Key events
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.
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.
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.
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 demnentia research is being doubled.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 countries, and most of those who have returned were people in prison, not small boat arrivals), 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?
Michael Tomlinson, illegal migration minister, tells @MishalHusain this process will take time and will begin with small numbers of migrants initially.#R4Today
— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) January 17, 2024
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).
Face 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 interntaional 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.