Rishi Sunak faces new Rwanda revolt from Tory left in fresh party turmoil - live

Conservative MP Danny Kruger (Devizes) told the Commons: “I regret we’ve got an unsatisfactory Bill, I can’t undertake to support it tonight, I hope the Government would agree to pull the Bill and allow us to work with them and colleagues across the House to produce a better Bill – one that respects parliamentary sovereignty and also satisfies the very legitimate concerns of colleagues about vulnerable individuals.

“I think we can do better on safe and legal routes, for instance. We should be working together with other countries to design a system that respects the sovereignty of Parliament and the legitimate rule of independent nations.”

Mr Kruger earlier said he is not calling for the UK “at this stage” to depart from the European Convention on Human Rights, adding: “If the European Court were to disagree with the actions of the Government and they issued a substantive ruling to that effect, then we begin a process of conversation with them about that and we decide how exactly we might comply or, if we have to, depart.”

Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke (Dover) said she believes the Bill “in its current form” will not change the Supreme Court view that Rwanda is not acceptable.

Rishi Sunak is willing to listen to suggestions put forward by MPs regarding the Safety of Rwanda Bill after Tuesday evening’s second reading vote, No 10 has suggested.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said the UK Government needed to be “mindful” of the Rwandan government collapsing the asylum seeker scheme if it became uncomfortable with the Bill’s direction, following calls from right-wing Conservative MPs for the legislation to be tightened.

Asked whether the current Bill is at the limits of what Kigali would accept, Mr Sunak’s spokesman said: “The Rwandan government’s position is in relation to the international law elements.

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

“Those conversations are ongoing.”

He said the Government’s focus was on ensuring the Bill passed a vote in the Commons on Tuesday.

Conservative former minister Sir Conor Burns told the Commons: “I will support the Government today because I think the Government deserve credit for attempting to try and deliver their promises to the British people on the boats.

“We are seeing far too many people coming in here without the necessary checks who are then doing things in this country that are deeply unwelcome.”

He cited the killing of one of his constituents by an asylum seeker, and having argued that both parties have pledged to address the issue of illegal immigration, said: “We have got to be straight with the British people, if we say we are going to do something we have got to do it, and we’ve got to try every means at our disposal to deliver directly for the British people.”

Conservative former home secretary Dame Priti Patel told the Commons: “There have been measures that have passed through this House, including the Nationality and Borders Act where measures have not been implemented … which actually would save the courts a lot of time and effort.”

She added: “It’s really important ,… that we press upon on the Government now to go backwards to go forwards, to bring in these measures that have been passed through Acts of Parliament already and, dare I say it, there may be some in the legislation that’s come since.”

Sir Chris Bryant laid out five reasons he believed were why MPs should vote against Rishi Sunak‘s Rwanda bill during a debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 December.

The Labour MP for Rhondda described the emergency legislation as “laughable” and said it “seeks to reverse a finding of fact by the highest court in the land.”

The prime minister published new planned legislation, entitled the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which would deem Rwanda safe in British law after the original bill was struck down as unlawful by the Supreme Court.

A vote on the bill was scheduled for 7pm on Tuesday.

Holly Patrick reports:

Sir Robert Buckland said he would withdraw support for the Bill in future if it is amended to invite “courts to come on up if you are hard enough”.

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

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

He went on: “If this Bill is to be amended in a way that crosses that line, then I cannot support that, and I will not support that.”

Labour former minister Sir Chris Bryant, meanwhile, claimed the Bill “creates a legal fiction”.

He said: “According to the Bill, Rwanda is safe even if it isn’t safe simply because the Government, through the Bill, says it is safe. But declaring somewhere safe doesn’t make it of itself safe. You can no more change reality by law or legal dictate than you can by mere imagination.”

Sir Bob Neill, the Conservative chairman of the Commons’ justice committee, said he would vote for the Bill, but would not support it in future if changes from the Tory right were accepted.

Bromley and Chislehurst MP Sir Bob told MPs: “After a good deal of hesitation I shall support this Bill tonight, but it is a hesitation that has been real, because for me it goes as close to the wind as one can constitutionally do.”

He added: “It is a novel and unusual approach. We are dealing with an unusual and pressing situation. Therefore, I think straining of the sinews of what is acceptable can just be justified, but equally the idea that legislation is the sole or even the principal solution to this is, I think, wrong.”

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

“I don’t believe that is the Government’s intention, so I will help them to get the Bill through tonight, but they must be wary of some who do not have the best of objectives towards the Government’s policy who might take it in the wrong direction. Let’s not get there.”

Later, as Labour former minister Sir Chris Bryant mentioned amendments by Tory grandee Sir Bill Cash as the source of Sir Bob’s concerns, he could be seen nodding in agreement.

Yvette Cooper took a Christmas-themed jab at Prime Minister Rishi Sunak today in the House of Commons (12 December).

The Shadow Home Secretary was speaking during the debate on the Rwanda bill when she called Mr Sunak weak in regards to his immigration plan.

She then likened him to a Christmas turkey, prompting laughs from those around her.

“He’s hoping his party is going to calm down over Christmas... but they all know who the Christmas turkey is and he’s sitting in Number 10,” taunted the Labour MP.

Rhys Jones reports:

Conservative former attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox has advised colleagues that the Bill would “collapse” if they removed the right of individuals to access a court.

Sir Geoffrey told the Commons: “This Bill carefully preserves the right of individuals to come to court in extreme cases of individual justice.”

He added: “We cannot sacrifice the principle of access to a court. If we eliminate it entirely, not only would this Bill collapse because it will be interminably impeded in the House of Lords, it will probably lead to the Rwandan government withdrawing and it’s conceivable the courts themselves may entertain for the first time a complex challenge of the right of this Parliament to do away with fundamental constitutional principles, such as access to a court.”

Sir Geoffrey added to colleagues: “I understand the frustration and the deep and intense dissatisfaction at the current situation, I share it, I think there are tightenings that we can do, particularly on rule 39.

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

Conservative MP Sir Bill Cash (Stone) earlier said: “We want the Government to succeed in its legislation but it has to be legislation that works.”

Sir Bill said there is a need to have a debate about the relationship between international law and parliamentary sovereignty.

Robert Jenrick claimed it was a difficult decision to resign as immigration minister, and suggested it was his concerns over the responsibility to “protect our borders” which made him act.

As he began his first Commons speech since resigning from the Government, the Tory former minister said: “The decision to leave office is always a difficult one. The decision to disagree with the Prime Minister, someone who I want to support in good times and bad, is always a difficult one.

“But politicians are sent here to make difficult decisions. No one is forced to be a minister, and with high office comes responsibility – and no responsibility is greater than that to protect our borders and to secure us from untold damage as a result of mass illegal migration.”

He said the Government had made “huge progress as a country over the last year” on tackling mass migration, adding: “The plan that the Prime Minister set out a year ago is working. It is the most comprehensive plan of any European country and we just heard from the Opposition that they have no plan at all.

“They said that even if the Rwanda scheme was working, even if it was having the deterrent effect that we all want, they would still scrap it, because ultimately they don’t believe in border security and they cannot be trusted to protect our brooders.

“But this problem isn’t going away, this is going to be one of the defining issues of the 21st century. There are millions of people on the move.”