Summary
We are now closing the blog.
Here is a summary of events today.
Rishi Sunak’s flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276 - a majority 44.
The bill will now go to the House of Lords where it is there is more chance of it being amended, partly because the government does not have a majority there and partly because the chamber is full of lawyers who take safeguarding rights particularly seriously.
The government said (prior to the vote) that if the Rwanda bill is passed, it will scrap guidance to civil servants saying they must always obey injunctions from the European court of human rights (rule 39 orders) blocking deportations.
New guidance on ECHR injunctions puts officials in an “invidious position”, Prospect, a union representing civil servants has said. It has condemned the new guidance being issued to officials about injunctions from the European court of human rights.
Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame has said he will return UK taxpayers’ money if no asylum seekers arrive. The UK has paid £240m to Rwanda, with a further £50m to come. No asylum seekers have so far been sent to the country. Kagame added efforts to implement asylum plan cannot “drag on”.
Labour has said the UK should quickly take up Rwanda’s president on his offer to return money spent on deportation scheme.
Robert Jenrick’s amendment was defeated, but it saw 61 Conservative rebels back it. Yesterday, 60 Tories backed Sir Bill Cash’s amendment.
Peers have said it’s too early to know if Rwanda has made changes needed to address supreme court’s deportation concerns.
David Cameron has denied Rwanda bill makes UK an embarrassment on world stage. He made the comments during a Q&A at Davos.
Suella Braverman strongly attacked ECHR, prompting claims from opposition MPs she’s campaigning for Tory leadership.
Labour condemned No 10 for saying it will allocate more judges to asylum cases when rape victims wait years for trials to start.
Keir Starmer led tributes to the Labour MP Tony Lloyd who has died, paying tribute to his “desire to make the world a better, fairer place”.
The UK government says it’s seeking costs from Scottish government to pay legal fees from gender bill challenge.
Earlier at PMQs Keir Starmer labelled Rwanda plan a “farce” and said spending £400m on a removals problem that does not remove anyone is not a plan.
Plans to change the Whitehall code of conduct to facilitate Rwanda deportations has been dismissed as “madness” by Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, the union that represents senior civil servants.
Illegal migration minister Michael Tomlinson claims Rwanda policy will have 94% deterrent effect on small boat crossings.
Conservative former minister Dr Liam Fox has been accused of using a “misogynistic term” when he described SNP MP home affairs spokeswoman Alison Thewliss’s speech as “hysterical”.
Here is the moment the results of the votes on the government’s Rwanda bill are announced.
Back to the Rwanda Bill vote.
The division list showed 11 Conservative MPs rebelled to vote against the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill at third reading, PA News reports.
They were: Suella Braverman (Fareham), William Cash (Stone), Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge), Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland), Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales), James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East), Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford), Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood), Robert Jenrick (Newark), David Jones (Clwyd West), Danny Kruger (Devizes).
You can find more information here.
Updated
Rishi Sunak has survived a damaging row over his flagship Rwanda bill after a Conservative rebellion melted away as dozens of rightwing MPs baulked at further undermining the prime minister’s authority.
After a crucial 11th hour meeting of more than 45 Tory rebels, the group’s leaders concluded that defeating the bill by voting alongside Labour during an election year could risk collapsing the government.
Just 11 Conservative hardliners , including the former home secretary Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, voted against the legislation, which passed by 320 votes to 276, a majority of 44.
There was relief in Downing Street that after days of chaos and infighting at Westminster, during which dozens of Tories rebelled to support amendments to try to toughen up the legislation, the bill has eventually passed its final Commons hurdle.
Sunak now faces further bruising battles with peers who are already threatening to amend the Rwanda deportation plan in the House of Lords to make sure that it complies with international law.
Read the full report here.
The good news for Rishi Sunak is that, as widely predicted, his Rwanda bill passed the Commons with relative ease. But in keeping with the curse faced by so many recent Conservative prime ministers, getting what he wants could be just the start of his troubles.
There is one very important point to make first. However tricky things may get implementing the measure, if Sunak had become the first prime minister since 1977 to lose a bill on third reading it would have been disastrous, even politically terminal for him. So he will be pleased.
This is, of course, is all relative. An authoritative prime minister in a strong position would not expect to see 60 MPs rebel to try to amend a flagship policy, as happened on Tuesday, let alone have to wait for the same MPs to largely back down to guarantee the bill’s progress the following day.
As has been the case throughout the genesis of the Rwanda deportation scheme, one bequeathed to a reportedly sceptical Sunak by Boris Johnson, via Liz Truss, it is now hard to say whether he will face more problems being able to implement the scheme or having it blocked again.
He could see the Lords try to derail the bill, or at least delay it, with the latter seen as the more likely option, even among potential rebels in the upper house. If it is passed, the unilateral declaration that Rwanda is a safe country to which asylum seekers can be deported will then almost certainly face a renewed judicial test.
This route would allow Sunak and his ministers to hit out at “lefty lawyers” and “unelected peers” – but actual voters, already deeply sceptical of the Rwanda plan, might focus instead on the potentially broken promise to have the first planes leave by spring.
And if the Lords does back down, and the bill proves legally watertight? That leaves Sunak having to enact a policy that could appear notably more inhumane once it involves real people who have fled real trauma, rather than a mass of unnamed “illegal migrants”.
Most crucially, Sunak has bet almost all his remaining political credibility on a rush of flights to Rwanda having an immediate and noticeable impact on the flow of unofficial small boat crossings over the Channel, something few outsiders believe is realistic.
Read the full analysis here.
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) January 17, 2024
Rwanda bill is approved
The third reading of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill passed by 320 votes to 276, a majority of 44.
Updated
Tory former minister Liam Fox accused of using 'misogynistic term'
Conservative former minister Dr Liam Fox has been accused of using a “misogynistic term” when he described an SNP MP’s speech as hysterical.
Dr Liam Fox faced criticism for the remark in the Commons, which he made as he told MPs: “It is very clear from the debate and the last couple of days that it is this side and this side only that understands the concept of deterrence when it comes to...”
SNP home affairs spokeswoman Alison Thewliss could be heard to shout as Dr Fox spoke, and the senior Conservative interrupted his opening words to respond: “She has had her hysterical say. I will have mine.”
The SNP frontbencher shouted back: “Misogynist!”
Ms Thewliss had claimed in her speech that the Government “has become the criminal gang, breaking international law, moving vulnerable people across the world without legal process, no right of appeal, no concern for the safety or human rights of asylum seekers, to a country they do not know, involving money and involving profit”.
Fleur Anderson, the Labour MP for Putney, later criticised Dr Fox, telling MPs:
I also am shocked to hear a member calling another member - a female member - hysterical. It is a classic callout of misogynistic term and I am shocked to hear it.
Earlier, Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn said the Bill is an “appalling piece of legislation” that “fails to take into account the human suffering of people forced through lack of any other alternative try to make a very dangerous crossing across the channel”.
The result of the vote is expected at 9.30pm.
MPs vote on Rwanda bill
The Commons has divided to vote on a motion to approve the Safety of Rwanda Bill.
Updated
Labour’s Jess Phillips has said: “I stand here to say that I want everybody in here to know that they are about to vote for a Bill they have absolutely no idea how much it’s going to cost.”
She added:
People who think that the amount of time spent on wasting taxpayers’ money on something that hasn’t worked the last two times…and it will not work this time, frankly, Mr Speaker should be ashamed of themselves for voting for something which they don’t have any idea how much it’s going to cost the people in their constituencies.
61 Tory MPs backed Jenrick's Amendment 23
More on the vote on Jenrick’s Amendment 23.
According to the division list, 61 Conservative MPs backed it, making it the largest Tory rebellion of the Rwanda Bill so far.
Yesterday, 60 Tories backed Sir Bill Cash’s amendment.
Conservative MP Sir William Cash has said he will be voting against the Rwanda Bill on third reading.
Speaking in the Commons, he said:
I want this Bill to succeed and the sole reason I shall be voting against this Bill will be because, on third reading, I don’t believe - to use the Home Secretary’s own words - that this is the toughest immigration legislation that we could produce, nor do I think we’ve done whatever it takes.
He added:
I wish the Government well, but I do have to say that I can’t support this in all conscience because I’ve set out my case and I’m not going to retract it on principle.
NEW: Labour confirms that Keir Starmer has written to cabinet secretary Simon Case to start access talks as per @AnushkaAsthana. The process is expected to begin before the end of this month.
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) January 17, 2024
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper has criticised the Tory “chaos and carnage”.
She said:
The only thing the Tories all seem to agree on is that the scheme is failing…the prime minister is failing and they know it.
She added Sunak’s authority was “in tatters”.
“He’s in office but not in power,” she said.
Home secretary James Cleverly is now on the floor. He has said the government will do “whatever it takes to stop the boats”.
He added: “This Bill has been meticulously drafted to end the merry-go-round of legal challenges.”
A questioner asks: “Can the home secretary confirm that if this bill receives royal assent, that it will not breach international law?
Cleverly responded: “As drafted, as we intend this Bill to progress, it will comply completely with international law.”
MPs voted 338 to 264, a majority 74, to reject a Labour amendment that sought to require the Government to report to Parliament if a person previously relocated to Rwanda had been returned to the UK due to being involved in serious crime.
The vote on a motion that Clauses 9 and 10 “stand part” of the Safety of Rwanda Bill was backed 340 to 264. A majority of 76. The clauses set out the title of the Bill, and state that it will come into force on the same day the UK’s treaty with Rwanda does.
Updated
ITV’s Anushka Asthana has said that Keir Starmer has written to cabinet secretary Simon Case to start Labour’s “access talks” with the civil service to start preparations for a possible change in government.
EXC: ITV News understands that in the last hour Keir Starmer has written to Cabinet secretary Simon Case to start Labour's "access talks" with civil service. Given PM has okay-ed from govt side (re @breeallegretti) talks expected to start by end of Jan 1/ https://t.co/vVli10ggXR
— Anushka Asthana (@AnushkaAsthana) January 17, 2024
Updated
Labour amendment rejected
Next vote on Amendment 36. This requires the publication of a full impact assessment on the costs involved in removal to Rwanda before the Bill comes into force. This was rejected by 339 votes to 263. A majority of 76.
Next vote was on a motion that clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 “stand part” of the safety of Rwanda bill. They were backed 340 to 263, a majority of 77.
These clauses include measures which insist it is for ministers to decide when they will comply with interim measures from the Strasbourg court.
Updated
Jenrick amendment rejected
Amendment 23 from Robert Jenrick, seeking to block last-minute injunctions from European judges has been rejected 536 to 65, a majority of 471.
Updated
A final tranche from Tomlinson’s speech earlier in which he said the government “will not stop” in its bid to see planes take off for Rwanda.
That is why we have inserted into clause five of this bill, which is crystal clear that it is for ministers and ministers alone to decide whether to comply with rule 39 injunctions. We would not have inserted clause five if we were not prepared to use it.
And I can confirm to the house that we can and will lawfully use that power if the circumstances arise, the discretion is there. But we go further still, and we confirm that the civil service must implement any such decision. Today the permanent secretary for the Home Office has confirmed that if we receive a rule 39, instead of deferring removal immediately, as currently is the practice, officials will refer the rule 39 to the minister … in this case to me, for an immediate decision, as the Cabinet Office has confirmed that is the responsibility of civil servants under the civil service code to deliver that decision.
… Colleagues have confirmation that we have the power we would use the power and the civil service will give effect to it.
If a plane is sitting on that runway, this government will not stop until it takes off. And we all know what the opposition would do. They would campaign for it to be grounded.
Updated
More from Michael Tomlinson’s speech earlier:
What happened with the Rwanda flight in June 2022 was frustrating as many honourable members have mentioned. It was a deeply flawed process and raised issues of natural justice. But changes have been made since then, not least in the Illegal Migration Act. And since then, the Strasbourg court has announced the outcome of its review into the rules concerning interim measures and the changes include the naming of judges and that interim measures should be communicated as formal decisions, and it confirms existing practice in parties being able to request reconsideration of a decision in the rules and the United Kingdom has responded formally to that court’s consultation.
That is why the prime minister has been clear that he will not let a foreign court block these flights. We simply cannot let an international court dictate our border security and stop us from establishing a deterrent.
Updated
Clause 3 “stand part” of the safety of Rwanda bill has been backed 339 to 264. A majority of 75. The clause disapplies elements of human rights law, to ensure that courts defer to parliament’s “sovereign view” that Rwanda is safe.
Updated
Conservative former minister Robert Jenrick has withdrawn his amendment 11 to the Bill, which aimed to disapply elements of the Human Rights Act in relation to removals to Rwanda.
The immigration minister Michael Tomlinson sought to reassure MPs that rebel amendments were not needed to safeguard against loopholes in the Rwanda plan.
Tomlinson insisted the bill would go further than previous efforts by the government, including those seen through parliament by his predecessor Robert Jenrick, as it “disapplies further elements of the Human Rights Act”.
Tomlinson told MPs: “The effect is that the duty under section 6.1 of the Human Rights Act is disapplied from any public authority, including any court or tribunal that is taking a decision that is based on the duty under clause 2 of the bill to treat the Republic of Rwanda as safe.”
Addressing Jenrick, the minister added: “The bill, he is right, does not seek to disapply section 4, it does not in fact disapply the declaration of incompatibility provisions in section 4. This is the only substantive remedy against the conclusive presumption that Rwanda is safe.
“Retaining declarations of incompatibility is important, but of course the final say on this matter will remain rightly with parliament and with the government, because section 4, subsection 6 of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that a declaration cannot affect the operation or the validity of domestic legislation.”
Updated
UK urges west to use frozen Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine’s economy
Britain is ramping up pressure on western governments to use $350bn of frozen Russian assets to help rebuild Ukraine’s war-shattered economy, with the foreign secretary, Lord David Cameron, insisting there were legal, moral and political justifications for action.
Cameron said the countries that were backing Ukraine had economies that when combined were 25 times the size of Russia and it was important to make that firepower count.
Speaking in Davos, where Ukraine has been high on the agenda at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, the foreign secretary said: “When Putin launched this illegal invasion, the world changed, and we have to change with it and recognise we are in a more dangerous, uncertain and difficult world.
Read the full report here.
Sir Robert Buckland, the Conservative former justice secretary who belongs to the One Nation faction in the party, was on Andrew Marr’s LBC show this afternoon where he was asked if he had a message for the Tory rebels. He replied:
I do understand that in politics, you can’t necessarily have everything of what you want. And my advice to colleagues and friends on the other side of the argument is, remember that what they’re doing isn’t achievable. Certainly, they haven’t got the votes for it. And they are probably better off settling for what the government has proposed.
He also said he did not expect large numbers of people to be deported to Rwanda this year. But he said getting some planes off the ground would be an achievement.
I think if we can see planes going off this year, that will be an achievement. I don’t think scaling it up at this point is likely, but if he can get planes in the air, and a third country can accept asylum seekers, then that’s not just a win for him, it’s also going to be looked at, interestingly, by other European countries.
At one point this was a common view in the party (partly because people assumed, as soon as the first flight left, the deterrent effect would kick in). But in recent days Tory rebels have started saying just getting just a handful of people deported to Rwanda would not be enough. See, for example, Sir Simon Clarke in his Telegraph article today. He wrote:
As Robert Jenrick, the former Immigration Minister has observed, it will not be enough for a handful of token flights with a few dozen individuals to go to Rwanda. This policy can only exercise the necessary deterrent effect if people who come to this country are detained and removed as a matter of course. That is not what this legislation will deliver.
That’s all from me for today. My colleague Jane Clinton is now taking over.
Threat of significant Tory rebellion over Rwanda bill recedes with only 'small number' reported to be voting against it
Tory rebels are now admitting that only a handful of their number will vote against the Rwanda bill at third reading, according to reporters who have been covering their meeting in the Commons this afternoon. (The MPs meet in private, but sometimes they talk to reporters on the way out.)
This is from Aubrey Allegretti from the Times.
Rebellion has melted away🚨
— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) January 17, 2024
Rebel source says a “small number” of MPs will vote against the Rwanda bill at third reading.
They say the “overwhelming likelihood is the bill will pass quite comfortably”
They say this isn’t the end of the matter and if the Lords weaken the bill,…
Rebellion has melted away Rebel source says a “small number” of MPs will vote against the Rwanda bill at third reading. They say the “overwhelming likelihood is the bill will pass quite comfortably” They say this isn’t the end of the matter and if the Lords weaken the bill, MPs will toughen the bill. “The PM is by no means out of the woods.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg emerges from rebel meeting to confirm he will vote for the Rwanda bill at third reading.
And this is from Sky’s Beth Rigby.
BREAK: told overwhelming number of rebels at the gathering of the right WILL vote for the bill. Small number will vote against. Rebel source: we expect the bill to pass tonight (c 30 MPs in meet)
BREAK: told overwhelming number of rebels at the gathering of the right WILL vote for the bill. Small number will vote against. Rebel source: we expect the bill to pass tonight (c 30 MPs in meet)
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) January 17, 2024
Updated
More than half of the £120m allocated to Rwanda under the first tranche of the money handed over by the UK as part of the deportation deal has been allocated for education and jobs, the Home Office has said. It has revealed the figures in a letter to the Commons home affairs committee published today.
Updated
Bob Seely (Con) is giving what must be one of the final speeches in the Rwanda debate. He has just told his colleagues that if they vote down the bill, they will all need to start looking for alternative jobs. He says:
It’s this bill, or no bill. It’s this bill, or no chance.
This is from Sky’s Beth Rigby on the mood in the Tory rebels’ camp.
Rwanda rebels still meeting in HoC ahead of votes. One tells me there an expectation Jenrick’s rule 39 amendment will have a good deal of support (as did Cash last night with 60 Tory MPs in support). But as for voting down third reading….very different matter. So far c6 MPs saying prepared to vote bill down (Govt majority means need 29+ rebels)
Rwanda rebels still meeting in HoC ahead of votes. One tells me there an expectation Jenrick’s rule 39 amendment will have a good deal of support (as did Cash last night with 60 Tory MPs in support). But as for voting down third reading….very different matter. So far c6 MPs…
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) January 17, 2024
New guidance on ECHR injunctions puts officials in 'invidious position', union claims
Prospect, a union representing civil servants, has condemned the new guidance being issued to officials about injunctions from the European court of human rights. (See 4.45pm.) Garry Graham, the union’s deputy general secretary, said:
This in effect could put civil servants in an impossible position where the choice is potentially between breaking international law, disobeying the instructions of a minister (and facing potential disciplinary action) or resigning.
This is a problem of the governments own making and they should not be putting civil servants in this invidious position.
Peers say it's too early to know Rwanda has made changes needed to address supreme court's deportation concerns
If the Rwanda bill passes the Commons tonight, it will then go to the House of Lords where there is more chance of it being amended, partly because the government does not have a majority there and partly because the chamber is full of lawyers who take safeguarding rights particularly seriously.
This afternoon the Lords international agreements committee has published its verdict on the government’s new treaty with Rwanda which is the basis for the declaration in the bill that Rwanda is a safe country for refugees, and it is sceptical. The committee says the government should delay ratifying the treaty with Rwanda until it is satisfied that Rwanda has addressed the problems with its asylum system highlighted by the supreme court.
The report says:
On paper the Rwanda treaty improves the protections previously set out in the memorandum of understanding [the original basis of the UK’s deal with Rwanda, with less legal standing than a treaty], but there are a significant number of legal and practical steps which need to be taken before the protections could be deemed operational such that they might make a difference to the assessment reached by the supreme court. Evidence that these arrangements have bedded down in practice is also needed. In short, the treaty is unlikely to change the position in Rwanda in the short to medium term.
We recommend that the treaty is not ratified until parliament is satisfied that the protections it provides have been fully implemented since parliament is being asked to make a judgment, based on the treaty, about whether Rwanda is safe. The government should submit further information to parliament to confirm that all the necessary legal and practical steps and training which underpin the protections provided in the treaty have been put in place, and then allow for a further debate before proceeding to ratification.
In paragraph 45 of its report, the committee identifies 10 improvements Rwanda is supposed to be making under the treaty and it says it will “take time” for them to happen. They include “a new asylum law in Rwanda; a system for ensuring that non-refoulement does not take place; a process for submitting individual complaints to the monitoring committee; training for international judges in Rwandan law and practice; and training for Rwandan officials dealing with asylum applicants”.
The committee says:
It is clear from this that significant legal and practical steps have to be taken before the assurances provided in the Rwanda treaty can be fully implemented. The government has provided no indication of the timeframe for the completion of these steps, but plainly it will take some time.
Updated
Tory former Cabinet Office minister Sir Jeremy Quin has been elected chair of the Commons defence committee, PA Media reports. PA says:
Quin becomes the third chair in five months after Robert Courts joined the government in December, having replaced Tobias Ellwood, who quit following a backlash over remarks he made about Afghanistan.
Quin beat Conservative rival Rehman Chishti, a one-time prime ministerial hopeful, to take on the role after a ballot of fellow MPs.
Quin received 371 votes, while Chishti got 101.
Updated
MPs are expected to start voting on amendments at around 6pm. The first vote should be on Robert Jenrick’s amendment 11, which ensures that the Human Rights Act does not apply when deportations to Rwanda are being considered, but there could be up to 10 more votes. That means the process could go on for more than two hours.
After that another hour has been set aside for the third reading debate, and so the final vote – on whether or not the bill gets a third reading – will not take place until quite late. Mark Francois, chair of the European Research Group and one of the leading Tory rebels, has told colleagues he expects it at 9.30am, Paul Waugh from the i says.
Tory MPs expecting Rwanda 3rd reading vote at 9.30pm, Mark Francois has told meeting of Tory rebels.
Tory MPs expecting Rwanda 3rd reading vote at 9.30pm, Mark Francois has told meeting of Tory rebels.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) January 17, 2024
Updated
Home Office says it will scrap guidance saying officials must always obey ECHR injunctions if Rwanda bill passed
The government has announced that, if the Rwanda bill is passed, it will scrap guidance to civil servants saying they must always obey injunctions from the European court of human rights (rule 39 orders) blocking deportations.
Current Home Office advice to officials tells them: “Where you have been notified that a R39 indication has been made you must defer removal immediately.”
Instead new guidance will be issued saying that in future, if a rule 39 order is issued, officials must refer the matter for a ministerial decision immediately, so the minister can decide whether or not the deportation goes ahead.
Sir Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, has revealed the new policy in a letter published today. He was responding to a separate letter from Darren Tierney, head of propriety at the Cabinet Office, who has produced draft guidance on this topic for all civil servants. The draft guidance says:
As a matter of UK law, the decision as to whether to comply with a rule 39 indication is a decision for a minister of the crown. Parliament has legislated to grant ministers this discretion. The implications of such a decision in respect of the UK’s international obligations are a matter for ministers. In the event that the minister, having received policy, operational and legal advice on the specific facts of that case, decides not to comply with a rule 39 indication, it is the responsibility of civil servants – operating under the civil service code – to implement that decision. This applies to all civil servants.
This guidance will be issued if the Rwanda bill becomes law.
This wording skirts over the issue of whether it would be lawful for a minister to ignore a rule 39 order. In the Commons this afternoon Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, said the attorney general’s view was that ignoring the Strasbourg court like this would be unlawful. (See 1.17pm.)
Starmer leads tributes following death of Labour MP Tony Lloyd
The Labour MP Sir Tony Lloyd has died. His family has issued this statement.
A statement from the family of Sir Tony Lloyd MP pic.twitter.com/6ag07VFYd6
— Tony Lloyd MP (@tony4rochdale) January 17, 2024
And Keir Starmer has issued this tribute.
The death of Sir Tony Lloyd today is a terrible loss.
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) January 17, 2024
We will remember his deep commitment to Labour values and his decency.
May he rest in peace. pic.twitter.com/jgcAEghM2F
Last week Lloyd, 73, issued a statement saying he was ill with an aggressive and untreatable form of leukaemia.
His death will trigger a byelection in Rochdale, where Lloyd had a majority of 9,668 at the last election.
Updated
Labour says UK should quickly take up Rwandan president on his offer to return money spent on deportation scheme
Paul Kagame, Rwanda’s president, said today that if the UK scrapped the Rwanda scheme, Rwanda would return the money it has received to fund it.
In response, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the UK should grab the offer quickly. In a statement she said:
If Rwanda says we can have the money back from this failing scheme, Rishi Sunak should seize the chance, instead of dragging out this Tory asylum chaos any longer. We need proper grip not more of this failing gimmick.
The taxpayer is being hit for more than £400m for a scheme that is only likely to cover 1% of those arriving. That money could go instead into strengthening our border security, including Labour’s plan to crackdown on the criminal smuggler gangs with cross-border law enforcement and establish a major new returns unit.
But the Rwandan government seems to be having second thoughts. In a clarification of Kagame’s comment, Yolande Makolo, the Rwandan government’s spokesperson, said they would consider a future UK request for a refund, but declined to say how much of the UK’s cash has been spent so far. She said:
Under the terms of the agreement, Rwanda has no obligation to return any of the funds paid. However, if no migrants come to Rwanda under the scheme, and the UK government wishes to request a refund of the portion of the funding allocated to support the migrants, we will consider this request.
To talk about figures at this point is premature, as we are still awaiting the conclusion of the UK legislative process and remain committed to making the partnership work.
Updated
Joelle Grogan, a researcher from the UK in a Changing Europe thinktank, has posted a useful thread on X on European court of human rights injunctions, which are the main topic of the Rwanda bill debate this afternoon.
She says they are issued against the UK only quite rarely (about twice a year) and only when there is a “real risk of serious and irreversible harm”.
Quick fact check here on BBC reporting of rule 39 orders.
— Dr Joelle Grogan (@JoelleGrogan) January 17, 2024
The one order preventing removal of one person to Rwanda was issued 7.35pm UK time, and government were told before.
Bit early for pjs.
ECHR press release: https://t.co/jBtnPFLOUT https://t.co/ZYEmfYRozy pic.twitter.com/E3RKYgoXhb
But are they often issued against the UK?
— Dr Joelle Grogan (@JoelleGrogan) January 17, 2024
Not really. Between 2017-2022, there have been 14 or about ~2 per year.
So far, report of only one order in 2023, which concerned expulsion to the United States, though 2023 stats haven't been published yet.
See https://t.co/yk8mOPufVH pic.twitter.com/17xiPuOSXd
Low stats are not unusual. The UK has one of the strongest human rights records before the ECHR.
— Dr Joelle Grogan (@JoelleGrogan) January 17, 2024
There have been few ECHR judgments issued against the UK, and have been in overall decline since 2000.https://t.co/7lYjL8OY3O pic.twitter.com/3P5GIPHT4t
Under the law, rule 39 orders (interim measures) are issued on an exceptional basis where there is a ‘real risk of serious and irreversible harm’.
— Dr Joelle Grogan (@JoelleGrogan) January 17, 2024
Quick explainer here: https://t.co/euAlFdxQbo
Updated
Braverman strongly attacks ECHR in debate, prompting claim from opposition MPs she's campaigning for Tory leadership
Back in the Commons, Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, is speaking. Since being sacked, she has often strongly criticised the government’s policy on immigration and small boats.
She says the bill as drafted will lead to a re-run of what happened in the summer of 2022 when a plane was blocked from leaving for Rwanda by an injunction from the European court of human rights.
She says these injunctions were not part of the original European convention of human rights. They were invented by the court, as part of the process by which it has expanded its remit.
And she says Labour’s Human Rights Act has made the situation worse. It has encouraged a rights culture, and decisions by the government has been undermined by an activist legal industry.
As an example, she cites the case of a Nigerian national sentenced in 2016 to four years in jail for serious offences, including battery and assault. But an attempt to deport him was blocked on the grounds that he would face serious problems integrating in Nigeria, and those concerns outweighed the public interest in deportation, Braverman says.
She cites another case where a drug dealer was not deported because he would lose ongoing access to medical treatment he was receiving.
And she claims that another case has established that, if the government wants to deport someone, it has to show that their life will not be shortened by the removal of their access to NHS facilities.
As Braverman condemns the ECHR as a “foreign court”, Labour’s Stella Creasy asks, if the ECHR is a foreign court, what is Nato?
Braverman claims that’s “elementary politics”. She says the court does not have the UK’s interests at heart.
Patrick Grady from the SNP follows Braverman and he starts by telling MPs they have seen “the first act of the next Conservative leadership contest”.
Updated
Cameron denies Rwanda bill makes UK an embarrassment on world stage during Q&A at Davos
David Cameron has rejected suggestions that the controversy about the Rwanda bill is embarrassing for the UK on the world stage.
When this was put to him at a panel at Davos, the foreign secretary replied: “Quite the contrary.”
He said countries around the world were having to find a way of dealing with illegal migration and that, although Britain’s approach was “quite unorthodox in some ways”, out-of-the-box thinking like this was necessary to break the model of this “appalling people smuggling”.
Graeme Wearden has more on this here on his business live blog.
UK government says it's seeking costs from Scottish government to pay legal fees from gender bill challenge
The UK Government will seek costs from the Scottish government over the gender recognition bill court challenge, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has confirmed.
Jack’s use of section 35 of the Scotland Act – the first in the history of devolution – to veto the controversial bill, which was passed by a majority at Holyrood – was challenged by the Scottish government at the court of session, which ruled it was lawful last December.
The bill would have made Scotland the first country in the UK to introduce a self-identification system for people who want to change their legally recognised sex.
Jack said he has told Scottish ministers that a motion for the award of expenses will be lodged on Friday.
After the court of sessions’ judgment, Scottish ministers announced they would ditch their legal action against the Westminster’s block, while challenging a future Labour government to allow it to become law by lifting the veto.
Today Jack said:
The Scottish government chose to pursue this litigation in spite of the cost to the taxpayer. My legal advisers have today intimated to the Scottish government that we have started the process of seeking an award of expenses in defending the case.
Last month Jack told a Commons committee the UK government had spent £150,000 on the case.
Updated
Downing Street has insisted it is not planning to “rewrite” the civil service code, after suggestions that such a move was being considered as part of the Rwanda plan sparked a backlash from trade unions (see 11.20am), PA Media reports.
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing, asked about reports the code will be amended, the PM’s spokesperson said:
What we are looking to do is to provide further guidance so there is clarity for ministers and civil servants on the application of this.
This is simply about ensuring that civil servants act within the code.
This is simply about making sure that we’ve taken every conceivable step to ensure that we get flights off the ground as quickly as possible should the bill progress through the house, as we continue to believe it will.
The government is expected to give more details of updates to the code later this afternoon.
Kate Ferguson from the Sun on Sunday says one Tory rebel is predicting that only around five Conservatives may vote against the government at third reading.
One Tory rebel tells me they only expect a hardcore of four or five MPs to actually vote against the Rwanda Bill tonight
One Tory rebel tells me they only expect a hardcore of four or five MPs to actually vote against the Rwanda Bill tonight
— Kate Ferguson (@kateferguson4) January 17, 2024
Tory rebels have not shown us their legal advice saying their amendments legally robust, No 10 says
Downing Street was not shown the legal basis for rebel amendments on the Rwanda bill despite this being offered and asked for, Rishi Sunak’s press secretary has said, in another sign of No 10’s apparent exasperation with the MPs behind the plans.
Downing Street had said it would look carefully at any amendments which would not breach the terms of the deal with Rwanda, and which had legal opinions setting out how this would be the case.
MPs seeking to change the bill, such as the former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, insisted that they had this.
But asked if No 10 had been able to see the legal advice, the PM’s press secretary told journalists at the post-PMQs lobby briefing.
We asked to see last week, and they said that they’d be happy to share it. And I understand that we have since asked to see it every day, and we haven’t received it.
Asked what conclusions should be drawn from this, she added: “I will let you draw your own conclusions.”
UPDATE: Adam Payne from Politics Home says the advice No 10 wants to see is the opinion from John Larkin KC, the former attorney general for Northern Ireland, that Robert Jenrick referred to in his speech yesterday.
An update on this...
A No 10 source tells PolHome the legal advice they have not yet seen, and which was referred to earlier, is John Larkin KC’s which Robert Jenrick’s amendment relies on
The ERG’s legal advice, which is separate, is in the public domain
An update on this...
— Adam Payne (@adampayne26) January 17, 2024
A No 10 source tells PolHome the legal advice they have not yet seen, and which was referred to earlier, is John Larkin KC's which Robert Jenrick's amendment relies on
The ERG's legal advice, which is separate, is in the public domain
Updated
Tory MP calls for British troops to be deployed in France to stop small boat crossings
The Conservative MP Giles Watling has published a statement on his website suggesting he would like to see British troops deployed in northern France to stop the boats. He says:
The Home Office has demonstrated time and again that it is either unwilling or unable to grapple with the scale of the challenge facing it, and to that extent I believe it is time that it is relieved of the responsibility of policing our borders and instead the issue is handed to the Ministry of Defence. This is after all a defence of the realm matter and we need British boots on the ground.
Our borders must be stronger, and in order to achieve that we must explore negotiating with our continental neighbours, pointing out that they would regain control of their overrun towns from Dunkirk to Boulogne if they allow that, in addition to the people we already have in their command and control centres, we put British boots on the ground in northern France to assist their efforts.
The statement says Watling will be supporting the government in votes on the bill – even though he does not think the legislation goes far enough and believes “it will not ultimately succeed in full”. Even with the amendments proposed by Tory MPs, it would not go far enough, Watling says – which (rather confusingly) he cites as a reason for not supporting the amendments.
Updated
Sir Bob Neill, chair of the Commons justice committee, tells the Commons that he thinks the amendments attacking the European court of human rights’s use of injunctions are misplaced. He points out that the court is already reforming the way those injunctions operate.
And he criticises colleagues who have described it as a foreign court. He says it’s international. It is not an alien body, but one over which the UK has joint ownership, he says.
UPDATE: Neill said:
The amendments moved by [Robert Jenrick] are otiose, they are unnecessary, and frankly they make what is a difficult situation worse.
I personally take the view that you should be very loath indeed to ignore the findings of the [European court of human rights] on an interim matter, and it does run the risk … of placing you in breach of your international law obligation in that regard. But the truth is it’s a political decision.
Frankly if any Government wants to take the political risk of ignoring an interim measure it can under our law as it stands.
Updated
Joanna Cherry from the SNP is up now. The SNP has attacked the Rwanda policy particularly strongly, and she says there are no polls in Scotland showing support for the policy. But she is mostly talking about legal principle, and she says the bill is anathema to the Scottish legal tradition.
Some Tories have defended the Rwanda policy, despite what international law says, on the grounds that parliament is supreme.
But Cherry says the principle of unlimited sovereignty of parliament is an English principle, with no counterpart in Scottish law. In Scotland sovereignty lies with the people, and there is an acceptance that executive power should not go unchecked. She says this goes back as far as the Declaration of Arbroath.
Cherry has put her name to six amendments to the bill (two with fellow SNP MP Patrick Grady, four of her own) and she says these are designed to ensure that the bill does not apply to Scotland, and that Scottish asylum seekers continue to enjoy the same fundamental rights as other people.
Former Tory attorney general expresses concern Rwanda bill would let UK decide for itself if it's breaking international law
Sir Jeremy Wright, the Conservative former culture secretary, who was also attorney general between 2014 and 2018, has tabled two amendments to the bill and he is speaking now.
He says his amendments would remove from the bill passages that imply parliament has the right to decide whether or not the UK is in compliance with international law.
He says it would be a mistake for the government to imply that international law does not matter. He points out that only two days ago the government was justifying the airstrikes against the Houthis on the grounds that their attacks on shipping were against international law. And he says the UK would not want to leave it up to the Houthis to decide whether or not they were complying with international law.
UPDATE: Wright said:
What [the government] cannot properly do is set themselves up as judge in their own cause on questions of international law. This house would be wrong to pass a bill that suggested that they could. That is really where my amendments are focused.
As I say, there is a good practical reason why we should be nervous about this: because we do sometimes rely on international law to discharge our own policy intents and purposes. Not more than 48 hours ago in this place, we were doing exactly that. We were saying that it is important to criticise the actions of the Houthis in the Red sea because they contravene principles of international law. We were saying too that we justify our own response to that because it is in accordance with the principles of international law, and quite right, too. We would not have accepted the Houthis’ unilateral declaration that they were in compliance with international law when they did what they did, nor should we have, and we would not of course accept a Russian legislative Act to say that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was in compliance with Russia’s international law responsibilities.
Let me make it clear that I am not, of course, suggesting that what the government have in mind here is in any way comparable to those two examples, but it seems that the point here is that to arrogate to oneself the right to declare one’s own compliance with international law runs the risk of, first, other states finding comfort in our example and, secondly, undermining our own messages in other situations. That makes this not just bad law, but bad foreign policy.
Updated
Jenrick says UK's continuing membership of European convention on human rights not sustainable
In his speech opening the debate Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, said:
I don’t believe that our membership of the European convention on human rights is sustainable.
But he said that was an argument for another day, and he said his amendments were not about leaving the convention.
Updated
Rwanda president: efforts to implement asylum plan cannot ‘drag on’
Here is our story about the comments from Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda. (See 1.11pm.)
And this is how it starts.
Rwanda’s president has said there are limits to how long attempts to implement an asylum deal with Britain can “drag on”, adding that he would be happy for the scheme to be scrapped.
Paul Kagame’s comments to the Guardian in Davos on Wednesday came before Rishi Sunak faced a potentially leadership-ending rebellion by Conservative MPs threatening to vote down his Rwanda deportation bill on Wednesday night.
Asked if he was following the debate in London, Kagame said: “It is the UK’s problem, not ours.”
But in comments that are likely to set alarm bells ringing in London, Kagame went on to express frustration at the drawn-out debate about whether asylum seekers would be processed in Rwanda. “There are limits for how long this can drag on,” he said.
Updated
Robert Jenrick intervenes, and asks Kinnock if Labour supports efforts to change the way rule 39 orders are used by the Strasbourg court. He says there are many other countries that want reform too, and the government is working with them.
Kinnock says the test for Labour’s immigration policy will be what’s affordable, workable and legal.
But he goes on to say that Labour would be open to reform.
However, if you cherish something, you also have to be prepared to be open to changing it to improving it. And it is clear that a global conversation is required about the immigration position in which we find ourselves. A European conversation is required.
If we, in concert with our international partners and allies, can find ways of improving the system then of course we on these benches would be looking to do that.
Jenrick tries to intervene again (presumably to ask for more detail), but Kinnock does not give way to him a second time.
Labour condemns No 10 for saying it will allocate more judges to asylum cases when rape victims waiting years for trials to start
Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration minister, is speaking now for Labour.
He started by attacking the government for spending so much time on the Rwanda policy when there were so many other problems that needed addressing, like soaring food bills, massive NHS waiting lists and sewage being pumped into rivers.
And he was particularly scathing about the announcement yesterday that the government was claiming to have found 150 more judges to hear asylum appeals. He said:
Does the prime minister know that under his leadership and on his watch the crown court backlog in this country is at a record high of 65,000, victims of serious crime regularly are waiting more than two years for their day in court so they can seek justice against their perpetrator?
A completely and utterly broken system due to 14 years of Tory incompetence and indifference, and yet the prime minister clicks his fingers and is glibly apparently able to magic up 150 judges and 1,000 staff …
Regardless of the operation issues, just imagine the impact the prime minister’s glib announcement yesterday would have on you if you were the victim of rape who has been languishing for years in our broken judicial system.
Just imagine the anger and disgust you would feel at the spectacle of a Conservative prime minister sacrificing your fight for justice on the altar of his desperate attempt to cling to power by appeasing his backbenchers. What an utterly shameful and shabby way for the prime minister of our country to behave.
Updated
Attorney general has told ministers they cannot ignore ECHR injunctions, Robert Jenrick tells MPs
Back in the Commons, Robert Jenrick said the Rwanda bill as drafted says it is up to a minister to decide whether or not to comply with an injunction from the European court of human rights blocking a deportation flight.
But he said, as far as he was aware, the attorney general, Victoria Prentis, took the view that if minister did ignore one of these injunctions (known as rule 39 orders) that would be illegal, and in breach of the ministerial code.
He said, as far as he could remember, the attorney general said there may be “a very small number of cases” where ignoring a rule 39 order might be possible. But that was not the norm, he said, and he told MPs that if the bill is passed unamended, the government would end up having deportation flights blocked, as happened in 2022.
UPDATE: Jenrick said:
The attorney general and the government legal service, as far as I am aware, continue to advise ministers and civil servants that a decision not to support a rule 39 interim measure would be illegal and would be in breach on the ministerial code.
In fact my best recollection of that was that no minister should give any indication that they would ignore a rule 39 interim measure. The attorney general’s position as I understand it is that there is a very small number of cases in which it is conceivable that one could do so.
But that is a vanishingly slim number of cases and situations. So were that situation to continue, as night follows day we will find ourselves in exactly the same situation we were in in the summer of 2022.
Updated
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has spoken to Guardian colleagues in Rwanda, and he told them he would be happy for the deportation scheme to be abandoned. “There are limits for how long this can drag on,” he said. Asked if the deal was working, he said that was a question for the UK. “It is the UK’s problem, not Rwanda’s problem,” he said.
Graeme Wearden has more on this on his Davos live blog.
Updated
MPs resume debate on Rwanda bill
MPs have now resumed their debate on the Rwanda bill.
Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, is giving the opening speech. He has tabled most of the rebel amendments backed by dozens of Tory MPs and he is speaking in particular to amendment 11, which is the one would ensure that the Human Rights Act does not apply when deportations to Rwanda are being considered.
He says the government should make it clear that interim injunctions from the European court of human rights do not apply in these cases. He says it was never envisaged that the court should have these powers when the European convention on human rights was drafted.
Updated
PMQs - snap verdict
At one point, not so long ago, the Conservative party used to think that immigration, small boats, and in particular the Rwanda policy, might be an election-winning policy for them. There can’t be anyone in CCHQ who thinks that now. For the second week in a row, Keir Starmer merrily ran amok on the issue, leaving Rishi Sunak floundering. In one respect it is another example of the Tories suffering from “long Boris” – because the Rwanda policy wheeze was dreamed up under his watch.
Starmer was particularly effective today for two reasons. First, he repeatedly challenged Sunak to answer a question he was dodging (how many people earmarked for deportation to Rwanda had been “lost” by the Home Office). Starmer does not regularly use this tactic, but it works well, as it did today. But the main strength of his approach was just the polish with which he ridiculed Sunak. Here’s a flavour of it.
Spending £400m on a plan not to get anybody to Rwanda whilst losing 4,000 people is not a plan, it’s a farce. Only this government can waste hundreds of millions of pounds on a removals policy that doesn’t remove anyone.
Only this government could claim that it’s going to get flights off the ground only to discover they couldn’t find a plane. Only this government could sign a removal deal with Rwanda only to end up taking people from Rwanda to here.
The only relatively novel feature of Sunak’s response was to attack Starmer for having drafted a human rights legal textbook before he became an MP. The Conservative party seems to be working overtime at the moment to find episodes from Starmer’s legal past that supposedly discredit him, but none of them seem to be working, and this one certainly didn’t.
Updated
Ian Mearns (Lab) ask for funding for the Tyne Bridge restortion.
Sunak says the government is investing to level up.
Ian Levy (Con) asks if the government will continue to focus on the rebirth of towns like his own, Blyth.
Sunak confirms that. He claims, after years of neglect, this government is levelling up.
Daisy Cooper (Lib Dem) says her constituents were promised a new hospital at the last election. But it has not been delivered. By the time of the next election, how many hospitals will be fixed?
Sunak says the government is working not just on the 40 new hospitals, but on 90 hospital upgrades.
Updated
Peter Dowd (Lab) says the PM has taken responsibility for falling inflation. Will he take responsibility for today’s rise?
Sunak says it was 11% when he took office. It has now been more than halved. But in countries around the world it went up in December.
Douglas Ross (Con) asks about government support for the Scotch whisky industry.
Sunak says this is a hugely important industry, supporting thousands of jobs.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (SNP) says 200,000 mortgage prisoners have become trapped because a Northern Rock portfolio was sold off. They are trapped paying extortionate rates.
Sunak says he is familiar with the problem faced by mortgage prisoners. He worked on this as chancellor. It is not easy to fix, but things are being considered.
Charlotte Nichols (Lab) says people across the country are finding it increasingly hard to access ADHD medication.
Sunak says the health secretary is looking at this.
James Gray (Con) asks Sunak to confirm a hotel in his constituency will be returned to its proper purpose in April, and that it will no longer house asylum seekers.
Sunak says he wants to end hotel use for asylum seekers.
Rupa Huq (Lab) says HS2 is meant to transform travel, and Old Oak Common in her constituency. Will Sunak ensure it at least reaches Euston. Or is Sunak just interested in private jets.
Sunak says Starmer might have something to say about private jets. He says Old Oak Common will be one of the most important stations in the country. But the government does intend to go ahead with the HS2 Euston link.
Chris Stephens (SNP) asks about the contaminated blood scandal, and says a compensation scheme should be set up urgently. When will victims be paid?
Sunak says he is aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. He says this is a complex issue. Interim payments have been made in some cases. When the final inquiry report is made, the government will respond as quickly as possible.
Patrick Grady (SNP) asks what is wrong with Rwanda that makes the government think sending people there will be a deterrent.
Sunak says it’s not that anything is wrong with Rwanda; the point is, it’s not the UK. That is why being sent there would be a deterrent.
Greg Smith (Con) asks about overcrowding on Chiltern Railways. He asks if the PM will fast-track plans to improve the service.
Sunak agrees service on the Chiltern network has not been good enough. He says the government is looking at this.
Updated
Nick Fletcher (Con) says he wants a minister for men, and a new hospital in his constituency.
Sunak says he would be delighted to discuss these things when he next visits Fletcher’s constituency.
Caroline Lucas (Green) says the UK government is complicit in the horrors of Gaza until it calls for a ceasefire. Those aren’t her words, but the words of the head of Oxfam. What will it take for the PM to back a permanent, bilateral ceasefire?
Sunak says a ceasefire would be the best way forward. But Hamas would have to agree to release hostages, they would have to no longer by in charge of Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority would have to take over in Gaza.
Updated
Dean Russell (Con) says he had a heart attack six months ago, but has recovered. He invites the PM to join him in thanking everyone who helped him recover.
Sunak thanks Russell for sharing his story, and says he is delighted he has recovered.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at the Westminster, asks Sunak if he understands the anger people feel about the government.
Sunak says average workers are paying more tax in Scotland than in England.
Flynn says the Tories are seeking to weaponise some of the most vulnerable people in society. Sunak will soon be out of office. Does he really want this to be his legacy?
Sunak says it is not right to allow asylum seekers to unfairly jump the queue.
Maria Miller (Con) asks Sunak to ban non-disclosure agreements in all severance agreements. They were used to silence the Post Office Horizon victims, she says.
Sunak says the Ministry of Justice is looking at this.
Starmer says if Sunak stuck with his beliefs, he would be voting with Labour on the Rwanda plan. He quotes what Danny Kruger said about the Tories leaving the UK “a sadder place”. He says, if Sunak’s MPs do not believe in their record, why should the public?
Sunak says his plan is delivering a brighter future for Britain.
Updated
Starmer says the Conservatives are in open revolt against each other, and Rwanda. Is it any wonder they are in revolt when the PM doesn’t believe in the policy?
Sunak says it will be news to Starmer that people can believe in something and stick to it. Just this week there was another example, he says. Starmer backed the ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir, he says. But he says in the past Starmer, as a lawyer, worked to stop them being banned.
Starmer says Sunak does not know where they are. But we know where they aren’t – Rwanda. The only people going there are ministers. And he says Sunak does not even support the Rwanda policy. The Tories on this are hundreds of bald people scrapping over a comb. Doesn’t Sunak wish he had stuck to his guns?
Sunak quotes experts saying this is the most robust piece of legislation on this ever passed. A former supreme court justice says it will work. But Starmer is only interested in leftie lawyers. He produces a book written by Starmer, saying it is called European human rights law.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, says MPs should not use “props” in the chamber.
Starmer labels Rwanda plan a 'farce'
Starmer says spending £400m on a removals problem that does not remove anyone is not a plan. It is a farce. He asks the question again; where are the missing people?
Sunak list things that are happening: more enforcement raids, more bank accounts blocked (both of which using powers Labour opposed), a record number of people returned. That is a plan that is working. Numbers coming to the UK are down by a third. And it is a bit rich to hear Starmer says he would stop the boats. Starmer has “no values, no conviction and no plan”. It is back to square one, he says.
Updated
Starmer says he wondered how the government could lose so many people. But then he remembered how bad their record was. They lost people they wanted to deport. So where are they?
Sunak says the government has removed 20,000 people. It is important to have a deterrent, he says. And he says Starmer does not care about solving the problem. He says Starmer told the BBC he would reverse the Rwanda plan even if it were working.
Updated
Keir Starmer also sends his best wishes to McCartney and his father.
And he says all MPs will want to sent their sympathies to the family of the two-year-old who was found starved to death in Skegness.
He asks if the government has found the 4,250 asylum seekers who have absonded.
Sunak says the government’s plan is working.
Updated
Jason McCarney (Con) says his father has joined the list of people in his constituency with a diagnosis of dementia. He asks the government to do more to address the problem.
Sunak expresses his sympathy, and says funding for dementia research is being doubled.
Updated
Rishi Sunak starts with the usual spiel about his engagements, and how he has got meetings with colleagues.
Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs
Rishi Sunak is taking PMQs in 10 minutes.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
The Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis told the BBC’s Politics Live that he would abstain as a “bare minimum” on the third reading of the Rwanda bill if it is not amended, and that he would leave the option of voting against on the table.
"I hope I can get into 10 Downing Street... to make it abundantly clear that it's time to accept these amendments"
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) January 17, 2024
Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis tells #PoliticsLive at the "bare minimum" he will abstain if the Rwanda bill remains unamended
Follow live https://t.co/DAD3w9oCch pic.twitter.com/QDSPmDnJp6
Sir Simon Clarke, the former levelling up secretary, has written an article for the Telegraph saying he will definitely vote against the Rwanda bill at third reading tonight – because he does not think it will work. He identifies two main problems with it.
First, the fact that the bill only asserts the general safety of Rwanda as a third country, and does not address the provision of individual claims that will inevitably be submitted against removal. The mere fact that the government yesterday announced that 150 judges and courts will be repurposed to assess these claims only confirms the problem that can be anticipated.
Second, the bill does not commit to disapplying rule 39 interim injunctions from the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. It was one of these that prevented a previous flight to Rwanda from proceeding and it is clear there are many in the government – not just in the civil service but among senior ministers – who believe ignoring such an injunction would place us in breach of international law.
Clarke also addresses the argument (made today in a column by Paul Goodman, editor of ConservativeHome, among others) that defeat of the bill at third reading would be bad for the party. Clarke says:
What matters is not the doomed pursuit of unity as an end in itself, but delivery of our policy. This is true not simply as a matter of logic and good faith with our constituents, but as a matter of remorseless electoral logic …
I say this not as somebody with the luxury of a safe shire seat, but who represents Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland - the seat where I was born and grew up, and which I have fought incredibly hard to win back from Labour and to solidify with an 11,000 majority. But all that will be set at nothing if I cannot deliver for my constituents now.
If the bill is voted down this evening, there will be one final opportunity for the government to return to parliament with a bill that works, and which can command the support of the whole of the Conservative party.
We are sent to parliament to deliver for our constituents, and to act in accordance with our own judgement and, indeed, conscience. If I cannot look my constituents in the eye and say that in my best estimation, this legislation will deliver, then I cannot vote for it.
Updated
Plan to change Whitehall code of conduct to facilitate Rwanda deportations dismissed as 'madness' by civil service union
As Michael Tomlinson confirmed in interviews this morning (see 9.35am), the government’s latest ploy to assure Tory rebels that it is serious about ignoring European court of human rights’ injunctions banning deportation flights is to suggest that the civil service code will be amended to make it clear that officials can’t use injunctions as a reason to block flights themselves.
But this idea has been dismissed as “madness” by Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, the union that represents senior civil servants. In an interview with Kevin Schofield from HuffPost, Penman said:
They’re essentially advising civil servants to act illegally, which will put them in conflict between their obligation to uphold the rule of law and to follow their instructions from elected ministers.
Ministers have an obligation to not put civil servants in that position. This is madness – changing the civil service code does not change the law.
The Home Office has quietly abandoned plans to get more barges to house asylum seekers, Chloe Chaplain reports in the i. She reports:
Ministers keen to cut the multi-million pound hotel bill for asylum seekers touted the barges as an ideal solution to the need for temporary housing.
But after just one was commissioned by the government, officials have put plans to look for more on the backburner, i can reveal.
The Government has struggled to find a port willing to take a barge following a battle to get the Bibby Stockholm – an asylum barge located in Dorset – up and running last year.
According to the Daily Telegraph, 15 rebel Conservative MPs have said they are willing to vote against the Rwanda bill at third reading if the government refuses to accept any of the amendments tabled to make it tougher. As well as four MPs who have not gone public, it names: Marco Longhi, Miriam Cates, Nick Fletcher, Robert Jenrick, Sarah Dines, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Sir Simon Clarke, Suella Braverman, Sir John Hayes, Danny Kruger and Jonathan Gullis.
But most of these 11 Tories have not said they will definitely vote against the bill. They are still holding out for concessions, and some seem minded to abstain rather than to vote with the opposition.
Rees-Mogg is an example. Although listed as a likely third reading rebel, he told Times Radio this morning he still had not decided what he would do. He said:
Let’s see what happens ... This is all about pushing in the same direction, and the government having a policy that is effective and will work. And if we’re moving in that direction, that’s extremely positive.
The truth is, I haven’t decided [how to vote at third reading].
But I will decide before the vote comes. But I want the government to succeed. I want this policy to succeed. It’s about helping the government have a policy that will be successful.
Updated
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, also argued this morning that the Conservative party was at least united in intent over the Rwanda policy. He said:
When you look at what happened in the House of Commons, you can see that the Conservative party – of course, we have debates about how to get there – but we are the only party that wants to make the Rwanda policy work, wants to have a policy where we are deporting people quickly who arrive here illegally.
We are united in the Conservative party in our belief we need to solve this problem.
Illegal migration minister Michael Tomlinson claims Rwanda policy will have 94% deterrent effect on small boat crossings
And here are some more lines from Michael Tomlinson’s interview round this morning.
Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, said he was confident the Rwanda bill would pass its third reading. “We are not going to be defeated tonight, he said.
He said the Conservatives shared a “unity of purpose” over the Rwanda bill and that disagreements over what should be in it only amounted to an “inch”. He said:
When we go through the detail of the legislation, yes, there is a difference in emphasis … but in terms of the overall message, the overall desire and aim, every single Conservative speaker yesterday stood up and said that they want this policy to work.
When it was put to him that Tory MPs fundamentally disagreed, he replied:
They don’t fundamentally disagree. There are disagreements of emphasis. There’s an inch between us, there’s a determination to ensure that the policy works.
He claimed that the bill would have a 94% deterrent effect on small boat crossings. In his interview on the Today programme, he claimed the Rwanda policy could have the same impact as the PM’s deal with Albania, which has led to a big increase in returns to Albania. When Mishal Husain insisted the two policies were very different (because Albanians are being returned to their home country), Tomlinson persisted with the analogy. He said the Rwanda policy would “start off with small numbers” and then move into the thousands. He said nearly 6,000 Albanians had been deported. Asked when 6,000 people would be sent to Rwanda, he refused to say. But he went on:
We have seen the deterrent effect working in relation to Albania. Albanians crossing on small boats has reduced not by 90%, not by 93%, but 94% as a result of the measures and the steps that have taken. That is exactly the same principle.
When Husain put it to him, again, that the Albanian scheme was very different, Tomlinson insisted the deterrent principle was the same. He went on:
It’s a different country, it’s the same principle. It is the deterrent principle that is working and that is in effect 94% of those coming from Albania. We will see the same deterrent effect.
How long will it take for migrants to be sent to Rwanda if Rishi Sunak's bill gets royal assent?
— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) January 17, 2024
Michael Tomlinson, illegal migration minister, tells @MishalHusain this process will take time and will begin with small numbers of migrants initially.#R4Today
Updated
Minister says Whitehall rules could be changed to confirm ECHR injunctions should not stop Rwanda flights
Good morning. Rishi Sunak faces another difficult day over his Rwanda bill, but it seems much more likely than not that by the time he goes to bed he will have got the legislation through the House of Commons unamended.
Even CCHQ would find it hard to present that as a triumph. Sixty Conservative MPs opposed the government in one of the votes last night, in the biggest rebellion of Sunak’s premiership, three people resigned from party or government positions, the bill still has to get through the House of Lords, and, even if it does become law, you would have to be very generous to say No 10 has made a convincing case to show that it will work.
But getting the bill past third reading in these circumstances would be a lot, lot better than losing and No 10 seem confident they will win the final vote. According to the Commons website, the government has a working majority of 54 and so if 60 Tory MPs were to vote against, or even if all of them just abstained, the majority would vanish. But only around a dozen or so have said they will vote against and most of them are likely to vote with the government (including Lee Anderson, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Stevenson, the three people who resigned yesterday so they could vote in favour of rebel amendments, according to Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt).
Faced with a choice between a Rwanda bill they believe is too weak, and no Rwanda bill at all, a possible no confidence vote in Sunak (which he would probably win), and an increased chance of an early election, Conservative MPs seem minded to reject the self-destruct option. This is not the way they have always behaved in recent years, and it is why Sunak may conclude that the outcome could be a lot worse. He is likely to feel more satisfied by the end of the day than the hardline, ERG rightwingers who brought down Theresa May’s Brexit deal and said explicitly they wanted to do the same to the Rwanda bill.
Today MPs will be discussing amendments including the one from Robert Jenrick intended to ensure that the government really does ignore European court of human rights’ injunctions saying deportation flights should not be allowed to take off. Sunak has said in principle he is willing to do this. But he has not given a cast-iron assurance that in all circumstances he would.
Why not? Probably because of the attorney general, Victoria Prentis, who has reportedly said that if a minister actually does ignore one of the injunctions (rather than just declaring they might), that would be in breach of international law. And breaking international law is a breach of the ministerial code.
Michael Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, was doing the morning interview round and he offered the Tory rebels an olive branch on this point. He said the government is considering changing the civil service code to say that government can ignore these injunctions, which would mean officials could not ignore them by citing the international law argument. Asked to confirm that was the case, he told the Today programme:
We are looking at that. What happens at the moment is that civil servants advise, ministers decide, and then our excellent civil servants go on and effect and carry out those policies. But, yes, we are looking to see what can be done to strengthen and reassure.
I will post more on his interviews shortly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Noon: Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Noon: The Northern Ireland assembly is being recalled because Sinn Féin wants a debate on public sector pay ahead of a planned mass strike tomorrow. But it is expected that a full sitting will not be possible because the DUP, which has been boycotting power sharing for almost two years, will continue to block the election of a speaker.
After 12.45pm: MPs resume their debate on the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill. Up to six hours is set aside for the rest of the committee stage debate, and then – if no amendments are passed – up to another hour is set aside for the third reading debate. So the final vote could be mid-evening.
1pm: David Cameron, the foreign secretary, takes part in a discussion at Davos with his Ukrainian counterpart, Dmytro Kuleba. Later, at 4.30pm, Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, takes part in a discussion on growth. Graeme Wearden is covering all the Davos event on his business live blog.
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.
Updated
