Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Rishi Sunak quelled a rightwing Conservative revolt on Wednesday as a majority of would-be rebels to his flagship Rwanda bill indicated they would vote with the government on its crucial third reading.
Sunak had been hit by the biggest rebellion of his premiership on Tuesday after 60 Tory MPs backed an amendment to “toughen up” the proposed bill by blocking asylum seekers appealing against removal under international human rights law.
Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith resigned as Tory deputy chairs before they were sacked in order to vote for the amendment, as did Jane Stevenson, formerly a ministerial aide.
Sunak — who won Tuesday’s vote thanks to the backing of Labour and other opposition parties — faces another crunch vote on Wednesday evening on the bill as a whole.
The so-called five families of rightwing Tory factions held a meeting on Wednesday afternoon in which the majority of the 45 people present indicated they would give Sunak their backing, according to a spokesperson for the rebels.
“A small number will vote against but it will probably pass quite comfortably,” they said, adding that the feeling in the room was that the “bill was as good as it could be” given the leanings of the government.
Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger, who lead the rightwing New Conservatives group, wrote to members of their caucus earlier on Wednesday saying they intended to vote against the bill.
If it becomes law, the highly contentious Rwanda bill will see migrants who arrived in the UK by small boat sent to the central African country to have their asylum requests processed.
The government believes this would act as a strong deterrent, as it seeks to convince voters that it will cut irregular migration ahead of the election this year.
The bill is a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in November that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful because the country was not safe for asylum seekers.
Rwandan president Paul Kagame said on Wednesday that there were limits on how long his country would wait for flights to bring migrants from the UK, adding that “if they don’t come, we can return the money”.
Yolande Makolo, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, later said that “under the terms of the agreement, Rwanda has no obligation to return any of the funds paid”.
She added: “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.”
The UK has so far sent £240mn to Kigali for the scheme.
Asked about Kagame’s comments, a Downing Street spokesperson said “our focus is on securing the progress of the bill through the house and we’re confident in our ability to do that”.
MPs will vote on further amendments to the legislation on Wednesday evening, including one put forward by Robert Jenrick, who resigned as immigration minister last month.
Jenrick’s amendment would compel ministers to ignore injunctions by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against sending asylum seekers to Rwanda while their appeal goes through the courts.
The government has offered a series of concessions in the hope of staving off further revolt.
These include a commitment to publish guidance stating that civil servants would not breach the Civil Service code, which sets rules on how public officials should conduct themselves, if ministers overruled ECHR injunctions.
Previously, civil servants had deferred the removal of asylum seekers when they received such orders from judges in Strasbourg, which are also known as “pyjama injunctions” because they are typically issued at the last-minute and often late at night.
Sir Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, wrote to the cabinet secretary Simon Case to confirm that he had updated his department’s guidance to instruct officials to “proceed with removal if the relevant minister approves that course of action” following notification of an injunction, known formally as a Rule 39 order.
The move sparked criticism from Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA union that represents senior officials.
“Civil servants come to work expecting to serve the government of the day, regardless of their own politics,” Penman said on X, adding: “They do not expect to be told to break international law in order to resolve internal party disputes, as the new guidance on ECHR rulings does.”
Register for the FT’s subscriber webinar on January 24 2024 (1300-1400 UK time) on The Migration Debate: a challenge for liberal democracies?
Credit: Source link
