the asylum system and broken every promise they have made to the British people. Britain deserves better than this.

They should instead be cracking down on the criminal smuggler gangs, setting up a new returns unit to reverse the 50% collapse in returns, and clearing the asylum backlog to end hotel use as Labour would do.

This is what Mark Francois, chair of the European Research Group, said in his briefing for journalists just before the voting started claiming Rishi Sunak has agreed to tighten the bill. He said:

We have decided collectively that we cannot support the bill tonight because of its many omissions, therefore while it’s down to every individual colleague ultimately to decide what to do, collectively we will not be supporting it.

The prime minister has been telling colleagues today he is prepared to entertain tightening the bill, with that aim, at the committee stage, we will aim to table an amendment which would we hope, if accepted, would materially improve the bill and remove some of its weaknesses.

For want of a better phrase, you might want to call it the [Sir Bill] Cash amendment, because he’ll undoubtedly be helping to draft it.

We very much hope those amendments will be accepted – if they are not and the bill remains unamended, in that way again, collectively, we reserve the right to vote against it at third reading, that is collectively what we have decided.

How at least 25 Conservative MPs abstained on Rwanda bill as act of rebellion

At least 25 Tory MPs definitely abstained on the Rwanda bill as an act of rebellion.

Here is the list of 24 Tory MPs who did not vote on the second reading, but who did vote against the Labour amendment. That means it is fair to say the all deliberately abtained.

Sir Jake Berry

Suella Braverman

Sir Bill Cash

Miriam Cates

Sir Simon Clarke

Sarah Dines

Richard Drax

Sir James Duddridge

Natalie Elphicke

Mark Francois

Chris Green

Jonathan Gullis

Sir John Hayes

Adam Holloway

Tom Hunt

Caroline Johnson

David Jones

Danny Kruger

Marco Longhi

Craig Mackinlay

Robin Millar

Jill Mortimer

John Redwood

Sir Robert Syms – See note below – Syms says he was included in this list as a mistake

And here is the 14 list of Tory MPs who did not vote in either division. It is understood that eight of them were paired. Of the other six, some, such as Robert Jenrick, were definitely abstaining to make a point. UPDATE: All six of the non-paired MPs were deliberately abstaining, the Telegraph reports. I have maked their names in bold. See 8.39pm.

Rehman Chishti

Theo Clarke

Tobias Ellwood

Jo Gideon

Dame Andrea Jenkyns

Robert Jenrick

Julia Marson

Stephen McPartland

Caroline Nokes

Jesse Norman

Dan Poulter

Andrew Rosindell

Alok Sharma

Chris Skidmore

UDPATE: Sir Robert Syms says he did vote for the bill, and that his name is included in the list of MPs who did not vote by mistake. (See 8.30pm.)

Updated

Rishi Sunak has posted this on X.

The British people should decide who gets to come to this country – not criminal gangs or foreign courts.

That’s what this Bill delivers.

We will now work to make it law so that we can get flights going to Rwanda and stop the boats.

The division list for the second reading division is now on the Commons website.

It shows that 38 Conservative MPs did not vote. There were 16 Tories who did not vote in the first division and most of those were probably MPs who had a legitimate reason not to be in the chamber (such as Alok Sharma, the former Cop president, who is at Cop), rather than MPs who were actively abstaining (such as Robert Jenrick).

That suggests the number of intentional abstentions was probably in the 20s.

No Conservative MP voted against the bill, the division list showed.

Updated

On the subject of the next votes, MPs are now voting on the programme motion, which says that the bill will be referred to a committee of the whole house (instead of just going to a small committee for the committee stage) and that two days will be set aside for the remaining stages of the bill to be debated (six hours each day).

It does not say when these debates will take place, but they are expected in early January.

The government won the first division with 337 votes. On the second division it had 313 votes, implying that only 24 Conservatives actively abstained.

That suggests the voting clout of the so-called five families may be less than Mark Francois imagines. (See 6.57pm.)

The working assumption has been that the Tory rebels would need at least 29 MPs to vote against the bill to bring about its defeat. Now there must be some doubt as to whether they have the numbers – although views may have changed by the time the next votes take place after Christmas.

Updated

Rwanda bill passed by 313 votes to 269, a majority of 44

The government has won by 313 votes to 269 – a majority of 44.

Updated

The division list also shows five independent MPs and one Reclaim MP all voting with the government on the Labour amendment. They are all either ex-Conservative MPs or Tories suspended from the party.

Updated

The division list for the first vote is now available on the Commons website.

Here is the page showing MPs who did not vote, including 16 Tory MPs and eight Labour MPs. Presumably the eight Labour MPs are people who are authorised to be away.

Updated

From Sky’s Beth Rigby

On how many abstentions, source from the right involved in the meeting: ‘there were more than 40 MPs in room and collective view was abstain. Not all in the room and not everyone will agree’…..

Here is a screenshot showing some of the Tory MPs who have been visibly abstaining in the division.

Christopher Hope from GB News says there are about 100 Conservative MPs in the the so-called five families of rightwing Tory groups. The government has a working majority of 56 and so if 57 MPs abstained, the government should be on course to lose.

Sources tell me there are 100 Conservative MPs in the ‘five families’. If they all abstain the Government loses the Rwanda Bill tonight.

But it is worth pointing out:

a) These figures are not confirmed. Some of the five groups – the ERG, New Conservatives, the Common Sense Group, the Conservative Growth Group and the Northern Research Group – are quite cagey about how many members they have, and there is considerable overlap.

b) There is no record of the five families effectively whipping all their members en bloc. During most of the big Brexit debates the ERG did operate as a party within a party, and members voted with the ERG line in a disciplined way. But towards the end the ERG split, and unity broke down. The other groups have not tried operating whipping operations akin to the ERG’s in 2019.

c) Francois and his colleagues clearly expect the bill to pass tonight, because they are talking about amending it – and, indeed, looking forward to doing so. If the bill falls tonight, then the chances of parliament passing any Rwanda legislation before an election are minimal.

Updated

MPs start voting on Rwanda bill's second reading

The Labour amendment has been defeated, by 337 votes to 269 – a government majority of 68.

MPs are now voting on the main motion – that the bill be read a second time.

Updated

In his briefing Mark Francois, chair of the European Research Group, said the ERG and the other four rightwing Tory groups had decided to reserve the right to vote against the bill at third reading if it does not get amended to their satisfaction. (See 7.02pm.)

Updated

Sam Coates from Sky News has posted on X quotes from the Mark Francois briefing.

The debate is over, and MPs are now voting on the Labour amendment. It says:

That this House, while affirming support for securing the UK’s borders, reforming the broken asylum system and ending dangerous small boat crossings, declines to give a second reading to the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill because the bill will not work to tackle people smuggling gangs, end small boat crossings or achieve the core purposes of the bill, will lead to substantial costs to the UK taxpayer every year whilst applying to less than one per cent of those who claim asylum in the UK, threatens the UK’s compliance with international law, further undermines the potential to establish security and returns agreements with other countries and does not prevent the return of relocated individuals who commit serious crimes in Rwanda back to the UK.

The government is expected to win this vote when it is announced, at around 7.15pm. Then MPs will vote on the main motion.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, intervened and put it to Michael Tomlinson that the ERG statement meant the PM’s breakfast meeting had failed.

Tomlinson did not accept that.

Updated

ERG chair Mark Francois says rightwing Tory groups set to abstain, but that they expect PM to agree to toughen bill later

While Tomlinson has been speaking, Mark Francois, the chair of the European Research Group, has been at a press briefing.

He said the ERG, the New Conservatives, the Common Sense Group, the Conservative Growth Group and the Northern Research Group could not support the bill. He said the bulk of their members would abstain.

But he claimed that Rishi Sunak had indicated to them that he was willing to accept amendments that would tighten the bill.

Government lawyers would meet lawyers from the ERG’s “star chamber” to discuss the way forward, he said.

He said he was prepared to take Sunak at his word.

UPDATE: Francois said:

We have decided collectively that we cannot support the bill tonight because of its many omissions, therefore while it’s down to every individual colleague ultimately to decide what to do, collectively we will not be supporting it.

The prime minister has been telling colleagues today he is prepared to entertain tightening the bill, with that aim, at the committee stage, we will aim to table an amendment which would we hope, if accepted, would materially improve the bill and remove some of its weaknesses.

For want of a better phrase, you might want to call it the [Sir Bill] Cash amendment, because he’ll undoubtedly be helping to draft it.

We very much hope those amendments will be accepted – if they are not and the bill remains unamended, in that way again, collectively, we reserve the right to vote against it at third reading, that is collectively what we have decided.

Updated

Sir Bill Cash (Con) asks if the government will seek permission from the speaker to change the long title of the bill to ensure that amendments the ERG wants to make to the bill can be accepted as in order.

Tomlinson says he is willing to speak to Cash about that.

Updated

Illegal migration minister Michael Tomlinson tells MPs he expects hundreds of people to be deported to Rwanda in 2024

Pete Wishart (SNP) asks how many asylum seekers will be deported to Rwanda next year.

Tomlinson replies:

It will start off in the hundreds and it will scale up to the thousands.

He does not say when it might scale up to the thousands. He implies next year, but is not specific.

Michael Tomlinson, the new minister for illegal migration, is winding up for the government.

He pays tribute to Robert Jenrick, the previous minister, for the work he did. He says they agree on some points. But he agrees with Jenrick on the need for legal certainty, and he will work with him on this point.

He says the government respects the supreme court. It has responded not just with a bill, but with a treaty.

Some MPs have raised moral arguments. But there is a moral case for stopping the boats.

There is nothing compassionate in allowing small boat crossings to continue, he says.

Michael Tomlinson
Michael Tomlinson. Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Kinnock says Labour wants to stop the boats. But it will never vote for “a madcap gimmick” that is unaffordable and unworkable.

He says Labour believes that, in return for an upfront investment in the immigration system, it could save £2bn.

He says Labour has set out in its reasoned amendment why it is opposed to the bill.

Rishi Sunak invited Tory MPs for breakfast this morning. But in reality, he was on the menu, he says.

He ends by saying Sunak should call an election.

Stephen Kinnock
Stephen Kinnock. Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration minister, is now winding up for Labour.

He starts by thanking MPs who have expressed their condolences to him over the death of his mother, the former MEP and peer Glenys Kinnock.

He says the Rwanda scheme was dreamt up when Boris Johnson was prime minister, and looking to cling to power. Like every other Johnson scheme, it was expensive and doomed to fail.

But now Rishi Sunak is trying to implement this “Faragist” plan, he says.

The new bill, which asserts that Rwanda is safe, is the equivalent of saying grass is blue and the sky is green.

On this basis, he would introduce a bill saying Wales on the World Cup, he says.

He says the “semi-skimmed” version of this bill satisfies no one on the Tory side. It is bound to fail.

The home secretary said last week that the bill complies with international law. But the first page of the bill says it might not, he says.

The bill says Rwanda is safe. But the bill also says that the UK might accept asylum seekers from Rwanda.

And it says that, if someone sent to Rwanda commits a crime, they could be sent back to the UK.

The Rwandans really did see the UK coming. They have got £400m, without taking a single asylum seeker.

Updated

I have beefed up quite a few of the earlier posts with direct quotes from the speeches in the debate. To get the updates to show, you may need to refresh the page.

Duncan Baker (Con) says he will back the bill because controlling borders should be a fundamental right for a country.

Backbench MPs are now limited to five minutes for their speeches.

Meg Hillier (Lab), chair of the public accounts committee, says the Home Office released figures for the costs of the Rwanda programme only last week, after those figures were leaked to the IMF. She says an investigation is under way into what happened.

She says, until then, the department said it would release the figures in its annual accounts. But that is not how costs for a project this large should be disclosed, she says.

Updated

Only 10% of people think government has done good job managing immigration, poll suggests

Only 10% of voters think the government has done a good job managing immigration, new polling from Ipsos suggests. About 79% of people think the government has done a bad job. Those thinking the government has handled this badly include 81% of the people who voted Tory in 2019, and 74% of the people who support the Conservatives now.

Ipsos polling on government’s handling of immigration
Ipsos polling on government’s handling of immigration Photograph: Ipsos

But the same poll suggests only 24% of people think Labour would do a better job at handling immigration – down from 29% in July.

Polling on whether Labour would handle migration better
Polling on whether Labour would handle migration better Photograph: Ipsos

Updated

James Daly (Con) says MPs should pass bills that reflect the concerns of their constituents, not ones that appeal to middle-class liberal consciences.

He says the bill is right to allow individuals to appeal against deportation in certain conditions.

It is a good policy, and within the bounds of international law, he says.

James Daly
James Daly. Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Back in the Commons, Joanna Cherry (SNP) says Tory MPs who believe that the Rwanda bill is consistent with international law are deluding themselves. As evidence for this, she cites the points made in the report from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and in the briefing from the joint committee on human rights.

She also says the government should explain why it has not sought a legislative consent motion for the bill from the Scottish parliament.

Updated

NAO says it will publish report on costs of Rwanda scheme in 2024

The National Audit Office has announced that it will publish a report on the costs of the Rwanda scheme next year. The head of the NAO, Gareth Davies, has said this in a letter to the chairs of the Commons public accounts committee and the home affairs committee.

In his letter Davies said:

I have considered your suggestion to assess the value for money of the UK-Rwanda scheme and I do not think it possible to conclude on value for money at this stage, given that this rests on the deterrent effect of the scheme.

However, owing to the high-profile nature of the scheme and in light of the issues raised at the PAC session on 11 December, I have decided to produce a factual report covering the costs incurred to-date and the Department’s estimate of costs when the scheme is operational. On completion of this work, I intend to lay a report in the house after which your committees may choose to take further evidence.

I plan to publish this report in 2024.

In a joint statement responding to the letter, Meg Hillier, chair of the public accounts committee, and Diana Johnson, chair of the home affairs committee, said:

Both of our committees have long called on the Home Office for greater transparency around the Rwanda asylum plan. It is essential that parliament is in full possession of the facts around a scheme of such high public interest.

As the government has thus far been unwilling or unable to provide these facts, we are grateful to the National Audit Office for its forthcoming work to keep the taxpayer informed on the plan’s costs, both to date and when the scheme becomes operational.

Updated

In the Commons Nicholas Fletcher, the Conservative MP for Don Valley, told MPs that he supported the bill. He said his constituents wanted the problem of small boats stopped. He said he was elected as a result of Brexit and that, if the government did not deal with small boats, he would not be coming back to the Commons. That generated a loud cheer from Labour MPs.

UPDATE: Fletcher said:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Doncaster is full … We are turning parts of our community into a ghetto …

[People] don’t expect to be called racist or xenophobic for saying ‘we liked it as it was’, and if we’re going to have immigration, which I don’t completely believe is a bad thing to do, it just needs to be controlled immigration …

We’ve got friends on this side of the House who want this Bill stronger and I’m going to work with them, and I’m hopefully going to work with you because we must make this work, we have to stop the boats.

Updated

Matt Warman (Con), who is one of the Conservative One Nation Caucus, says he is voting for the bill, but without any enthusiasm. He says MPs have a duty to tackle the problem of immigration. They should support the bill, even if it isn’t perfect.

David Simmonds (Con) says he started off as a Rwanda sceptic. He thought it would be a very expensive policy. But, on the basis of what he observed in Calais, and what he heard from officials, he concluded it could act as a deterrent for some people. The policy, and the bill today, have “enormous utility”, he says.

Simon Hart, the government chief whip, has cancelled a meeting with potential Tory rebels, to make time for talks with No 10, Pippa Crerar reports.

Sir Edward Leigh (Con) told MPs that he wanted parliament to pass the bill as quickly as possible. He said that, to stop the UK being affected by injunctions from the European court of human rights, it would probably be necessary to leave the European convention on human rights. The government did not have a mandate for that, he said. He said that might be a matter for the next manifesto. But MPs had to be realistic, he said, and he claimed the bill probably went as far as was possible now.

No 10 says government not ruling out changing elements of Rwanda bill relating to domestic, but not international, law

At the afternoon lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson sounded marginally more open to accepting amendments to the Rwanda bill from rightwing Tories than he did this morning. (See 12.27pm and 3.24pm.)

Asked if the current version of the bill was at the limits of what was acceptable to Rwanda (which has said, if the UK breaks international law, it will no longer support the deportation agreement), the spokesperson said:

The Rwandan government’s position is in relation to the international law elements.

There are other aspects of the bill that don’t relate purely to that, so I’m not going to rule out considering any further suggestions that MPs may make or have made.

Those conversations are ongoing.

Rwanda bill could make Northern Ireland 'magnet' for asylum seekers, DUP claims

Sammy Wilson from the DUP says all MPs should support what the bill is trying to do. But he questions whether it works, and he says the government has not learned from the mistakes with previous immigration bills.

But he says the bill creates specific problems for Northern Ireland. He says Belfast is the city in the UK with the second largest number of immigrants, which creates pressure on housing. And he says the EU’s charter of fundamental rights applies in Northern Ireland. He suggests that could lead to asylum seekers from the rest of the UK coming to Northern Ireland on the grounds that would give them a better chance of staying.

UPDATE: Wilson said:

What is the impact of that going to be? Well, the first thing is this: It is going to make Northern Ireland a magnet for people who may find that the route to stay in the United Kingdom is blocked.

But in Northern Ireland, of course it won’t be, because we will still be under EU immigration rules, and the European Court of Justice can make a judgment.

The second thing is this: if those people decide they don’t want to remain in Northern Ireland, then of course with the free movement from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom and indeed with the common travel area, they can move into the rest of the United Kingdom.

The implication of course is if that becomes a large number of people, are we then going to have people barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

These are issues which I believe either have not been even considered by the minister, or have been wilfully neglected, and for that reason we cannot give support to this bill.

Sammy Wilson
Sammy Wilson Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Jackie Doyle-Price (Con) says MPs should not let the best be the enemy of the good. By passing this bill, they will help deal with the problem.

She tells her colleagues that, although this bill may not match their ideology, it will help to make the situation better.

Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover, says it was diplomacy that allowed the UK and France, working together, to stop people getting into the UK illegally via lorries.

She says diplomacy is needed again, to get a returns agreement with France. She says the UK should be returning people to France, not Rwanda.

She also says the UK should start international discussions on a new global migration settlement.

She wants to stop the boats, she says. But she says she is gravely concerned that this bill won’t do what the government intends.

If a former home secretary (Suella Braverman), a former immigration minister (Robert Jenrick) and the MP for the constituency most affected (Elphicke herself) are all saying the bill may not work, the government should listen, she says.

Natalie Elphicke
Natalie Elphicke Photograph: Natalie Elphicke

Updated

Tommy Sheppard (SNP) says he is disappointed that the Tories are only talking about migrants in negative terms. He says they are weaponising this for political gain.

And, referring to the business model for people smugglers, he says the government created their business model – by closing down legal routes for asylum seekers.

Simon Fell (Con) says the government is not acting alone. Other governments around the world are working on schemes similar to this one, he says.

He says voting for this bill is the best means of stopping the boats.

Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP, describes the bill as a “cynical and sinister attack on the highest court in the UK”.

The bill won’t work, she says. And it won’t serve as a deterrent to people who are already risking their lives.

It’s “a performative piece of cruelty from a dying administraton”, she says.

Danny Kruger, co-chair of the New Conservatives, is speaking now, and he starts by saying he welcomes what the bill is trying to achieve.

But he expresses concern about individual challenges to deportation being allowed.

He says he is not calling at this point for the UK to leave the European convention on human rights.

But, if the European court of human rights were to continue to block deportations, at that point the UK could being a “conversation” that might lead to the departure.

Referring to the supreme court judgment, he says it was wrong for the court to insert itself into foreign policy and make “rather patronising” judgments about the Rwandan system.

He says he cannot support the bill tonight. And he had been hoping the government would pull it.

Danny Kruger
Danny Kruger. Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

David Jones, another Conservative who is a member of the European Research Group’s legal “star chamber” that published a critical assessment of the bill yesterday, is speaking now.

He says it is debatable whether the bill is sufficiently watertight.

Referring to the ERG report, he says amendments to the bill are required. But some of those amendments may be outside the scope of the bill (which would mean they could not be put to a vote), he says.

He says he wants to hear the minister, Michael Tomlinson, confirm that the government is open to amendments in his winding up speech tonight. (See 3.24pm.)

There are “numerous deficiencies” with the bill at the moment which will make it “inoperable and ineffective”.

He says a lot of MPs will be listening carefully to Tomlinson’s speech. He says they will want to hear “a change of tone”.

Rishi Sunak is now meeting Tory MPs sceptical about the Rwanda bill one to one, Sky’s Beth Rigby reports.

Told by a senior Conservative rebel that the PM “is pulling out all the stops now” and is now talking to the MPs he met in No 10 this morning “one-on-one”.

Updated

Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, will vote against the bill unless he gets an assurance that the government will amend it, Emilio Casalicchio from Politico reports.

Jenrick will vote against the bill unless the govt promises to amend it, in which case he’ll abstain

That suggests quite a lot may hinge on what Michael Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, says in his winding up speech, at about 6.50pm. Backbenchers who want assurances from the government like to hear them given in public, at the dispatch box, rather than in private.

Downing Street has been evasive about whether or not it will accept amendments to the bill. At the lobby briefing this morning the PM’s spokesperson implied the government may be open to some (see 12.27pm), but he did not say that explicitly.

Sir Robert Buckland’s speech a few minutes ago illustrated the dilemma. An amendment that would win over Jenrick’s vote would lose Buckland’s. (See 3.12pm.)

Updated

Dame Priti Patel is speaking now. She says, as the home secretary who set up the Rwanda scheme, she finds it strange listening to the debate; she does not approve of what is being said about the country.

The deal has “raised the bar” for the treatment of asylum seekers, she says.

It has already resettled 130,000 refugees, she says.

Referring to injunctions from the European court of human rights – she says she has experience of them, referring to how a European human rights court injunction blocked a flight to Rwanda when she was home secretary – she says she wants to know how the government will respond to future challenges.

Updated

Sir Robert Buckland, the former Conservative justice secretary, says the UK has a system of checks and balances. Like Sir Bob Neill, he also stresses the importance of comity.

He says the small boats present a challenge. But that does not mean the rule of law can be ignored, he says. Even in wartime, parliament protected freedom, he says.

He says, if clause 4 (allowing some individual legal challenges to continue) were to be removed from the bill, as some Conservative MPs are proposing, that would “set up a massive glass jaw to be smashed by a court in future”.

He says, if the bill is amended in that direction, he will no longer be able to support it.

As Conservatives, it is their “constitutional duty” to retain balance, he says.

UPDATE: Buckland said:

The principle of comity is one that we can ill afford to overlook. What do I mean by that? Well, I mean that mutual respect that has to exist between the different arms of the constitution. This place is sovereign, we derive our sovereignty from the people, but we also have a responsibility to use that in a responsible way …

I am the first one, the first person, to assert the authority of this place. But what I won’t do, what I won’t be a party to, is legislation that in effect invites the courts to come on up if you are hard enough. That is not the approach that we as responsible Conservatives should take …

If this bill is to be amended in a way that crosses that line, then I cannot support that, and I will not support that.

Updated

This is from the Scotsman’s Alexander Brown.

Even Tory MPs backing the Rwanda bill are unhappy, and believe it won’t survive at third reading. One tells me: “All we’ve done is make a bigger problem for ourselves in January, and all for a policy that’s probably illegal. No10 has fucked it, totally fucked it”

Sir Bob Neill, the Conservative chair of the justice committee, says he can just about vote for the bill.

But he stresses that he is a constitutionalist. He suggests the day the Conservative party thinks that the ends justify the means, and that it can ignore the principle of comity, he will no longer be able to support it. The government must recognise the importance of checks and balances, he says.

He says, with “great endeavour”, ministers have just kept on the right side of the line. But he says they should not give in to MPs who want them to go further.

UPDATE: Neill said:

After a good deal of hesitation I shall support this bill tonight, but it is a hesitation that has been real, because for me it goes as close to the wind as one can constitutionally do …

If it were to change and any of the safeguards that have been left in to be removed, then my support would go, because some people would then have pushed it over the line into the unacceptable and, in my judgment, the unconservative, and then I would not support it.

Updated

Kitty Donaldson from Bloomberg says some Tory rebels think between 20 and 30 MPs will rebel tonight. A government MP can rebel either by voting against the government, or by abstaining.

- Close to wire BUT three Tory rebels privately think Rishi Sunak will win the vote tonight

- One puts number of rebels at 20

- Another predicts 25 but only 10 voting against

- Third suggests 20-30 with most abstaining

- Next skirmish in Jan

In his interview on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg at the weekend, Robert Jenrick, asked if he would be voting for the bill, replied: “No, I won’t be supporting this bill. But I do think we can fix it.”

In his speech this afternoon Jenrick sounded more positive about the bill. He said:

This is not a bad bill but it is not the best bill. I want this bill to work.

The test of this policy is not: ‘Is it the strongest bill we’ve done?’, it’s not: ‘Is it a good compromise?’, it’s: ‘Will it work?’

That is all the public care about. They don’t care about Rwanda as a scheme, they care about stopping the boats. And we are sent here to do that for them.

I will never elevate contested notions of international law over the interests of my constituents, over vital national interests like national security, like border security.

This bill could be so much better, let’s make it better. Let’s make it work.

This prompted some speculation on social media that he might vote for the bill after all. But Emilio Casalicchio has confirmed that Jenrick is not voting for the bill.

Jenrick is expected to abstain, like other Conservative MPs with doubts about the bill.

Updated

Sir Geoffrey Cox, the Conservative former attorney general, is next up. He has been giving interviews within the past 24 hours backing the government, and he says he wants to address both those who think the bill goes too far, and those who thinks it does not go far enough.

Addressing Labour critics of the bill, he says the last Labour government declared that some countries should be deemed safe for asylum seekers.

Some people say this bill is different because the bill is reversing a supreme court judgment. But parliament is entitled to reverse a decision by the courts, he says.

He says this bill is doing exactly what Labour did in 2004.

He says the new treaty with Rwanda removes the risk of “refoulement” – asylum seekers being sent back to the country where they were at risk of persecution.

Turning to the Tory objections to the bill, he says it would be wrong to remove all rights to legal challenge to deportation. If the government did that, the deal with Rwanda would collapse, he says.

The right to go to court in an extreme case is part of the British constitution that the Conservative party has long defended, he says.

UPDATE: Cox said:

I understand the frustration and the deep and intense dissatisfaction at the current situation, I share it, I think there are tightenings that we can do, particularly on rule 39 [injunctions from the European court of human rights].

But on the preservation of the right to go to court in an extreme case, I say that is part of the British constitution that our fathers and our party has supported, and fought for for generations, and it’d be wrong for us to compromise on it.

Geoffery Cox
Geoffery Cox Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Diana Johnson, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, is speaking now. She says her committee has not been able to get the Home Office to say how much it will spend on each individual asylum seeker sent to Rwanda. She says Michael Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, should provide costings when he winds up the debate later.

Updated

Back in the Commons Sir Bill Cash, who led the European Research Group’s “star chamber” panel of legal experts who published a report on the Rwanda bill, is speaking now.

He says if parliament passes a law, the courts should apply it, whether it breaks international law or not.

He praises Robert Jenrick for his speech. And he says that he thinks the bill can be improved.

Updated

A reader asks:

The government is recalling a minister from the climate summit. Why can’t they ask the opposition for a pairing? Given the importance of Cop28 to the UK, Labour might have agreed to this ... or is this more performative from the Conservatives?

The government and opposition do agree to pair MPs, and I’m sure they have done that today. But if the opposition have only got, say, 14 MPs who can’t make the vote because they are ill/away or whatever, that is all they will offer the government – even if the government wants more pairs. And the government normally has more people away because there 100-odd MPs who are in government and might be away on government business.

Alison Thewliss, the SNP’s spokesperson on home affairs, says the Rwanda bill will not work because it does not deal with the reasons people come to the UK.

She says her constituency has the highest asylum caseload in Scotland. She refers to a constituent from Sudan granted refugee status. He says he just wants his wife to join him. But there is no safe and legal refugee route from Sudan. So what would MPs do if they were in his position?

UPDATE: Thewliss said:

If we start to offload our international responsibilities to any third country, we’re effectively surrendering our influence over what then happens next.

This government themselves have become people traffickers, sending human beings offshore against their will as if they were some kind of waste to be processed rather than human beings alike in dignity …

If a humanitarian travel document existed, those same young people could avoid the perilous journey in a leaky rubber dingy, they could get the same train or ferry as many travellers do every year, they would not need to pay people smugglers at all. That would kill the business model.

Alison Thewliss
Alison Thewliss Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Jenrick calls Rwanda bill 'sophistry' because it will not stop European court of human rights blocking deportation flights

Robert Jenrick starts by saying the government has made progress tackling illegal immigration.

Small boat arrivals have been cut by a third, he says. In other European countries, illegal immigration is going up. So the PM’s plan is working, he says.

He claims Labour does not believe in border security. This will be one of the defining issues of the 21st century, he says.

He says the strongest possible deterrent is needed. And the Rwanda scheme is the only possible deterrent available in the next 12 months.

He says that, having immersed himself in the detail, he thinks the Rwanda scheme will work.

He says people don’t like having asylum hotels in their towns. Even MPs who are the strongest supporters of open borders object to asylum hotels, he says. He accuses them of hypocrisy.

If Labour were in power, there would be a decade of small boat arrivals, he says.

Turning to the bill, he says there are two main problems with it.

First, it will not stop people appealing as individuals against deportation orders. This will provide legal certainty. And it is necessary for operational reasons, too, he says. That’s because, if individual claims are allowed, the courts will be overwhelmed with claims, and detention facilities will fill up. People will have to be released, and they will disappear. That will bring the system into disrepute.

Meg Hillier (Lab) says she is a former immigration minister. At the end of Labour’s last term in government, one person was being removed every eight minutes, she says. She asks what Jenrick’s record is.

Jenrick says there has been a ten-fold increase in the pace of decision-making. He says Labour is on rocky ground.

Turning back to the bill, he says it is inevitable that the European court of human rights will impose further injunctions to block deportation flights. They have to stop that, he says.

He says the provision in the bill is “sophistry”. He says it is government policy that rule 39 injunctions are binding in international law. MPs are being asked to vote for a provision in the bill (allowing ministers to ignore those injuctions) that it would be illegal to use.

This is the point Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg was getting at earlier. See 1.03pm.

UPDATE: Jenrick said:

It is inevitable … in light of the supreme court’s judgment, that the Strasbourg court will impose further rule 39 interim measures … we have to stop that, it is a matter of sovereignty for our country that ministers acting on the instructions of parliament do not allow those flights to be delayed.

The provision in the bill is sophistry. It is the express policy of the government that rule 39 injunctions are binding and to ignore them would be a breach of international law.

So, we are being asked to vote for a provision which it would be illegal to use.

Robert Jenrick
Robert Jenrick Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Dame Rosie Winterton, the deputy speaker, says many MPs want to speak. She suggests an eight-minute time limit on speeches.

She calls Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, as the first backbencher speaker.

Cooper says MPs should be building cross-party consensus on this.

As Tory MPs jeer, she says they cannot even build consensus on their own side on this.

Sir John Hayes (Con) says Labour MPs think international law trumps the sovereignty of parliament, while MPs on his side believe the opposite.

Cooper says they are debating this bill not because of a judgment from a foreign court, but because of a ruling from the supreme court.

She says the Tory row is not about having a workable solution to his issue.

Updated

Sir Geoffrey Cox, a former Tory attorney general, says the past Labour government deemed a whole list of countries safe for asylum seekers.

Cooper says Cox is wrong. What the government is doing with this bill is not just deeming countries safe, but preventing courts from considering the facts. She says the government itself acknowledged in its legal guidance published yesterday that reality cannot be ignored. She quotes this passage from the advice:

Deeming clauses are used frequently in domestic law and there is a rich case law on how they are to be interpreted. In Fowler v Revenue and Customs [2020] UKSC 22, Lord Briggs, writing in a unanimous supreme court judgment, endorsed the position that: “A deeming provision should not be applied so far as to produce unjust, absurd or anomalous results, unless the court is compelled to do so by clear language. But the court should not shrink from applying the fiction created by the deeming provision to the consequences which would inevitably flow from the fiction being real. As Lord Asquith memorably put it in East End Dwellings Co Ltd v Finsbury borough council [1952] AC 109, at 133: ‘The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs.’”

Updated

Conor Burns (Con) asks how long it would take Labour to stop small boat crossings. He says Cooper should give a date to the British people.

Cooper says Burns is just highlighting how much the government has failed.

She says Labour does want to stop the boats. It will smash the gangs, get returns agreements, and go much further in terms of cooperating with France, she says.

She says the bill risks breaking international law. But that will make it harder for the UK to get further returns agreements, she says.

Updated

Cooper says under the Rwanda treaty asylum seekers who commit serious crimes in Rwanda will be sent back to the UK.

She says the UK is not accepting Afghans who helped British forces in Afghanistan. But, under this plan, it would have to accept criminals. “You couldn’t make it up,” she says.

Cooper says Labour would set up a new returns unit, with 1,000 staff, to have proper enforcment in place.

She claims this, combined with more case workers, would save the taxpayer £2bn.

This is what Aubrey Allegretti has posted on X about James Cleverly repeately muttering “What’s your plan?” at Yvette Cooper while she is speaking. (At least this is an improvement on some of Cleverly’s other recent heckles in the chamber.)

Cooper says Cleverly has now confirmed Rwanda scheme will cost £400m by 2026

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, is opening her speech.

She says Cleverly has confirmed that the total cost of the scheme is now £400m.

(She is referring to Cleverly confirming earlier that two further payments of £50m were due. He did confirm what Cooper was asking. But it was not clear whether he was referring to two payments in 2024-25 and 2025-26, or whether he was referring to two payments in 2025-26 and 2026-27, which is how Cooper is interpreting his comments. Cooper just asked about payments in the calendar years 2025 and 2026, not payments in the financial years. See 12.56pm.)

UPDATE: Cooper said:

We have had a home secretary sacked, an immigration minister resigning, and they’ve spent almost £300m of taxpayers money on Rwanda without sending a single person, and the home secretary seemed to confirm today in fact that its is £400 million without a single person being sent.

More home secretaries sent to Rwanda than asylum seekers, it’s about £100m per trip. The climate minister called back from the Dubai Cop for the vote – well I guess they can say at least one flight has taken off as a result of this legislation.

Yvette Cooper
Yvette Cooper Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Cleverly wraps up his speech by urging MPs to back the bill to create a fair asylum system.

Updated

Cleverly sidesteps question about whether minister could lawfully ignore human rights court injunction under bill

The Rwanda bill says it is up to ministers to decide whether or not they will ignore an injunction from the European court of human rights stopping a deportation flight leaving. Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, asks if the advice from the attorney general says it would be compatible within international law for a minister to ignore such an injunction.

Cleverly says he cannot reveal the attorney’s advice. But he says the government is clear that the bill is in accordance with international law.

Updated

Cleverly confirms that UK planning to give Rwanda a further £50m in 2026

Cleverly says Rwanda is introducing an even stronger end-to-end asylum system.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, asks Cleverly to confirm that the UK will give Rwanda a further £50m in 2025 and another £50m in 2026.

Cleverly claims Cooper is asking him to confirm numbers that have already been put in the public domain. He says he is happy to confirm that is the case.

(Cleverly seems to be referring to the Home Office letter published last week, but that only revealed that the government had given another £100m to Rwanda this year, and that it was planning to give another £50m in 2024-25. But Cooper asked about a further payment of £50m in 2026, which Cleverly confirmed. That seems to be new, and would take the total payment to Rwanda by 2026 to £340m.)

Updated

Cleverly says the supreme court’s judgment was based on the facts from 18 months ago.

Those facts can be remedied, he says.

The new treaty with Rwanda now sets out obligations on Rwanda and the UK within international law.

Jeremy Wright (Con), a former attorney general, asks Cleverly to confirm that parliament does not have the power to deem itself in compliance with international law.

He says no country should be able to just state it is within international law.

He suggests the language of the bill needs to be clarified on this point.

Cleverly says that is not the intention of the bill. The deeming clause is about the safety of Rwanda, he says.

Joanna Cherry (SNP) asks, if Rwanda has addressed the problems raised by the supreme court, why is legislation necessary?

Cleverly says the bill will make this clear and unambiguous.

Sir Bill Cash (Con) asks Cleverly if he agrees that clear wording clearly establishing the intention of parliament takes precedence over international law.

Cleverly says Cash is right. When the wording of a bill is clear and unambiguous, where there is a deeming cause, that must take precedence.

Daniel Kawczynski (Con) says the Congolese president has described the president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, as Hitler-like. Does the government agree?

Cleverly says the UK government does not accept that assessment.

Updated

Cleverly says bill 'pushing at edge of envelope' but still 'within framework of international law'

John Baron (Con) asks Cleverly to confirm that the government will remain within international law.

The British are world champions at queuing, we don’t like queue jumpers, which is why illegal immigration grates with us. Can he confirm that the government will take all steps to ensure that we remain within international law, just not now but going forward, in which case I will certainly be supporting the bill tonight.

But does he also agree with me that some colleagues in this place need to be careful what they wish for?

Cleverly says he is confident, on the basis of conversations with the government’s legal advisers, that what it is doing is “within the framework of international law”.

But the measures are “novel”, and “very much pushing at the edge of the envelope”, he says.

I am confident and indeed the conversations that I have had with the government’s legal advisors reinforces my belief that the actions that we are taking whilst novel, whilst very much pushing at the edge of the envelope, are within the framework of international law.

Updated

James Cleverly claims government 'is stopping the boats' as he opens debate on Rwanda bill

James Cleverly, the home secretary, is opening the debate on the Rwanda bill.

He starts by referring to the death of an asylum seeker on the Bibby Stockholm barge. He says he cannot go into details, but the case is being investigated, he says.

He goes on:

This government is stopping the boats. Arrivals are down by a third this year as illegal entries are on the rise elsewhere in Europe. Indeed arrivals are up by 80% in the Mediterranean, they are down by a third across the Channel.

Updated

The Foreign Office has been in touch to say that David Cameron’s appearance at the European scrutiny committee today was cancelled at the committee’s request, not Cameron’s. (See 10.59am.)

No 10 insists Rwanda bill is 'tough' - but says it is open to 'constructive comments' from MPs

Last week Rishi Sunak suggested that, if he were to toughen the Rwanda bill by “an inch”, it would become unworkable (because it would no longer be acceptable to Rwanda).

But now No 10 is sounding a little more receptive to possible changes to the bill. At the Downing Street lobby briefing, asked if Sunak still thought it would be impossible to make the bill stronger, the PM’s spokesperson said:

We are willing to listen to constructive comments from colleagues. We believe this is a tough piece of legislation which will achieve its objectives and the public’s objectives of stopping the boats.

The spokesperson said Downing Street would not be pulling the bill – which is what Mark Francois, chair of the European Research Group, has been saying should happen.

(If No 10 was planning to pull the bill, it left it a bit late; the second reading debate is starting in about five minutes.)

The spokesperson also confirmed that the climate change minister, Graham Stuart, has been ordered to return from the Cop28 summit in Dubai for tonight’s vote.

Updated

Former chief whip Nick Brown resigns from Labour in protest at 'flawed' handling of complaint against him

Nick Brown, a former chief whip, has announced he is standing down as an MP at the next election – and resigning his party membership in protest at the way an allegation against him is being investigated.

The MP for Newcastle upon Tyne East has had the whip suspended for more than a year after a complaint was lodged against him under the party’s independent complaints procedure.

In a statement issued today via lawyers, Brown said the complaint was made by a political rival and related to something alleged to have happened more than 25 years ago. He also said the accusations were “entirely false”.

Brown said that, when the complaint was first lodged, he was “determined to trust” the party’s disciplinary process.

But, in his statement today, he said he had concluded that he was not getting a fair hearing because the party’s procedures were “flawed” and lacked “the most basic of procedural fairness and evidential safeguards”.

He said disciplinary hearings were not taking place in person, that witnesses were not allowed to be questioned by lawyers, and that the panel was considering evidence from friends of the complainants who did not know anything about the allegation until the complainant mentioned it to them more than 20 years after it was supposed to have happened. He went on:

My own legal team – which include a leading KC and a leading public law barrister – have told me that, in light of the party’s refusal to comply with even the most basic of safeguards, evidential and procedural measures to be expected of any quasi-judicial process, they are unable to advise me that I could expect a fair hearing.

Things have reached a very sorry pass when the likely next party of government conducts cases of this gravity in a manner more akin to those of a mismanaged golf club.

Brown was first elected to the Commons in 1983. He was (at least until last year) one of the great survivors of postwar politics, having served as Tony Blair’s chief whip when Blair was first PM, Gordon Brown’s chief whip in the final two years of the Labour government, and then chief whip again under Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer. Including brief spells doing the job under Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband, he has served as chief whip under six Labour leaders.

In his statement, Brown said that, at the age of 73, and with his constituency boundaries being withdrawn, he thought it was the right time to leave parliament.

Nick Brown
Nick Brown. Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

Updated

The Telegraph is also reporting claims that Rishi Sunak’s breakfast meeting at No 10 with Conservative MPs reluctant to vote for the Rwanda bill did not go well. It says:

A former minister said: ‘Views seem to be hardening and more people are planning to vote against rather than abstain, but many will wait to decide later in the day.’

Another Tory source said: ‘[The meeting] didn’t go that well. Rishi was pointing finger at Boris [Johnson], Liz [Truss], Suella [Braverman] and Rob [Jenrick].’

Updated

Sunak must call general election if he loses Rwanda bill vote, says Starmer

Q: If the Rwanda bill does pass, how quickly would you repeal it? And if you are in power, will you guarantee not to send anyone to Rwanda.

Starmer says he thinks the bill will go through tonight. The PM has an 80-seat majority. He says they should not allow the PM the indulgence of thinking it will be tight, and giving him credit if it wins.

(Starmer is wrong. Boris Johnson had an 80-seat majority after the 2019 general election, but byelection defeats have reduced it considerably. The Commons website says the government currently has a working majority of 56.)

He says he does not know what will happen to the bill after that.

But, if Labour wins the election, it will focus on a more effective way of dealing with the problem.

If the PM does lose, “of course he should call a general election”, he says.

And that is the end of the Q&A.

Updated

Asylum seeker on Bibby Stockholm barge dies

This is what PA Media has filed on the death of an asylum seeker on the Bibby Stockholm barge.

An asylum seeker onboard the Bibby Stockholm asylum barge has died, the PA news agency understands.

The first asylum seekers were brought back to the giant vessel, moored in Portland, Dorset, in October, some two months after it was evacuated following the discovery of Legionella bacteria in the water supply.

Further details of the incident are yet to be confirmed.

Updated

Q: In your speech you implied Labour was on the wrong track under Ed Miliband. In that case, why is he serving in your shadow cabinet?

Starmer says Miliband is a very good member of his shadow cabinet. But he was making the point that Labour’s problems did not start with Jeremy Corbyn, he says. They have lost four elections in a row.

Q: Not a single graduate of Labour’s Bernie Grant leadership scheme has been selected as a candidate for the party. Is Labour doing enough on diversity?

Starmer says the Bernie Grant scheme is a good one. He says not all selections have finished, but he says the party always needs to do more to promote diversity.

Q: We have just heard an asylum seeker on the Bibby Stockholm has died. What is your reaction?

Starmer says he is not aware of the story, but he expresses concern about the news.

Updated

Q: Do you think a Rwanda-style scheme, sending people abroad and saying they cannot return, is immoral?

Starmer says he does not think it will work. He says it is very expensive, and the wrong thing to do.

Q: Are you just opposed to sending asylum seekers to Rwanda? Or are you against the principle of processiong asylum seekers in third countries altogether? Other countries are considering those plans.

Starmer says the Rwanda scheme will not work. He says other countries process asylum seekers somewhere else, normally on the way to the country. He says he would consider any scheme that might work. But he says the Rwanda scheme is not like those schemes. It is a straightforward deportation scheme, he says.

Q: You did not make stopping the boats one of your five priorities. So voters will conclude you are not serious about this issue, won’t they?

Starmer does not accept that. He says securing the borders is an essential task for government. It is fundamental, he says. He says the five missions are about how he wants to change the UK.

Q: Will you really write off the £240m spent on the Rwanda scheme?

Starmer says that money has already been spent. It has been wasted. Rwanda saw us coming, he says.

Q: You talked about changing Labour. At what point did you realise it was on the wrong track under Jeremy Corbyn.

Starmer says he did not vote for Corbyn in 2015 or in 2016. But, in the Brexit crisis, he felt he had a responsibility to serve the party as Brexit spokesperson.

But he says Corbyn will not be a Labour candidate again. That shows how much the party has changed.

Q: Do you think you can stop the boats. Or do you think that is an impractical promise?

Starmer says he does really want to stop the boats.

Updated

Keir Starmer is now taking questions at the end of his speech.

Q: Are you opposed to the Rwanda bill because you think it won’t work, or is it because you think the bill is immoral?

Starmer says Labour is voting against it for a number of reasons: it won’t work, it will cost a fortune, and it is against Labour values.

But that does not mean he does not want to stop the boats, he says. He does.

Updated

Steven Swinford from the Times has been tweeting on the latest on the potential Tory revolt over the Rwanda bill.

Tories on the right have been doing the numbers on this evening’s vote and early indications suggest they don’t have the numbers. Senior Tory MP: ‘Some of our colleagues have deluded themselves into thinking the govt will make the necessary changes at report stage. They won’t’

Inside Rishi Sunak’s No 10 breakfast with Tory right-wingers:

* Danny Kruger opened – he told the PM he had 3 options. Pull the bill, commit to making amendments in unequivocal terms from despatch box or refuse to make changes & people will vote against

* Rishi Sunak said he wouldn’t pull bill but said he would consider ‘tightening it up’

* Sunak said he had ‘inherited’ high levels of legal migration & small boats issues - this irked some of those present

* Jonathan Gullis said he & colleagues had heard nothing from whips office or home sec. Said it felt like no-one cared about their view

* Marco Longhi said there had been no meaningful engagement before publication of bill

* Nick Fletcher said govt needs to be more Tory and stop being socialists. The PM said he’s a Tory, highlighted tax cuts

* Some already swayed by PM’s offer to consider amendments – others think it’s not serious

* PM, Will Tanner, Rupert Yorke & Craig Williams in room for govt – no sign of chief whip

Updated

Keir Starmer giving his speech at Silverstone this morning.
Keir Starmer giving his speech at Silverstone this morning. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images

David Cameron’s hearing with the European scrutiny committee, which was due to take place at 2pm, has been postponed, the committee has said. It hasn’t said why, but the new foreign secretary would not be the first person to feel less than enthusiastic about the prospect of spending an afternoon discussing European treaties with Sir Bill Cash, the committee’s chair.

UPDATE: The Foreign Office has been in touch to say it was the committee that cancelled today’s hearing, not Cameron.

Updated

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a former lord chief justice of England and Wales, has said the government should not try to ignore the jurisdiction of the European court of human rights. In an interview for a podcast called the Judges, he said:

If you have subjected yourself to a court, and it was our voluntary decision to do so, then you have to take the rough with the smooth and if they’ve decided [the court] have this jurisdiction then you ought to follow it.

You can’t expect others to respect the law if you say you won’t respect the law of someone else.

Thomas also said the only way to resolve the asylum crisis was to ensure claims are considered quickly, with refugees only allowed one right of appeal. He said:

You ought to actually be able, within a set period of time, say a fortnight, to investigate, decide, give him one right of appeal – why you should have more than one right of appeal I simply don’t understand – and remove them.” But, he concedes, it costs money.

Updated

Starmer says Labour would offer practical solutions to problems, not 'performance art' gimmicks like Rwanda plan

Keir Starmer is now delivering a speech in Silverstone. According to the extracts released in advance, he will urge voters to “turn the page on this miserable chapter of decline” and elect a Labour administration capable of delivering competent government.

Referring to small boats, he will say:

Britain is a practical nation – always has been. People can’t afford Christmas. If they call an ambulance this winter – they don’t know if it will come. 6,000 crimes go unpunished - every day. Common sense is rolling your sleeves up and solving these problems practically, not indulging in some kind of political performance art.

This goes for stopping the boats as well. It’s not about wave machines, or armoured jet skis, or schemes like Rwanda you know will never work.

It’s about doing the basics better. The mundane stuff. The bureaucratic stuff. Busting the backlogs. Rebuilding a functioning asylum system. Removing people more quickly so you don’t have to run up hotel bills. And cross-border police force that can smash the smuggler gangs at source.

I’ve done this before as director of public prosecutions when we took on the terrorists and the people-smugglers. We can do the same here. Stopping the boats means stopping the gimmicks.

If they can’t find a way to do that, if they can’t find a way to focus on the job, fix our problems without breaking international law like every government before them, then it’s time to stand aside and let the Labour party do it for them.

Here is Ben Quinn’s preview of the speech.

Updated

Rwanda bill 'inconsistent' with ECHR, says parliament's joint committee on human rights

Parliament’s joint committee on human rights, which is cross-party and chaired by Labour’s Harriet Harman, has published its own briefing on the human rights concerns raised by the Rwanda bill. (It is described as the “chair’s briefing paper”, but the press release implies its a briefing from the whole committee.)

The briefing argues that the bill is “inconsistent” with the European convention on human rights. It says:

The bill would require all domestic courts to accept that Rwanda is safe and not to consider any review or appeal brought on the grounds that it is not – even if there is compelling evidence in support. This raises difficult constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law. It would prevent the courts considering arguable claims that removal to Rwanda is unsafe, which would expose individuals to a risk of their fundamental rights not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment being violated, and is inconsistent with the right to an effective remedy guaranteed under article 13 ECHR [European convention on human rights].

The requirement that all decision-makers conclusively treat Rwanda as safe applies notwithstanding laws including key provisions of the Human Rights Act. This would permit public authorities to act incompatibly with convention rights, which would be inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. Disapplying the HRA in respect of a particular cohort runs contrary to the fundamental principle that human rights are universal.

While the bill can alter domestic law, parliament cannot legislate away the UK’s obligations in international law including the prohibition on refoulement under the Refugee Convention and the ECHR. Under the ECHR, any individual who is selected for removal to Rwanda is able to make an application to the European court of human rights (ECtHR) and the UK will be bound by that court’s judgment. 

The ECtHR has the power to issue interim measures, effectively an order requiring states to refrain from taking certain action while a human rights claim is considered. They have done so previously, preventing the initial flights to Rwanda. The bill would provide that a minister, and only a minister, may choose whether or not to comply with interim measures. Since interim measures have been held to be binding under the ECHR, this provision purports to permit a minister to act in breach of international law.

The public law professor Mark Elliott has a good thread on X about the report. It starts here.

One Conservative MP who met Sunak at the breakfast meeting said afterwards that he still had to make up his mind on whether he would support the bill and needed to get a second opinion on “legal technicalities” from barristers.

Jonathan Gullis, a member of the New Conservatives grouping, told TalkTV:

I still have those concerns that we will end up being bogged down by individual claims that means we will see very few people put on a plane to Rwanda.

As the former immigration minister Robert Jenrick has said, we don’t want one or two token flights with five to 10 people. We need to see planes full to the hilt flying off to Rwanda, and then, I hope other safe countries.

(If Gullis wants more on the “legal technicalities”, he could start by reading the various reports posted in the reading list at 10.08am.)

Updated

Rwanda bill - reading list

At its core the debate between supporters and opponents of the Rwanda bill, at least within the Conservative party, is about whether or not the UK parliament can and should ignore international law. But the details get quite complicated, and if you want to follow the debate in its complexity, here are some documents that are helpful.

Bill material

The 12-page text of the bill

A briefing from the House of Commons library explaining what the bill does

Legal analysis – supportive

The government’s own legal assessment of the bill

A briefing from the Society of Conservative Lawyers

Legal analysis – critical

The analysis from the European Research Group’s “star chamber”

A research note from the Policy Exchange thinktank (which is not as critical as the ERG analysis, and urges MPs to support the bill, but also proposes amendments)

Legal analysis – from academic lawyers

An analysis for the Institute for Government from Tom Hickman, a professor of public law

A report on the bill from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law by Murray Hunt, a visiting professor of human rights law

Updated

James Cleverly, the home secretary, arriving at No 10 for cabinet this morning.
James Cleverly, the home secretary, arriving at No 10 for cabinet this morning. Photograph: Hannah McKay/Reuters

More than 90 organisations and charities including Unison, the Muslim Council of Britain and Liberty have signed a joint statement describing the Rwanda bill as immoral and against international law.

“It does nothing to properly address the court’s concerns about the Rwandan asylum system and removing our domestic courts’ jurisdiction to consider the issue. It is an abuse of parliament’s role,” the organisations said in a briefing coordinated by Freedom from Torture.

The organisations called on MPs to voice their opposition to the bill, warning it would cause a constitutional crisis “by interfering with the separation of powers, seeking to overturn the evidence-based findings of fact, made not only by a court of competent jurisdiction, but in fact by the highest court in the UK, the supreme court”.

Zoe Bantleman, the legal director at the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), said:

We are deeply concerned about the lengths to which the government is resorting, in their attempts to prevent people accessing refuge in the UK: legislating the legal fiction that Rwanda is safe, overriding the factual assessment of our supreme court, abusing parliament’s role in our constitution, breaching international law, and removing the ability of our courts and tribunals to scrutinise the lawfulness of the government’s conduct.

Updated

Keir Starmer has dismissed the government’s Rwanda deportation policy as a gimmick. Speaking on BBC Breakfast, he said:

What I wouldn’t do, and what I won’t vote for, is £290m spent on a gimmick that is the Rwanda scheme, that won’t work, at the very most will take about 100 people – we’ve got 160,000 people waiting for their asylum claims to be processed, so it’s a drop in the ocean.

It costs a fortune and, as we learnt from the prime minister when he finally admitted it last week, the deal be struck will also involve Rwanda sending their refugees across to the United Kingdom.

It’s a gimmick, it won’t work, it is performance art. What I would do is do the more mundane, sleeves-rolled-up, practical work to stop this vile trade in the first place.

Stopping all deportation appeals 'not the British thing to do', says minister

Michael Tomlinson, the new minister for illegal migration, has been giving interviews this morning. Defending the provision in the Rwanda bill that will allow some appeals against deportation to continue (even though the bill is intended to close most routes to a successful appeal), Tomlinson told the Today programme blocking all right to appeal would be unBritish. He said:

We have shut out virtually every single claim that is possible. What is not possible is to shut out every single claim.

Nor would that be right, for two reasons. Firstly, it would breach international law. That is not the right thing to do. Secondly, because it is not the British thing to do. Even during the second world war did we not shut out claims going to court.

Ben Quinn has the full story here.

Potential Tory rebels silent as they leave No 10 as Sunak fights to win support for Rwanda bill

Good morning. Rishi Sunak and his team will spend the day trying to win round Conservative MPs unsure whether to support his Rwanda deportation bill before the vote at 7pm tonight. He has already held a breakfast meeting with some of the most intransigent potential rebels, but there is no evidence (yet?) that he had much success; as they left, they would not talk to the media.

Ahead of what may be the most important parliamentary vote of Sunak’s premiership, here is our overnight preview by Kiran Stacey and Rajeev Syal.

And these are from the BBC’s Henry Zeffman, who has been broadcasting from Downing Street this morning.

And this is from PA Media:

The MPs said nothing as they left Downing Street.

None answered when asked by reporters if they had been persuaded by Rishi Sunak.

They left together just after 8.30am.

It seems more likely than not – but not certain – that Sunak will win the vote tonight. A government has not lost a bill at second reading since 1986, when the shops bill (which would have allowed Sunday trading) was defeated by Labour and rebel Tory MPs who wanted to protect Sunday as a day of rest. The issue was relatively marginal, and Margaret Thatcher went on to win a general election handsomely the following year. But, for Sunak, “stopping the boats” is a core mission for his government and, without this bill, he would no longer have a plan at all. A defeat would be utterly disastrous, and no one knows where that might lead.

But, even if Sunak wins, that will probably just mean the key battle on this legislation being postponed until MPs vote on amendments, after Christmas.

One way or the other, by the end of the day we’ll have a clearer insight into just how perilous this row is for the Sunak administration.

I’ll mostly be focusing on this story today, although we also have a big speech from Keir Starmer this morning that I’ll be covering in detail.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.

10.30am: Keir Starmer gives a speech near Milton Keynes.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

After 12.30pm: MPs begin the debate on the second reading of the safety of Rwanda (immigration and asylum) bill.

2pm: David Cameron gives evidence as foreign secretary to the Commons European scrutiny committee.

7pm: MPs vote on the Rwanda bill.

If you want to contact me, do try the “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 laptop or a desktop. 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.

MPs from the New Conservatives group, including Danny Kruger, Miriam Cates and Jonathan Gullis, leaving No 10 after their breakfast meeting with Rishi Sunak.
MPs from the New Conservatives group, including Danny Kruger, Miriam Cates and Jonathan Gullis, leaving No 10 after their breakfast meeting with Rishi Sunak. Photograph: James Veysey/Shutterstock

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
“We walk into this music store, and the owner is making sure we didn't turn up with a lawyer – and then Robert Trujillo came in and saved the day!” The amazing story of how Jaco's Bass Of Doom made its way back to Felix Pastorius
Stolen in 1982, the bass vanished from the public eye until 2006 when it resurfaced in a New York music store
Guitar World
Guitar World
Forrest Gump at 30: a wildly popular movie that remains as light as a feather
Tom Hanks is an affecting lead but the popularity of Robert Zemeckis’s much-loved Oscar-winner is still a curious mystery
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
I never throw these 7 kitchen items away – this is how I reuse and repurpose them
Think twice before tossing these items in the trash and consider giving them a new purpose in your home
Homes & Gardens
Homes & Gardens
‘There is a sex crisis here. Couples stop having sex after kids’: This is how we do it in Japan
Aoi and Jiro have regular intercourse – so how did they buck what seems to be a national trend?
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
How to resolve friendship tension like Lorde and Charli XCX
Do these lyrics resonate with you? “I don’t know if you like me / Sometimes I think you might hate me / Sometimes I think I might hate you.”
The Conversation
The Conversation
A couple rented an Airbnb from a ‘friendly’ landlord. Then they wound up dismembered in a suitcase
Michael Lee Dudley seemed like a typical Washington homeowner – until three teenagers stumbled across a suitcase of horrors on a beach
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play