Closing summary
Here is a round-up of the day’s headlines from Westminster:
Rishi Sunak said migrants arriving in the UK illegally will be removed “within weeks” as the government unveiled plans for fresh laws to curb Channel crossings. The prime minister also confirmed the Illegal Migration Bill – to stop people claiming asylum in the UK if they arrive through unauthorised means – will apply “retrospectively” if passed. Unveiling the plans in the Commons earlier, home secretary Suella Braverman said asylum seekers arriving illegally will be detained and face a lifetime ban on returning after they are removed.
Sunak, who visited Dover in Kent earlier in the day to mark the announcement, said the laws will make it “clear that if you come here illegally, you can’t claim asylum”. He added: “You can’t benefit from our modern slavery protection, you can’t make serious human rights claims and you can’t stay. We will detain those who come here illegally and then remove them in weeks, either to their own country if it is safe to do so or to a safe third country like Rwanda.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the government has promised to address this problem before. But it has failed, she said, and crossings are at a record level. Convictions of smugglers have halved, and the backlog of asylum applications has grown. The system is in chaos, she added. She said Labour has a serious plan to get the National Crime Agency to stop the people smugglers and to speed up the processing of asylum applications.
The UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR, said it is “profoundly concerned” by the Bill and that, if passed, it will amount to an “asylum ban”, making it a “clear breach of the Refugee Convention”. It said in a statement: “The legislation, if passed, would amount to an asylum ban – extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances.”
The former home secretary Jack Straw believes there is a “very grave risk” that the government’s small boats policy could break the UN convention on human rights. The former Labour politician also told The News Agents podcast that it is “likely” that the European court of human rights will act against the government on the policy.
Sir Graham Brady, whose role as chair of the Conservative party’s 1922 Committee saw him usher three prime ministers out of Downing Street in four years, is to step down as an MP at the next election. Arguably the most powerful backbencher of his political generation, Brady released a statement to his local newspaper saying it was time to “bring this fascinating and fulfilling chapter of my life to a close”.
Europe minister Leo Docherty has told a Lords committee the government is considering expanding the Turing programme, the UK’s post-Brexit overseas study scheme. Asked if the government would consider linking up with Erasmus Plus, the EU scheme which the UK left when Brexit came into force told the House of Lords European affairs committee, Docherty told peers that the government that it was among the moves that was “under consideration”.
Mike Gapes, the former Labour MP who quit the party over Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership to set up Change UK with a few colleagues, has announced that his is rejoining the party. In an article for the Times, he says: “Leaving Labour was one of the hardest decisions I have ever had to make. So, I am not coming back lightly. But I know in my heart and in my head that this is the right decision. The country can once again trust and believe in the Labour party.”
Thanks for following along today. The UK politics live blog will be back tomorrow. Goodbye for now.
Rishi Sunak’s government has been accused of “extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the UK” by the United Nations refugee agency after the introduction of a contentious new law to stop small boats from crossing the Channel.
After Suella Braverman was forced to admit that the illegal migration bill was “more than 50%” likely to break human rights laws, the UNHCR said it was “profoundly concerned” by the bill’s provisions, which give the government the right to criminalise, detain and deport asylum seekers, saying it would be a “clear breach of the refugee convention”.
RMT union suspends all Network Rail strikes after receiving new pay offer
The RMT union says it has suspended all industrial action for Network Rail workers after receiving a new pay offer. In a statement it said it would give further updates in the coming days.
The RMT national executive committee has taken the decision to suspend all industrial action on Network Rail following receipt of a new offer from the employer
Further updates will be given on all aspects of the national rail dispute in the coming days.
Updated
The government messaging on its new bill has drawn criticism for its confusing language.
Rishi Sunak’s Twitter account posted this as he was taking to the podium in Downing Street.
If you come to the UK illegally:
— Rishi Sunak (@RishiSunak) March 7, 2023
➡️ You can’t claim asylum
➡️ You can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections
➡️ You can’t make spurious human rights claims
➡️ You can’t stay pic.twitter.com/026oSvKoJZ
The image appears to say “if you come to the UK illegally you will be DENIED access to the UK’s modern slavery system”.
Various political journalists have been baffled:
This is one of the most unintentionally baffling pieces of government comms I have ever seen pic.twitter.com/6nfjyBa952
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) March 7, 2023
You think you can come over her and be a modern slave? Think again buster!
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) March 7, 2023
"Denied access to the UK's modern slavery system".
— Kevin Schofield (@KevinASchofield) March 7, 2023
Does no one read these tweets before they get sent? https://t.co/3rQNdKLl4O
Updated
Suella Braverman was unable to confirm earlier today if her new bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. But the government inserted what is called a section 19(1)(b) statement into the bill, which indicates that the government intends to proceed.
Alexander Horne, a former parliamentary lawyer, has described such a statement as a “big red flashing light”. He said: “Let’s say that this bill gets on the statute book. What you’re eventually doing is saying, well, the domestic courts will issue a declaration of incompatibility saying that this isn’t compatible with our convention rights but because it’s primary legislation they can’t overrule it, they just have to go along with it.
“So it will then go to Strasbourg because you’ve exhausted your domestic remedies and you’re effectively giving quite strong signalling to Strasbourg saying read the convention in this way or if you don’t, tonight, you’re setting up a conflict with the UK.”
There remains the suspicion among lawyers that the government is setting up a confrontation with “lefty lawyers” and Strasbourg, who they can then blame for failure to implement the measures. Horne said it was highly unlikely to be on the statute books before the next election. “If you ask me, and this isn’t a legal opinion, it’s entirely a sort of political view, he [Rishi Sunak] is doing this to generate headlines,” he said. “I think the government thinks that banging on about Strasbourg is a new version of banging on about Europe.”
Médecins Sans Frontières condemns 'dangerous' and 'utterly cruel' illegal migration bill
Médecins Sans Frontières, the international medical charity, has joined the UN refugee agency and human rights groups in condemning the illegal migration bill, calling it “dangerous” and “utterly cruel”.
“The idea that people will be rapidly returned or expelled to Rwanda is not realistic, and so we anticipate that thousands of people will become stuck indefinitely after arrival to the UK, where there is no clear plan to accommodate them,” said Natalie Roberts, the executive director of MSF UK.
MSF says the plans “are particularly concerning given that there are virtually no safe and legal routes for people from the vast majority of countries to reach the UK”.
“We know, and this government knows too, that this utterly cruel legislation will not stop people fleeing violence, persecution and other hardships.”
Updated
Emmanuel Macron and Rishi Sunak will meet in Paris on Friday with small boats crossing the Channel high on the agenda.
Britain has long claimed France is not doing enough to stop the crossings, which rose from 8,000 in 2018 to 45,000-plus last year after tighter security at the Channel tunnel and ports made it almost impossible to cross by train, truck or ferry.
After the deaths of 31 people in the Channel when their inflatable boat sank in November 2021, then PM Boris Johnson said it was clear that French operations to stop the boats leaving “haven’t been enough”, despite £55m of British financial support. But France rejects that, blaming people smugglers in the UK and Germany while also noting that the UK already receives fewer applications than most EU countries – 75,000 last year, against 180,000 in France.
Under the 2004 Le Touquet agreement, France and the UK operate reciprocal border controls in each other’s countries, making the small boat crossings – in principle, at least – France’s problem.
There are no official calls to tear up the treaty. But French officials have suggested Britain should set up an asylum processing centre in northern France so claims could be processed there, allowing people to travel legally to the UK if accepted.
Plans to detain and remove people who arrive “irregularly” – such as in small boats – unveiled by the home secretary, Suella Braverman, have been reported in France as showing Britain “deliberately flirting with the limits of international law”.
The Marine Traffic app is an essential download for all those who scan the Dover shoreline for signs of small boats – everyone from officials in the home secretary’s office to self-styled “migrant hunters” who prowl the Kent coast.
On Tuesday there were no light blue ship icons on the app in the middle of the Channel, which indicate dinghy-related activity from UK Border Force cutters or French navy ships. The sky above the shore was heavy and almost pure white. Snow was forecast, the temperature was barely above zero and the sea was choppy.
After a week with no crossings, 197 people crossed on Monday in five boats. The latest plans unveiled by the home secretary in parliament, to detain people on arrival without access to bail or judicial review and initiating discussions in Strasbourg about use of the European court of human rights powers – will, according to her, stop the boats. She repeated her battle cry of “enough is enough”.
Updated
The prime minister defended the government’s new bill in a press conference, arguing he had been left no choice but to adopt the “tough” new laws to deter attempts at illegal entry to the UK.
“We have tried it every other way and it has not worked,” Rishi Sunak told reporters.
He added:
My policy is very simple; it is this country and your government who should decide who comes here, and not criminal gangs.
Updated
The former home secretary Jack Straw believes there is a “very grave risk” that the government’s small boats policy could break the UN convention on human rights.
The former Labour politician also told The News Agents podcast that it is “likely” that the European court of human rights will act against the government on the policy.
He said:
I think it’s highly probable. It’s not for me to say, but I think that that is a very grave risk … I think that in practice, this government will find it really, really difficult to enforce its policy here.
Of course, there’s the whole issue of the European court of human rights and the British Conservative government is signed up to the Human Rights Act. I took that through the House of Commons 25 years ago. It’s worth remembering that when that Act was going through parliament, initially the Conservatives opposed it, and then changes were made.
And then they agreed its terms. They supported this, and they’ve always said they don’t wish to withdraw from the European convention or the Council of Europe. Well, that court, the European court of human rights in Strasbourg can take action against the government, and I think likely will.
Updated
The president of the Law Society of England and Wales, Lubna Shuja, has said the society has concerns regarding the lack of consultation on the bill.
She said it would “analyse carefully whether these principles have guided the government’s drafting of this bill”.
In a statement, she said:
However, we are concerned that there has been no public consultation, including with lawyers, to ensure the bill is workable, provides due process for those claiming asylum or is compliant with international law.
The government has already conceded the bill may not comply with international human rights law (European convention on human rights) and questions remain about compatibility with the UN refugee convention.
The rule of law is undermined if the UK government takes the view that laws – international or domestic – can be broken. If a government breaks laws, it breaks trust with its own citizens and with international partners.
We will be carefully combing the detail of this bill to determine whether it will lead to the Home Office delivering a fair and workable process, and seeking clarity from the government on whether it is compatible with the UK’s international obligations.
Britain should have an asylum system that is fair and fit for purpose. It should make decisions – which have a profound impact on people’s lives – in line with our international commitments.
Updated
The bishop of Durham, Paul Butler, has said the illegal migration bill is “likely to push thousands of people” into a “prolonged legal limbo and imprisonment”.
In a statement issued in response to the bill, he said:
No one wants to see people risking their lives to reach safety, but we must ask is this bill the right response – one that is built on compassion, justice and moral leadership?
It’s likely to push thousands of people, including children, into a prolonged legal limbo and imprisonment, and does nothing to support timely and effective consideration of asylum requests.
It would label all those crossing the Channel illegal entrants and therefore people to whom we do not owe a responsibility and would criminalise the act of claiming asylum – without acknowledging that many are highly vulnerable people escaping persecution and war, who have been left with no safe routes. Providing safe and legal routes is part of the solution and not one to only be explored after Channel crossings have ended.
The home secretary acknowledges the growing global refugee crisis, which we can’t solve on our own, but it is disappointing that the government has decided to not take on a greater role in leading the world to equitably support those forced to flee their home.
The consequences of this will be felt by vulnerable migrants, and by poorer countries in the global south already supporting the vast majority of the world’s refugees.
We must not abdicate our legal and moral responsibility to some of the world’s most vulnerable by simply treating asylum seekers as a group not to be welcomed or integrated, but detained and returned. We must do and be better.
Updated
UNHCR 'profoundly concerned' by government's asylum bill
The UN refugee agency has said it is “profoundly concerned” by the asylum bill introduced by the government today.
UNHCR says that the bill, in its current form, “compels the home secretary to deny access to the UK asylum system to those who arrive irregularly”.
In a statement, the agency said asylum seekers would be subject to detention in the UK, while arrangements are pursued to remove them to another country.
The statement read:
The legislation, if passed, would amount to an asylum ban – extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances.
The effect of the bill (in this form) would be to deny protection to many asylum-seekers in need of safety and protection, and even deny them the opportunity to put forward their case. This would be a clear breach of the Refugee Convention and would undermine a longstanding, humanitarian tradition of which the British people are rightly proud.
Most people fleeing war and persecution are simply unable to access the required passports and visas. There are no safe and “legal” routes available to them. Denying them access to asylum on this basis undermines the very purpose for which the Refugee Convention was established. The convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.
Based on the Home Office’s most recently published data, the vast majority of those arriving to the UK in small boats over the Channel would be accepted as refugees were their claims to be determined. Branding refugees as undeserving based on mode of arrival distorts these fundamental facts.
It added:
We urge the government, and all MPs and peers, to reconsider the bill and instead pursue more humane and practical policy solutions.
Sunak says the announcement about the Rwanda scheme had a deterrent effect on people in the camps in France.
And the signs are “very promising” from Albania. Hundreds of people have been returned, and that is having an impact.
Sunak says if people know that if they come here illegally, they can’t stay, that will break the cycle.
It would not be right not to try to stop this.
With will and determination and creativity, we will be able to grip this problem.
He says he will keep working until he has stopped the boats.
And that’s it. The press conference has finished.
My colleague Tom Ambrose is now taking over.
Updated
Sunak says he still has confidence in cabinet secretary Simon Case, despite WhatsApp revelations
Q: Do you think the European court of human rights has overstepped the mark?
Sunak says the rule 39 process (for injunctions) by the ECHR is opaque. The government cannot appeal or challenge. The process needs to be made fairer, he says.
He says in the past the UK managed to get some changes agreed to this process, in the Brighton declaration.
Q: Do you still have confidence in Simon Case?
Sunak says he has not read all the Case WhatsApp messages published by the Daily Telegraph. But he does a great job. He looks forward to working with him “for a long time to come”.
Updated
Sunak says he does not want to detain people for a long period of time.
The bill will change the process to stop the need for that.
He says most people are now making a modern slavery claim. (See 3.40pm.) The government is changing the rules to stop that.
Updated
Q: The home secretary says she is not confident that the bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act. Are you up for the fight with lawyers? And what is plan B if you lose?
Sunak says of course he is up for the fight.
And he says there is nothing wrong with passing a bill with a section 19 (1) (b) statement. The last Labour government passed a bill with one of these statements attached.
If the government is challenged, it will fight back hard.
Many people said the Rwanda policy was wrong. But the high court said it was lawful. There will be an appeal in about a month’s time.
Q: Do you accept you will need President Macron’s cooperation to succeed? And what can you offer him?
Sunak says he needs to cooperate, not just with France, but with other allies.
He has agreed a 40% increase in patrols on French beaches with the French. He is very grateful to the French for that.
On Friday, when he meets Macron, they will discuss tightening that cooperation.
Countries like France, Germany and Italy are also looking at tightening their immigration laws. It will help if they work together, he says.
Q: Do you still have faith in Sue Gray’s Partygate report?
Sunak says the Cabinet Office is going to review the circumstances of Gray’s resignation. He will not comment further.
Q: Five years ago the home secretary said he would stop small boats. What went wrong?
Sunak says he does not want to dwell on the past. The situation has got worse. And it is not just in the UK. It is a Europe-wide problem. Europe saw a 63% increase in illegal immigration last year.
He says success will involve seeing the numbers come down.
But there is no one silver bullet, he says. As well as the legislation, there has to be cooperation with allies, and more immigration enforcement.
He says he is already making progress. People can judge him on results.
Q: How is it compatible with the British traditions of compassion that you are going to incarcerate asylum seekers? You don’t have agreements with third countries for their return?
Sunak says this country has always been welcoming. Half a million people have been welcomed since 2015. Everyone should be “incredibly proud” of that.
There is nothing compassionate about allowing vulnerable people to perish, he says.
He says the legislation is a “necessary step” towards being able to return people. Hundreds of people are being returned to Albania.
Britain should be focusing its compassion on the most vulnerable people, he says.
Sunak is now taking questions.
Q: If you haven’t stopped the boats by the time of the election, will you have failed?
Sunak says he has thought “long and hard” about this problem and he would not be standing here if he did not think this would work.
The legislation is important. But it is just one of many things needed. More cooperation with the French is needed too.
Albania accounted for around a third of illegal migrants last year. But now hundreds of Albanians are being returned, and the number of people coming from Albania is going down.
Updated
PM says 'we have tried every other way and it has not worked'
Sunak says there will be a debate about the toughness of these measures.
I understand there will be debate about the toughness of these measures.
All I can say is that we have tried it every other way … and it has not worked.
So I say again: my policy is very simple, it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs.
And I will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.
Updated
Sunak claims fall in number of arrivals from Albania shows problem can be solved
Sunak says this is a complex problem. It won’t be solved overnight. The government will have to use every tool at its disposal.
He has agreed a deal with France, increased raids for “illegal migrants”, and reached an agreement with Albania. Deterrence works. And with will and determination, the government can get on top of this, he says.
He says this is a welcoming country. But the current situation is neither moral nor sustainable.
The government is spending £6m a day on putting people up in hotels.
The system is unfair on people who come here legally, or who want to come here legally, he says.
UPDATE: Sunak said:
I’ve also negotiated a new deal with Albania, which accounted for a third of all small boats arrivals.
And that’s already delivering. We’ve returned 500 illegal migrants to Albania and we are seeing far fewer come as a result.
This shows that there is nothing inevitable about illegal migration.
Deterrence works, and with will and determination, the government can get on top of it – and we will.
That does give me the confidence that deterrence can work.
Updated
Rishi Sunak starts by saying he is introducing new legislation “to keep my promise to you”. (He is addressing the public, not the journalists in the room.)
People on small boats are not fleeing an imminent threat to life. They are coming to the UK for a better life.
They pay the people smugglers because they know the system can be exploited. They can make spurious claims to frustrate their removal.
He repeats the claim that there are 100 million displaced people around the world who might want to come to the UK. (See 12.45pm.)
That is why the government is saying, if you come here illegally, you will be removed.
And once you are removed, you will be banned from entering the country again, as in America and Australia.
Updated
Rishi Sunak to hold press conference
Rishi Sunak is about to hold a conference.
As the Sun’s Natasha Clark reports, he will be standing at a lectern with “stop the boats” on it.
New podium... pic.twitter.com/FnYBXQCfTy
— Natasha Clark (@NatashaC) March 7, 2023
It is a bold move given that most experts in this field believe that his bill will not stop the small boats. Perhaps he is supremely confident, or knows something we don’t? Or perhaps he just thinks he will get credit with the electorate for trying.
Updated
As the BBC’s Dominic Casciani reports, in a letter to MPs Suella Braverman has said the the section 19 (1) (b) statement on the face of the bill (see 4.12pm) means there is a more than 50% chance that the bill is not compliant with the Human Rights Act. But she also said she was confident the bill was compatible with international law.
Home Secretary's letter to all MPs admits that her illegal immigration bill is *more likely to fail than withstand legal challenge*. (That's the maths behind 'more than 50% chance'). Screengrab of relevant bit: pic.twitter.com/0TKQ3n8l4e
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) March 7, 2023
Jonathan Jones, a former head of the government’s legal department, argues that what Braverman is saying does not make sense.
Ministers are entitled to take legal risks. And s19(1)(b) is there for a reason. But I’m not sure how you can think you’re more likely than not to lose if challenged under the HRA *AND* be “confident” that what you’re doing is compatible with the ECHR
— Jonathan Jones (@SirJJKC) March 7, 2023
Jones resigned in September 2020 over a government plan to pass legislation that would break international law. The attorney general at the time who approved it was Suella Braverman.
Tory 1922 Committee chair Graham Brady to stand down as MP at next election
Sir Graham Brady, whose role as chair of the Conservative party’s 1922 Committee saw him usher three prime ministers out of Downing Street in four years, is to step down as an MP at the next election.
Arguably the most powerful backbencher of his political generation, Brady released a statement to his local newspaper saying it was time to “bring this fascinating and fulfilling chapter of my life to a close”.
Brady, the MP for Altrincham and Sale West in Greater Manchester since the constituency was created in 1997, has never held ministerial office but has chaired the committee that represents Tory backbenchers since 2010.
During that time he observed four prime ministerial departures – David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss – and subsequent elections for a successor, and in three of the cases played a pivotal role in their resignations.
As chair of the 1922 Committee, Brady is the custodian of any Tory MPs’ letters of no confidence in the prime minister, and if 15% of their contingent submit one, a confidence vote is held.
As the letters mounted against the four prime ministers, Brady would be pursued around Westminster by TV crews asking for a running tally, which he would never divulge, responding only with inscrutable bonhomie.
In his statement, Brady said colleagues had “given me the unique opportunity of chairing the 1922 Committee for longer than anyone else in its 100-year history”, and that he would remain in the role until the end of the parliament if they wanted him to. He said:
I will continue to do everything I can to support the Conservative cause and Rishi Sunak. He is bringing both stability and vision as prime minister.
I have decided to bring this fascinating and fulfilling chapter of my life to a close while I am young enough to pursue other opportunities and interests, so I will not be standing at the next election.
One aspect of his decision to stand down could be the shrinking majority in his always slightly marginal seat, now less than half of the 13,000 margin at its peak in 2015.
Charities that work with refugees have also denounced the illegal migration bill.
This is from Katy Chakrabortty, head of policy and advocacy at Oxfam GB.
This bill is yet another example of the UK turning its back on some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Seeking asylum is not a crime, and those forced to flee their homes deserve compassion, dignity and the right to fair treatment. Conflict and persecution do not exist only within the confines of countries that the UK government deems worthy of a visa scheme.
This is from Laura Kyrke-Smith, executive director of the International Rescue Committee UK.
The bill will not stop small boats crossing the Channel. It will only add to the trauma of the people in these boats, while further damaging Britain’s global reputation for fairness and compassion.
And this is from Emma Stevenson, deputy CEO of Choose Love.
Today’s proposed bill reaches new depths of cruelty towards asylum seekers. Displaced people are not criminals, but this bill is punitive in nature. It shirks the European Convention on Human Rights and avoids the UK’s international responsibilities.
Whatever the fate of this Bill, serious damage has already been done. The government today said any opposition to these plans would amount to a ‘betrayal of Britain’. [See 11.51am.] History tells us this demonisation of the vulnerable can lead to catastrophic results.
Rishi Sunak has been visiting the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre in Dover to speak to staff dealing with small boats. Here are some of the pictures.
Green party says it would have safe legal routes for anyone wanting to claim asylum in UK
The Green party says it wants safe legal routes for anyone wanting to make an asylum claim in the UK. This is what Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said in a statement about the illegal migration bill.
This is the latest attempt by the Tories to stop desperate people finding sanctuary. Last year three-quarters of all asylum claims were granted. Despite this, the government seems determined to clamp down on those fleeing conflict, persecution or extreme poverty in a host of countries by failing to offer legal routes to the UK. This will force people to continue taking their chances arriving in small boats ….
The Green party is the only party taking a strong stand against this cruel legislation and saying proudly that refugees are welcome. We want to see safe legal routes for anyone wanting to claim asylum. That’s the way to stop small boats making perilous journeys across the channel and break the criminal gangs involved in people smuggling.
In the Commons Suella Braverman repeatedly accused Labour of not wanting to put a limit on the number of people it would allow to enter through safe routes for asylum seekers. She said:
The shadow home secretary talks about safe and legal routes; I wonder what number Labour would cap that at. Would it be 500,000? A million? Five million? [Yvette Cooper] should be honest with the house and with the British people: what she really means is unlimited safe and legal routes – open borders by the back door.
But Labour is not saying it would have unlimited safe routes. It says it would change the system to have “a clearer process for refugees with family connections in the UK to be considered for resettlement”.
Updated
Europe minister Leo Docherty has told a Lords committee the government is considering expanding the Turing programme, the UK’s post-Brexit overseas study scheme.
Asked if the government would consider linking up with Erasmus Plus, the EU scheme which the UK left when Brexit came into force told the House of Lords European affairs committee, Docherty told peers that the government that it was among the moves that was “under consideration”.
He told peers on the European affairs committee he was “delighted” with the “success” of Turing, in which 41,000 students participated in 2021/2022.
But he conceded that second school visits to the UK from EU countries had “dried up” after the government stopped accepting ID cards due to the risk of fraud.
Updated
Here are comments from two left-leaning thinktanks criticising the illegal migration bill.
This is from Harvey Redgrave, the lead home affairs expert at the Tony Blair Institute, and a former deputy head of the strategy unit at No 10.
The illegal migration bill is a soundbite dressed up as a solution and will ultimately join the Rwanda policy on the scrapheap.
The headline pledge - that nobody coming over the Channel will be able to claim asylum - will inevitably be broken.
Without return agreements in place, any new duty on the home secretary is meaningless.
And the continued lack of any focus on enforcement against smuggling gangs or a legal route to claiming asylum will keep illegal migration high while locking out people with genuine claims.
As TBI has previously said, if the government is serious about preventing illegal migration then they should focus on clearing the backlog, increasing the number of returns, introducing a system of digital identity verification and opening up safe and viable routes for asylum claims.
And this is from Marley Morris, associate director for migration, trade and communities at the IPPR.
This bill is both unethical and impractical. As with last year’s Nationality and Border Act, this bill will simply add to the distress of Afghans, Syrians, Iranians and others seeking asylum in the UK, without deterring people from making the journey.
The government can pass law after law, but without a deal with France and new safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum, people will continue to be forced to make the perilous journey across the Channel.
Previous IPPR research into those entering the UK via Channel crossings found that around two-thirds would have a well-founded asylum claim if they were properly considered.
Updated
The full text of the illegal migration bill has been published. It’s here.
Here is the section 19 (1) (b) statement on the face of the bill – the admission that it might not fully comply with the European convention on human rights.
And here are the explanatory notes to the bill.
Updated
Amnesty International UK calls illegal migration bill 'shocking new low for government'
Human rights campaigners have condemned the illegal migration bill.
This is from Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director, Steve Valdez-Symonds.
Attempting to disqualify people’s asylum claims en masse regardless of the strength of their case is a shocking new low for the government.
There is nothing fair, humane or even practical in this plan, and it’s frankly chilling to see ministers trying to remove human rights protections for group of people whom they’ve chosen to scapegoat for their own failures …
Ministers need to focus on the real issue – which is the urgent need to fairly and efficiently decide asylum claims while urgently introducing accessible schemes, so people seeking asylum do not have to rely on people smugglers and dangerous journeys.
And this is from Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director at Human Rights Watch.
This proposal is illegal, unworkable, and utterly inhumane. The UK government is sending a clear message that it is happy to play fast and loose with our international commitments, ram through flawed legislation, and risk stoking fear and hatred in our communities, simply to score political points.
Updated
One of the measures in the illegal migration bill will prevent asylum seekers claiming to be a victim of modern slavery as a means of preventing or delaying their removal.
To coincide with the announcement of the bill, the Home Office has published research showing how the number of asylum seekers being referred to the national referral mechanism (NRM) as potential victims of modern slavery has also increased dramatically in recent years. Here is a chart from the document.
The report says 92% of people referred to the NRM got a positive “reasonable grounds” decision, meaning that they were protected from immediate removal and released from detention pending a full decision being taken.
The report also says that most of the people covered by its analysis have yet to receive a final decision.
Updated
Away from Westminster, the SNP leadership candidate - and current health secretary - Humza Yousaf has been out campaigning in a frosty Glasgow today with university students, pledging to keep young people “at the heart of the yes movement and that he will always reflect their progressive values”.
This came as all three candidates prepare for their first televised debate on STV this evening and many seasoned activists describe the contest as an existential moment for the party, with Yousaf, his closest rival, finance minister Kate Forbes, and outlier Ash Regan offering competing visions for the future of the SNP and the wider yes movement.
Yousaf was stressing his progressive credentials this morning, unsurprisingly given the warnings that youth and LGBT members will leave the party if the socially conservative Forbes wins. Challenged on his position as continuity candidate, and Sturgeon’s preferred successor, he insisted he is “very much my own man” and underlined that the party’s progressive agenda had won successive elections.
Yousaf was joined by the culture minister, Angus Robertson, who was himself considered likely to stand until he ruled himself out of the contest saying he wanted to be “first dad” for his young children.
Robertson adds his name to a lengthy list of endorsements for Yousaf, but party insiders question have much weight these will carry with the wider membership, a largely unknown quantity.
Updated
Nigel Farage says illegal migration bill won't work unless UK leaves European court of human rights
As Ukip leader, Nigel Farage made himself the most successful non-MP British politician of the postwar era by identifying a cause popular with minority fringe in the Conservative party (Brexit) and making it mainstream. In a video message on YouTube, he says Rishi Sunak’s illegal migration bill won’t work because the UK remains a member of the European court of human rights. He says the UK needs to leave, to “complete Brexit”.
⚠️ Can we really deal with small boats if Britain remains in the ECHR?
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) March 7, 2023
➡️ https://t.co/kijDe8568w pic.twitter.com/c897BgpS7z
Updated
Suella Braverman's statement on illegal migration bill - snap verdict
You can read the full text of Suella Braverman’s statement to MPs here. The contents of the bill had been briefed in detail to some papers in advance, and there was no great surprise in what she had to say. (Most of the briefing proved accurate, but there was no mention of the “Strasbourg brake”, the phrase spun to the Sun as a description of the measures in the bill to deal with European court of human rights injunctions under rule 39, doubtless by someone inspired by the “Stormont brake”).
The key question is whether the measures in the bill will prove lawful. Nothing Braverman said helped settle the matter either way. In a rare moment of self-deprecation, she said that “some of the nation’s finest legal minds” were on the case, and that she would not be discussing the complexities herself.
Often what matters most in a Commons statement is how the backbenchers respond, and in this respect the exchanges were revealing. Opposition MPs were outraged (as you would expect), but Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, focused on attacking the practicality of the plans, not their morality.
Much more interesting was the response from Conservative MPs. None of them spoke against the plans. But there was a notable absence from the one nation types, who may feel queasy about this.
And while other Tories were supportive, there were repeated suggestions that the bill on its own won’t work without a commitment to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Mark Francois, one of the most hardline Brexiters in the last parliament, was the most outspoken (see 1.25pm), but there were other voices too. Today’s exchanges sounded like the opening skirmishes in a Tory war over whether the UK should leave another international body with “European” in its title.
Updated
The statement is now over. Suella Braverman was taking questions for one hour and 50 minutes.
Patrick Grady (SNP) asks Braverman if she has ever met anyone who came to the UK on a small boat to asks about their hopes for the future, or looked them in the eye to say they are not welcome.
Braverman ignores the question and says the bill provides a pragmatic solution.
Updated
Tom Hunt (Con) claims Keir Starmer once said there was a “racist undercurrent” under UK asylum law.
Braverman says Labour policy on immigration involves “total disregard for what the British people want”.
Braverman repeats her claim that Labour is in favour of “open borders”. She says Labour would ensure “illegal migration continues through the back door”.
Carol Monaghan (SNP) says in her constituency businesses cannot find employees, but asylum seekers cannot work. When will the home secretary get realistic?
Braverman says people coming to the UK through some schemes can work.
John Stevenson (Con) asks for an immediate moratorium on the use of hotels for asylum seekers.
Braverman says the Home Office is under a legal duty to provide accommodation for asylum seekers.
Scott Benton (Con) says it is “completely unacceptable” that a foreign court can constrain what the government does. Can the government assure him these measures will be implemented without interference from foreign judges?
Braverman says the bill covers the rule 39 process (which means the bill should limit the ability of injunctions from the European court of human rights to block deportations). And she says the high court said the Rwanda policy was lawful.
Updated
Luke Pollard (Lab) asks if LGBT asylum seekers may be sent back to countries where they may be persecuted because of their sexuality, or whether they will be sent to Rwanda, where the Foreign Office says LGBT people face discrimination.
Braverman ignores the question, and says if people are claiming asylum from a safe country, they should not be coming to the UK
Updated
Back in the Commons Jonathan Gullis (Con) says his constituents will welcome the bill, but would welcome it even more if the government said it would derogate from the ECHR. He attacks Labour, and asks when will hotels in his constituency be cleared of asylum seekers?
Braverman backs what Gullis says about Labour, but ignores his question about hotels.
Updated
The Home Office’s press release about the bill is now on its website.
Jack Blanchard from Politico says the phrase “stop the boats” is used nine times.
Home Office uses "stop the boats" no fewer than 9 times in a single press release - which means it's landing well in focus groups, if nothing else.
— Jack Blanchard (@Jack_Blanchard_) March 7, 2023
Classic of the genre - three words, active statement, etc.
How many times we gonna hear it over the next 18 months
Updated
In response to a question from Zarah Sultana (Lab), Suella Braverman said Sultana wrote a letter to the Home Office opposing the removal of a foreign national offender convicted of “serious and heinous crimes”. That person went on to commit a murder, Braverman said. She said it was a “shameful stain” on the Labour party.
This is from Alan Travis, the Guardian’s former home affairs editor, responding to Suella Braverman’s claim that there are up to 100 million people who might qualify to come to the UK to seek asylum. (See 12.45pm.)
Will 100 million asylum seekers head for Britain without her bill as @suellabraverman claims?
— Alan Travis (@alantravis40) March 7, 2023
UK was 16th/28th of Euro countries destination of choice for asylum seekers per capita in 2021
Germany took 190,000
France took 120,000
Spain took 62,000
Italy took 53,000
UK took 50,000 pic.twitter.com/TAWDhzWZzF
Updated
David Jones (Con) says the bill is advocating the “correct and humane” approach. Braverman says he is “absolutely right”.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Lab) says Rishi Sunak said last week that the UK would not leave the ECHR because it is integral to the Good Friday agreement. Does Braverman agree?
Braverman says the bill complies with international law.
Nicolas Fletcher (Con) says the UK is full.
Braverman says he is right to say illegal migration is putting unsustainable pressures on the UK.
Barry Gardiner (Lab) asks why Braverman thinks she has the moral authority to criminalise people from Afghanistan seeking asylum in the UK.
Braverman says she is proud of Britain’s record, and that people have come to the UK through safe schemes.
Ronnie Cowan (SNP) says asylum seekers should be allowed to work.
Braverman says the government is issuing record numbers of visas to people who are coming to work or study in the UK legitimately.
Updated
James Daly (Con) welcomes the plan, and asks when MPs will vote on the migration cap.
Braverman says people want MPs to speak up for them. That is why MPs should back the bill, she says.
Simon Clarke, the former Tory levelling up secretary, asks Braverman to commit to leaving the ECHR if the bill is frustrated.
Braverman says the government thinks this bill is in line with the government’s international obligations.
Peter Bone (Con) claims abuse of the Modern Slavery Act is preventing it being helped to use real victims.
Braverman agrees. She says it now takes 500 days to deal with a claim that involves someone saying they are a modern slavery victim.
Updated
Tommy Sheppard (SNP) asks Braverman to confirm that it is the government’s intention to provoke its exclusion from the Council of Europe (which oversees the ECHR). He says the bill is “vile and shameful”.
Braverman ignores the ECHR question, and defends the bill as compassionate.
Braverman says the left “naively” believes everyone on a small boat is fleeing persecution. Many of them are young men who are economic migrants, she says.
Mark Francois, the chair of the ERG, says the “elephant in the room” is the ECHR. He says the government has to “face them down”. Will the bill contain measures to address this?
Unless we can somehow face them down, we will remain tied up in legal knots in our own domestic courts and, ultimately, in Strasbourg.
So, can the home secretary assure the house that when we see the bill it will contain specific measures to do that, so that the bill will achieve its purpose?
Braverman says this is a complex matter. There is a measure in the bill to disapply parts of the Human Rights Act. That should send a message to the courts, she says.
I refer him to disapplication of section three of the Human Rights Act and that sends a message to the judiciary about how Parliament intends for this bill, this Act of parliament, subsequently to be interpreted in the courts.
Updated
Khalid Mahmood (Lab) says this plan is unworkable. This is purely political, aimed at winning red wall seats, “at the expense of xenophobia and racism”, he says.
Isn’t the truth this: this is purely to deal with the political agenda that she has, to try and get the red wall votes, red wall seats, but she’s trying to do that at the expense of xenophobia and racism, and that is not conducive to our constituents and the country.
Braverman says it is irresponsible to say anyone who wants to control migration numbers is racist.
It’s irresponsible to suggest that someone who wants to control our borders, someone who wants to say that the numbers are out of control and we need a firm line, a compassionate line, but a firm line on migration, is racist.
That is irresponsible, it’s wrong and it shouldn’t be put forward.
Updated
Braverman's 'inflammatory language' putting asylum seekers at risk, John McDonnell says
John McDonnell (Lab) says his Hayes and Harlington constituency may have the largest number of asylum seekers in hotels. He has met them. Some of them have wounds from torture. They have skills, and they could work. Will the home secretary provide a monthly report on process being made in dealing with these claims?
And he asks Braverman to tone down her “inflammatory language”. It is putting these people, and the people who represent them, at risk, he says.
Braverman says processing of applications is being speeded up.
She does not address the language point.
Updated
Hilary Benn (Lab) asks if the bill is compliant with articles 31, 32 and 33 of the refugee convention.
Braverman says the government is confident the bill is compliant with all its international obligations.
(It can’t be that confident if the bill includes a section 19 (1) (b) statement. See 10.33am.)
Joanna Cherry (SNP) says the courts are going to find these measures contrary to international law and the European convention on human rights. She asks Braverman to confirm that the government knows this, and intends to fight the next election promising to withdraw from the ECHR.
Braverman says the high court recently ruled that the Rwanda policy was compatible with the refugee convention.
Tim Loughton (Con) told Braverman that the government should ask France to join a joint Rwanda scheme.
In her response, Braverman did not address this proposal, but stressed that deterrence was key. She said:
Deterrence is the key theme running through these measures. We want to send the message loudly and clearly to those people smugglers, to those people thinking about crossing the channel: Do not do it.
Do not hand over your life savings, do not get into that flimsy dinghy, do not risk your life, because you will not be entitled to a life in the UK.
Diana Johnson, the Labour chair of the home affairs committe, said that when her committee investigated, it found that the system was not being overwhelmed because of the increase in small boat crossings. It was being overwhelmed because of the problems with processing claims, partly because of “poor resourcing by successive governments of staff and technology”.
Paula Barker (Lab) says, if Rwanda can only take 200 people, what will happen to the 44,000 other asylum seekers.
Braverman says she is proud of the Rwanda deal. She thanks Priti Patel for the work on the scheme. It has been upheld by the high court, she says.
Labour’s Diane Abbott says she deplores Braverman’s attempt to seek to smear immigrants as murders and rapists. Abbott says she will never support a measure that would have seen her parents sent to Rwanda. And Rwanda can only take 200 people, she says. She says Braverman’s plans are “deplorable and unworkable”.
Braverman says it is wrong to conflate people coming here legitimately with those coming to the UK illegally.
Updated
Lee Anderson, the Tory deputy chairman, claims that Keir Starmer said, when asked if foreign murders and rapists should be deported, that it depended on the circumstances. He asks if the bill will get rid of foreign murders and rapists.
When asked by a reporter if foreign rapists and murderers should be deported to the country where they came from, the lawyer of the opposition replied ‘it depends’.
Well, I say get rid. So does the home secretary … can she confirm that this bill will indeed get rid of foreign rapists and murderers?
Braverman says Anderson is right to criticise Labour’s stance.
He’s right to point out the shameless position that the Labour party has adopted. We have passed measures to make it easier to remove foreign national rapists, drug dealers, murderers. What does the Labour party do? They write letters to stop us.
Updated
Stuart C McDonald for the SNP says there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.
He asks if Rishi Sunak will tell Emmanuel Macron when he meets the French president at the end of the week that the UK would be willing to leave the ECHR.
Braverman ignores that question in her response, and criticises the Scottish government for not housing more asylum seekers.
Suella Braverman accuses Yvette Cooper of just coming out with “hysteria, histronics and criticism” in her response.
She claims Labour’s call for safe and legal routes to be available for asylum seekers would in practice mean unlimited access for people.
And she claims Keir Starmer and Labour do not even want to stop small boat crossings, because they think it is “bigoted” to think like that.
Updated
Labour says bill is not a solution but risks making situation worse
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, says the government has promised to address this problem before. But it has failed, she says.
She says crossings are at a record level. Convictions of smugglers have halved, and the backlog of asylum applications has grown. The system is in chaos, she says.
She says Labour has a serious plan to get the National Crime Agency to stop the people smugglers and to speed up the processing of asylum applications.
She says Priti Patel, when she was home secretary, also said she would stop people arriving in the UK illegally claiming asylum. Cooper asks what is different. She says the government does not have a returns policy. And the Rwanda policy is not working, she says.
She says, if the government was serious, it would negotiate a returns agreemeent with countries like France.
The bill is not a solution, she says. It risks making the situation worse.
UPDATE: Cooper said:
One smuggler told Sky News yesterday that three-quarters of the smugglers live in Britain, yet barely any of them are being prosecuted and they still haven’t found the hundreds of children missing from asylum hotels who have been picked up by criminal gangs.
They could be setting out a serious plan today – and we would work with them, and so would everyone across the country.
Instead, it’s just more chaos. They say no ifs, no buts, but all of us know she’s going to spend the whole of the next year iffing and butting, and looking for someone else to blame when it all goes wrong.
Enough is enough. We cannot afford any more of this slogans and not solutions, just government by gimmick, ramping up the rhetoric on refugees, picking fights simply so they have someone else to blame when things go wrong.
Updated
Illegal arrivals into the UK will be detained and swiftly removed in new law, Suella Braverman says
Braverman says under the bill people entering the UK illegally will be detained and swiftly removed, to their home country if it is safe, or a third country like Rwanda.
The bill will allow people to be detained, without bail or judicial review for the first 28 days.
She says the approach is novel. That is why the bill includes a section 19 (1) (b) statement (see 10.33am).
She ends by saying people have had enough. The government is acting with determination, proportion and compassion, she says.
UPDATE: Braverman said:
This bill enables detention of illegal arrivals, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed.
It puts a duty on the home secretary to remove illegal entrants and will radically narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal.
Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly, or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm – an exceedingly high bar - in the country we are removing them to, will be able to delay their removal. Any other claims will be heard remotely, after removal.
When our Modern Slavery Act passed, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year. Last year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to consider.
Modern Slavery laws are being abused to block removals. They’re why we granted more than 50% of asylum requests from citizens of a safe European country and NATO ally, Albania.
That’s why this bill disqualifies illegal entrants from using Modern Slavery rules to prevent removal.
I won’t address the bill’s full legal complexities today. Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been – and continue to be - involved in its development.
But I must say this, the rule 39 process that enabled the Strasbourg court to block at the last minute, flights to Rwanda, after our courts had refused injunctions, was deeply flawed.
Our ability to control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process, conducted late at night, with no chance to make our case or even appeal decisions.
That’s why we’ve initiated discussions in Strasbourg, to ensure their blocking orders meet a basic natural justice standard - one that prevents abuse of rule 39s to thwart removal.
And it’s why the bill will set out the conditions for the UK’s future compliance for such orders. Other countries share our dilemma and will understand the justice of our position.
Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we can’t make a definitive statement of compatibility under the section 91 B of the Human Rights Act. Of course the UK will always seek to uphold international law and I am confident that this bill is compatible with international law.
And when we’ve stopped the boats, the bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. This will ensure an orderly system, considering local authority capacity for housing, public services, and support.
Updated
Braverman says up to 100 million people could qualify to come to UK if safe and legal routes were unlimited
Braverman says the asylum system has been overwhelmed by illegal arrivals.
They all travelled through safe countries, she says.
The vast majority were men under the age of 40. The need for reform is urgent, she says.
She says the government has already taken various steps to address this issue. But it has not been enough. Today’s laws are “not fit for purpose”, she says.
And she suggests that those proposing unlimited safe and legal routes just want open borders. She says by some counts there are 100 million people who would qualify for protection in the UK under British law.
UPDATE: Braverman said:
In the face of today’s global migration crisis, yesterday’s laws are simply not fit for purpose.
So to anyone proposing de facto open borders through unlimited safe and legal routes as the alternative, let’s be honest: By some counts there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws.
And let’s be clear: They are coming here. We’ve seen a 500% increase in small boat crossings in two years.
And this is the crucial point of this bill. They will not stop coming here until the world knows, if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed. Removed back to your country if it’s safe, or to a safe third country like Rwanda.
Updated
Braverman says countries like UK will face 'unprecedented pressures' in future years from illegal immigration
Braverman says the small boats problem is part of a “global migration crisis”. She goes on:
In the coming years, developed countries will face unprecedented pressures from ever greater numbers of people leaving the developing world for places like the UK.
Unless we act today, the problem will be worse tomorrow. And the problem is already unsustainable.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, says the PM promised the public two months ago that anyone entering the UK illegally would be detained and swiftly removed. The illegal migration bill will allow that to happen.
The UK must always support the world’s most vulnerable, she says.
Since 2015 nearly 500,000 people have been given sanctuary here, she says. She says that includes 160,000 Ukrainians and 25,000 Afghans.
Updated
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, starts by urging MPs not to refer in detail to asylum cases currently before the courts.
Updated
From the BBC’s Simon Jones
197 migrants in five boats reached the UK yesterday. It brings this year’s total to 3,147 people.
— Simon Jones (@SimonJonesNews) March 7, 2023
From Labour’s Diane Abbott, a former shadow home secretary
A standard device to make all draconian legislation even more harsh is to make it retrospective. This government has never seen an international law it did not want to break, for votes.
— Diane Abbott MP (@HackneyAbbott) March 7, 2023
Braverman seeks to backdate Channel crossings law amid fears of rush https://t.co/GWlJvoRKVk
Rishi Sunak has arrived in the Commons chamber for Suella Braverman’s statement, the Sun on Sunday’s Kate Ferguson reports.
Rishi Sunak arrives to watch Suella Braverman give her statement.
— Kate Ferguson (@kateferguson4) March 7, 2023
And the Tory benches packing out.
Gives a sense of just how important this policy is to the party.
Downing Street says the measures in the illegal migration bill are “novel”, but within international law. At the lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said:
This is a policy, these are a package of measures that are designed to work within international law.
We are confident they are robust but these are novel, these are new approaches that we are taking.
Suella Braverman to give statement to MPs about illegal migration bill
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is set to make her statement to MPs about the illegal migration bill at 12.30pm. She will then take questions from MPs, probably for an hour or more.
Sunder Katwala, who runs British Future, a thinktank focusing on migration and identity issue, has used Twitter to post some of the questions he thinks Braverman needs to answer.
He points out that, under the Nationality and Borders Act passed last year, people arriving in the UK illegally on small boats are already meant to be ineligible to claim asylum.
Key Qs
— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) March 7, 2023
- Weren't small boat claimants already inadmissable since 1.1.2021? (And won't govt again be admitting to the asylum system those inadmissable people it can't
realistically remove?)
- Legal duty is to remove *where practicable*
{Its not}
- When might RAF bases open? https://t.co/y9E3WdKL93
Inadmissability rules, 1st January 2021
— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) March 7, 2023
20,605 cases identified & served notice of potential inadmissability
21 removed
9,772 individuals were subsequently admitted into the UK asylum process for substantive consideration of their asylum claimhttps://t.co/cSq6rsFDtg pic.twitter.com/j4GUfCn9Uo
The government can't say: Inadmissable means inadmissable
— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) March 7, 2023
Gvt position after 2022 bill was: "If an inadmissable person can not be removed to another country, we will be obliged to process their claim" (But intend to grant temporary not permanent status)https://t.co/7Jkr7WcDtf
I think lots of people will be surprised when it turns out later that govt would still accept asylum claims from most of those who cross the Channel.
— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) March 7, 2023
They need to do this if they are 'pushing boundaries' of ECHR and Refugee Convention, but saying they want to stay within them.
Downing Street has said that Rishi Sunak is going to Dover to meet frontline officers dealing with small boat crossings. He will then return to London for a press conference later in the afternoon.
One of the questions raised by Rishi Sunak’s small boats bill – or illegal migration bill, to give it its formal name – is to what extent ministers believe it will work, and to what extent they are not that bothered about whether it works because they believe that, if it fails, they will be able to use this in election campaign against Labour.
Normally ministers publish bills wanting people to vote for them. But there is some evidence today that this is one of those bills where who will vote against is also quite important to the government too.
In an article for the Sun about the bill, Rishi Sunak focuses on Labour’s stance. He says:
Unlike Labour who have voted against taking action on this issue, this government has a plan to break the business model of people smugglers.
A plan to do what’s fair for those at home and those who have a legitimate claim to asylum – a plan to take back control of our borders once and for all.
What is Labour’s plan?
Not only do they have no plan to stop the boats, they don’t want to either.
And the Daily Express splashes on Suella Braverman, the home secretary, claiming that opposing the bill will be “betraying” Britain. She says:
Labour and others who oppose these measures are betraying hard-working Brits up and down the country - they don’t have any answers themselves but they will still seek to block us in parliament.
DAILY EXPRESS: @SuellaBraverman : Back law to stop boats…or betray Britain #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/vfyXOmPnbv
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) March 7, 2023
If the government is hoping to use the bill as a wedge issue in the election, there is no guarantee it will work. Although hardline anti-immigration measures tend to poll well, there is also polling that suggests voters are fed up with the fact that ministers keep announcing policies to stop small boats that do not work and have more confidence in Labour to address the issue instead.
Updated
Former MP Mike Gapes says he's rejoining Labour
Mike Gapes, the former Labour MP who quit the party over Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership to set up Change UK with a few colleagues, has announced that his is rejoining the party. In an article for the Times, he says:
Leaving Labour was one of the hardest decisions I have ever had to make. So, I am not coming back lightly. But I know in my heart and in my head that this is the right decision. The country can once again trust and believe in the Labour party. I want to be part of that — and I want to do my bit in ensuring it wins the next election and gives the United Kingdom the fresh start it deserves.
In response, Keir Starmer said:
That Mike has chosen to rejoin is a tribute to the hard work already done to change our party: to face the electorate, to root out antisemitism, support business, to celebrate patriotism and our Nato membership, not chastise it.
Updated
Angus Robertson, the Scottish government’s constitution secretary and, before he ruled himself out, the favourite in the contest to be next SNP leader, has backed Humza Yousaf to replace Nicola Sturgeon.
Yousaf is the only one of the three candidates who has said he would challenge the Westminster government’s decision to block Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill, and Robertson cited this as a factor. He said:
As a party, we simply cannot stand aside and let the Westminster establishment trample over the democratic will of Scotland’s parliament.
And, referring to how the gender recognition reforms are a crucial part of the SNP’s power-sharing deal with the Scottish Greens, Robertson said it was “absolutely vital that we leave no chinks in the armour and maintain our pro-independence majority in Holyrood now, and into the future”. He added:
We cannot allow our relationship with our colleagues in the Green Party to break down ahead of the fight of our lives in a fresh referendum on independence.
He also said:
In times like these we need a strong leader who will unite, not divide, our Yes movement as we get ready for the campaign that lies ahead. Humza is that leader.
As first minister I know Humza will stand up and celebrate those who we serve and build on the progressive agenda of the SNP that has won our party so much support over the years.
.@AngusRobertson:
— Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) March 7, 2023
“Humza is the Leader our opponents fear...the Leader that will take on Westminster & stand up for Scotland’s democracy...the Leader that will unite our independence movement at this important stage in our history. I’ll be voting Humza 1.”#HumzaForScotland pic.twitter.com/Dds9f5hi26
The small boats bill is expected to contain an admission that it may not be compatible with the European convention on human rights. That would take the form of a section 19 (1) (b) statement. The FT’s George Parker has more details on Twitter.
You'll hear a lot today about the use of a Section 19 (1) (b) statement, under which the govt admits its Illegal Migration bill could potentially breach the ECHR. This 2002 paper explains what it meanshttps://t.co/nt3Vc7uw8v
— George Parker (@GeorgeWParker) March 7, 2023
It means the govt does not have "the requisite level of confidence" that the bill complies with the ECHR, but can later argue in any litigation that it does. It's what Suella Braverman means when talking about pushing "the boundaries of int law"
— George Parker (@GeorgeWParker) March 7, 2023
In other words: expect this to end up in court
— George Parker (@GeorgeWParker) March 7, 2023
Rishi Sunak has been chairing cabinet, where Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has almost certainly been briefing colleagues on her small boats bill. Here are pictures of some ministers arriving for the meeting about an hour ago.
Hancock accused of floating 'despicable' plan to threaten to block disability funding to secure MP's lockdown vote
The Daily Telegraph’s ongoing lockdown files revelations may not have fundamentally changed our understanding of what happened during Covid, and they don’t prove the main lockdown policies were wrong, but they provide a compelling and exceptionally revealing insight into how some of the work of government was conducted during this period. And today’s story is very powerful. It says:
Matt Hancock discussed a plan to block funding for a new centre for disabled children and adults as a way of pressuring a rebel Tory MP to back new lockdown restrictions, The Lockdown Files show.
WhatsApp messages between Mr Hancock, the then health secretary, and his political aide show they discussed taking a plan for a learning disability hub in Bury, Greater Manchester, “off the table” if James Daly, the Bury North MP, sided against the Government in a key vote.
It came ahead of the vote on Dec 1, 2020 on the introduction of a toughened new local tiers system of restrictions for England.
Here is the key exchange.
It was only a proposal. Daly says he was never threatened with the loss of funding for the learning disability hub in his constituency. But he said he was “appalled” and “disgusted” to learn the idea had been discussed.
An even stronger response has come from Sir Jake Berry, a former Conservative party chairman whose son has disabilities. On Twitter last night he said that Hancock should be dragged to the bar of the House of Commons to be reprimanded (an ancient punishment for contempt of parliament, which in theory covers using a threat to influence how an MP votes).
This is an absolute disgrace.
— Jake Berry MP (@JakeBerry) March 6, 2023
Hancock should be dragged to the bar of the House of Commons first thing tomorrow morning to be questioned on this. #Hancock https://t.co/WhZnB5doNA
And Berry told Times Radio:
What [Hancock] has effectively said is that he wants to weaponise provision of care to disabled children to try and force MPs to vote in a certain way.
Politics … is full of sort of arm-twisting and leverage and cajoling. But I actually think once you get to the point that you are weaponising the provision of care to disabled children, I think you have crossed the line and as a local MP and … a father with a son with additional needs, I know how desperately provision of this sort of care is required in the local area.
And I just think it’s an absolutely despicable and appalling way for Matt Hancock and his advisers to have behaved.
A spokesperson for Hancock told the Telegraph:
As we’ve repeatedly seen this last week, it is completely wrong to take this entirely partial account and write it up as fact.
What’s being accused here never happened, demonstrating the story is wrong, and showing why such a biased, partial approach to the evidence is a bad mistake, driven by those with a vested interest and an axe to grind.
The right place to consider everything about the pandemic objectively is in the public inquiry.
Updated
Jack Straw, the former Labour home secretary, has said that Rishi Sunak’s small boats bill would turn the UK into a “pariah amongst western European states”. As the Telegraph reports, told Sky News:
This latest measure which is to try and override all the international obligations and turn ourselves into a kind of pariah amongst western European states is not going to work anyway, I promise you.
We will in a year, 18 months’ time, when there is a general election, Mr Sunak will be very, very embarrassed about the fact that the numbers may have come down a bit but they have not stopped and there are all sorts of reasons for that.
Updated
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has issued a video statement about her “stop the boats” bill. She says:
This bill will mean that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to stay. You will be detained and removed to your home country if safe, or a safe third country, like Rwanda. Enough is enough. We must stop the boats.
🗣️ “Enough is enough. We must stop the boats.”@SuellaBraverman, The Home Secretary. pic.twitter.com/Ni4nhuh44b
— Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) March 7, 2023
Cabinet and MPs to hear details of small boats bill that has ‘pushed boundaries of international law’
Good morning. In December last year Rishi Sunak told MPs that the government would “introduce new legislation to make unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally you should not be able to remain here” and today we are getting the detail. Sunak seems to think that this could drastically reduce the number of people who cross the Channel in small boats hoping to claim asylum in the UK. But experts in the asylum field are sceptical, because international law makes it hard to remove asylum seekers once they have arrived and a previous attempt to do this failed.
Here is our story by my colleague Rajeev Syal.
And this is from my colleague Archie Bland, who in his First Edition briefing (you can sign up here) says that in recent years the Conservatives have tried at least 43 initiatives to stop small boat crossings.
Overnight some papers have been briefed on what the new legislation will say, and the Times reports that the bill will say the home secretary has a duty to remove people who arrive in the UK illegally wanting to claim asylum that generally overrides human rights laws protecting their right to stay. The paper says:
The home secretary will be under a legal duty to remove nearly all asylum seekers who arrive on small boats and there will be a cap on refugee numbers, under new plans.
The duty will take precedence over human rights and modern slavery claims and there will be new powers to enable the mass detention of tens of thousands of people every year before their removal. There will be constraints on the rights of migrants to use a judicial review to challenge decisions.
The illegal migration bill will make exceptions only for unaccompanied children and those suffering “grave” illnesses.
In the Daily Telegraph Charles Hymas says ministers admit this may be legally problematic. He reports:
It can also be revealed that it will be stated in the Bill that the new laws may not be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), although ministers believe that they are.
It is thought to be the first time an immigration Bill has carried such a conditional qualification.
Furthermore, the legislation will give the Home Secretary powers to counter European court injunctions, like the one which last summer blocked the first deportation flight of Channel migrants to Rwanda.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, told the Telegraph that the government has “pushed the boundaries of international law” to tackle the problem. She said:
We must stop the boats and that’s what our bill will do. No more sticking plasters or shying away from the difficult decisions.
Myself and the prime minister have been working tirelessly to ensure we have a bill that works – we’ve pushed the boundaries of international law to solve this crisis … If you come here illegally it must be that you cannot stay.
But there is an obvious risk; the boundaries of international law may push back. Some lawyers argue that the only strategy that would allow Sunak to implement this policy without being defeated in the court would be for the UK to withdraw from international obligations like the European convention on human rights. And this is what some Tories want him to do. But the ECHR is integral to the Good Friday agreement, as well as being part of the post-Brexit trade agreement with with EU, and withdrawing would create a whole new Brexit/Northern Ireland crisis.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.
10am: Dame Rachel de Souza, children’s commissioner for England, gives evidence to the Commons education committee about persistent absence at schools.
11am: Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, gives a speech on business taxation.
11.30am: Steve Barclay, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 12.30pm: Suella Braverman, the home secretary, gives a statement to MPs about the government legislation to stop small boat crossings.
Late afternoon/early evening: Sunak holds a press conference about his asylum plans.
I’ll try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com.
Updated
