Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Jem Bartholomew and Andrew Sparrow (earlier)

Jess Phillips quits Labour frontbench as Keir Starmer suffers major rebellion over Gaza ceasefire – UK politics as it happened

​​Rishi Sunak Michael Howard Rwanda Andrea Jenkyns Sir Keir Starmer Suella Braverman Today

Here's what we know

Here’s a summary of a whirlwind Wednesday in British politics.

  • The UK supreme court ruled this morning that the government’s flagship immigration policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, because of risks to the people being sent there.

  • The unanimous ruling marked a major blow for the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who responded in a combative press conference by vowing to push through emergency legislation to resurrect the plan.

  • Sunak planned to pursue a new method by creating a new international treaty with Rwanda, trying to sidestep the court ruling “to get flights off” by next spring.

  • Refugee charities welcomed the ruling, with Amnesty International urging the government to abandon the Rwanda policy and repeal the Illegal Migration Act.

  • Backbench Conservatives on the right including Jacob Rees-Mogg and Simon Clarke led Tory calls for government to bypass the European convention on human rights, but the supreme court’s ruling said the Rwanda policy would still be unlawful even if the UK left the ECHR.

  • Meanwhile, a major vote was held in the House of Commons on Wednesday evening calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which MPs voted against.

  • The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, faced a large rebellion over his policy not to back a ceasefire, with 56 Labour MPs and eight shadow frontbenchers defying Starmer.

  • Jess Phillips was the most high profile front bencher to leave Starmer’s team, as the issue threatens to divide Labour ahead of next year’s expected general election.

  • Protesters calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war were ejected from the gallery of the House of Commons, and a large pro-Palestinian demonstration was held outside parliament, with people shouting “shame on you” at MPs.

  • It came as the death toll in Gaza from Israeli bombardment climbed above 11,180, and the United Nations security council voted to adopt a draft resolution calling for a humanitarian pause in fighting in Gaza, and greater efforts to allow humanitarian aid into the war-ravaged territory.

That’s all from me, Jem Bartholomew, and for the UK politics live blog for Wednesday. Thanks for following along and see you next time.

Updated

More Labour frontbench rebellion statements here, from Naz Shah, Sarah Owen and Yasmin Qureshi.

Updated

Here are the statements posted on X/Twitter from those who defied Labour’s whip so far.

Jess Phillips said it was with a “heavy heart” that she was quitting.

Paula Barker called for a bilateral ceasefire.

Rachel Hopkins made the case that organisations like the UN and Save the Children support a ceasefire.

Afzal Khan said he “cannot in good conscience” vote against a ceasefire.

Updated

Labour leader Keir Starmer has issued a statement in response to the rebellion.

Alongside leaders around the world, I have called throughout for adherence to international law, for humanitarian pauses to allow access for aid, food, water, utilities and medicine, and have expressed our concerns at the scale of civilian casualties.

Much more needs to be done in this regard to ease the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in Gaza.

And in addition to addressing the present, every leader has a duty not to go back to a failed strategy of containment and neglect, but to forge a better and more secure future for both Palestinians and Israelis.

I regret that some colleagues felt unable to support the position tonight. But I wanted to be clear about where I stood, and where I will stand.

Leadership is about doing the right thing. That is the least the public deserves. And the least that leadership demands.”

He lost eight shadow ministers and faces a sizeable reshuffle.

Meanwhile, demonstrators outside parliament shout “shame on you” after MPs rejected the ceasefire amendment.

Updated

Eight shadow ministers quit or face sack from Starmer's frontbench over Labour's opposition to Gaza ceasefire

Labour leader Keir Starmer has seen a big rebellion of eight shadow ministers – including shadow domestic violence minister Jess Phillips – from a total of 56 Labour MPs who voted with the SNP on an amendment to the king’s speech calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

The rebels on the front bench included Phillips, Rachel Hopkins, Sarah Owen, Afzal Khan, Paula Barker, Naz Shah, Yasmin Quereshi and Andy Slaughter. Two parliamentary private secretaries also left.

The 56 Labour MPs rejected Starmer’s position, which calls for a “credible, diplomatic and political process” to deliver a peaceful two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. The SNP motion instead called for an immediate ceasefire.

The rebellion signals how the divisions over views on the Israel-Hamas conflict have the potential to tear Labour apart – a point of contention that Starmer will face tough questions about as the country gears up for a general election in the next year.

The biggest name to leave the front bench was Phillips, who said in a resignation statement: “On this occasion I must vote with my constituents, my head, and my heart … I can see no route where the current military action does anything but put at risk the hope of peace and security for anyone in the region now and in the future.”

The United Nations has called for a ceasefire as over 11,000 people in Gaza have been killed since Israel’s bombardment began, after the 7 October massacres by Hamas in Israel that saw about 1,200 killed and 240 taken hostage.

After the vote, Starmer said: “I regret that some colleagues felt unable to support the position tonight. But I wanted to be clear about where I stood, and where I will stand.”

Three Labour frontbenchers resigned in the minutes before the vote, after Starmer made clear that those voting for the ceasefire amendment would be sacked.

Meanwhile, outside the gates of parliament, a large demonstration in support of a ceasefire shouted “shame on you” at MPs who rejected calls for an immediate stop in the fighting.

A protester holds a placard and chants slogans during a rally in support of Palestinians, outside of the Houses of Parliament in central London on November 15, 2023, to demand Members of Parliament vote for a ceasefire in Gaza.
A protester holds a placard and chants slogans during a rally in support of Palestinians, outside of the Houses of Parliament in central London on November 15, 2023, to demand Members of Parliament vote for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images

Updated

Here are the results on SNP’s motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

  • 125 ayes, 294 noes.

The defeat is to be expected given the Conservative majority in the Commons, but details on which Labour MPs defied Starmer will be coming soon. It looks like over 50 Labour MPs defied Starmer.

The list of MPs voting will be out soon…

Updated

Three Labour shadow ministers so far resign over party's Gaza ceasefire position

Three Labour shadow ministers have resigned over the party’s opposition to a House of Commons motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

In the last few minutes, Afzal Khan has resigned as shadow minister for exports, Paula Barker has quit as shadow minister for devolution and the English regions, Yasmin Qureshi has stepped down as shadow women and equalities minister.

“I understand that you do not feel that a ceasefire is currently the right course of action and due to our difference of opinion on the issue, I do not feel I am able to continue as a shadow minister,” Khan said in a statement posted on X/Twitter.

It comes as they were facing being sacked by the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, if they backed an SNP amendment to the king’s speech calling for a ceasefire, which Labour opposes.

“The scale of bloodshed in Gaza is unprecedented. Tonight, I will vote for an immediate ceasefire,” Qureshi said. “We must call for an end to the carnage to protect innocents lives and end human suffering.

More to come.

Updated

Meanwhile, as the voting is under way, outside parliament’s walls there is a demonstration from people calling for an immediate ceasfire in Gaza.

Here are some pictures posted on X/Twitter by the Stop the War Coalition.

MPs have now resumed debating the king’s speech.

First, they will vote on a Labour amendment, which calls for a “credible, diplomatic and political process” to deliver a peaceful two-state solution in between Israel and Palestine. (Expect results about 7:15pm GMT.)

Next, the vote on an SNP amendment that calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

Finally, they will vote on a Liberal Democrat amendment unrelated to the Israel-Hamas war.

Updated

Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, reveals she has lost a family member in Gaza.

She said they were sheltering in a church in Gaza city, according to statements in the House of Commons, and died not from a bomb but possible lack of access to food and healthcare.

All of the hospitals in northern Gaza are “out of service” amid fuel shortages and intense combat, the Hamas-run health ministry in the besieged territory said on Monday.

Updated

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is “locked in talks with waverers on his frontbench this evening”, Politico reported about an hour ago.

As well as the three frontbenchers mentioned below, other Labour MPs expected to vote for the SNP’s Gaza ceasefire motion are: Tahir Ali, Rosena Allin-Khan, Dawn Butler, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Barry Gardiner, Clive Lewis, Emma Lewell-Buck, Ian Lavery, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Andy McDonald, Rachael Maskell, John McDonnell, Grahame Morris, Imran Hussain, Kate Hollern, Kate Osamor, Kate Osborne, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Zarah Sultana, Jon Cruddas, Jon Trickett, Beth Winter, Mohammad Yasin, and Rupa Huq.

Meanwhile, a crowd of demonstrators is gathering outside parliament this evening to push the case for a ceasefire.

Updated

Gaza ceasefire vote at 7pm GMT likely to see three Labour shadow ministers sacked

We’re about 20 minutes out from a big parliamentary vote for Labour – over an SNP amendment to the king’s speech – that calls for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The vote threatens to be Keir Starmer’s biggest rebellions as leader, as three Labour frontbenchers have publicly defied the party leadership and called for a ceasefire in Gaza.

The likely outcome is that Starmer will sack them from the shadow front bench this evening.

Naz Shah (Bradford West), Afzal Khan (Manchester Gorton) and Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) told fellow MPs in the Commons of their intention to vote for an immediate ceasefire, and scores of backbenchers are expected to join them.

“Despite all the risk to our personal positions we must do what it is right,” Shah said.

On the evening broadcast round, Labour’s shadow business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, is on the Andrew Marr show defending Starmer’s position not to support the amendment.

“It’s not a free vote, there is a collective responsibility,” Reynolds said, adding: “It’s not so much about people being sacked as such, but that they would lose their jobs. If they’ve made a decision as a parliamentarian that they can’t be part of that collective decision, they wouldn’t be on the frontbench.”

Keir Starmer at PMQs today.
Keir Starmer at PMQs today. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/Reuters

Updated

Another question that’s arisen after Sunak’s statement: how much extra will the UK pay Rwanda for this potential new treaty?

The answer, so far, is unclear – but it looks like there will be another bill to pay.

On top of the £140m already paid, Home Office officials “could not deny the fact that they are looking at paying Rwanda yet more money for this,” says LBC political editor Natasha Clark on the Andrew Marr show.

“How much more are we going to pay them for a deal which might not see any flights go before the election?” asks Clark.

A reader asks:

If the government want to “lay” a treaty, surely need to pass both Houses of Parliament. Which might pose a problem for a foreign secretary in the Lords...?

In fact, it is very hard for the Commons to block a treaty, and impossible for the Lords, because making treaties is a prerogative power for government, not a power for parliament. The process is explained here.

More reaction from the Conservative backbenches. Natalie Elphicke, Conservative MP for Dover and Deal, wants Sunak to create a returns agreement with another third country closer to home: France.

“A fresh policy is now needed: a new Cross Channel Agreement with France to stop the boats leaving and return those that do to the safety of the French coast,” she said on X/Twitter. “That should be David Cameron’s top foreign policy priority.”

It comes after, in September, Keir Starmer said Labour would seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain.

This is Jem Bartholomew taking over the blog for the next few hours. Feel free to get in touch with tips and stories via email or X/Twitter.

Updated

A snap poll by YouGov suggests 39% of people think the government should respond to the supreme court judgment by scrapping the Rwanda policy entirely. Another 29% say the government should find an alternative third country, 14% say “something else”, and the rest don’t know.

That is all from me for tonight. My colleague Jem Bartholomew is taking over now

Cat Neilan from Tortoise says some Tory rightwingers were quite sceptical about what Rishi Sunak had to say.

And Adam Payne from Politics Home has heard much the same.

Sunak's press conference - snap verdict

Rishi Sunak sounded considerably more gung-ho, Brexity and combative on Rwanda at his press conference just now than he did in the House of Commons, and a lot more assertive than James Cleverly, his new home secretary. Tory MPs watching it will probably be impressed.

But if Sunak succeeded, partly he achieved this by a rhetorical sleight of hand. The more hardline MPs have spent the day demanding “emergency legislation”, and almost always they have been referring to something that would allow the UK to ignore the European court of human rights. (See Suella Braverman at 4.27pm.)

And Sunak is going to give them “emergency legislation”. But his version is not the hardline “notwithstanding” measure favoured by Braverman and other leading Brexiters, but instead just a declaration that Rwanda counts as a safe country. This is what Boris Johnson is calling for (see 4.07pm), and Johnson implies all that is needed is secondary legislation under schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004.

Sunak ought to have realised by now that anyone who thinks a Johnson wheeze is a solution to a complicated problem normally ends up being disappointed, and this may well be the case with this proposal. Just because parliament says Rwanda is safe, will that be enough for the courts?

Sunak confidently declared: “I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.” But it was not clear exactly what he meant by this, and in his final answer (see 5.10pm) he implied that, with the new treaty and the “emergency legislation” in place, there would be no need for ECHR withdrawal. Braverman is unlikely to agree.

Sunak also in effect promised that flights to Rwanda would start leaving in the spring. But deportations under a new treaty would be subject to legal challenge, and so it could be hard to get even a single flight off the ground before the end of May. The prospect of a large number of deportations taking place by then seems even more remote. The danger for Sunak is that he has raised expectation he will struggle to meet.

Updated

Q: How will you stop the European court of human rights blocking the flights to Rwanda?

Sunak says he has already made progress in relation to rule 39 orders – the interim injunctions issued by the European court of human rights. (One of these was used to block the only flight planned to Rwanda.)

He says the UK has been talking to the court about this, and on Monday it announced proposals to reform these.

He says judges issuing these injunctions will be named (at the moment they are not), countries will be able to make representations opposing the injunctions, and the court will only use them in exceptional circumstances.

He says he is confident that, once the treaty is in place, and the new law he is proposing, the UK will be meeting its obligations under the ECHR.

But he says he will not allow a foreign court to block flights to Rwanda once parliament has determined, in law, that it is a safe country.

And that’s the end of the press conference.

Updated

What Sunak said about who he will 'not allow foreign court to block these flights' to Rwanda

No 10 has released the text of Rishi Sunak’s opening statement.

Here is the passage where he ways he will not allow the European court of human rights to block flights to Rwanda.

So I am also announcing today that we will take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation.

This will enable parliament to confirm that, that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe.

It will ensure that people cannot further delay flights by bringing systemic challenges in our domestic courts…

…and stop our policy being repeatedly blocked.

But of course, we must be honest about the fact that even once Parliament has changed the law here at home…

…we could still face challenges from the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.

I told the parliament today that I am prepared to change our laws…

…and revisit those international relationships to remove the obstacles in our way.

So let me tell everyone now – I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.

If the Strasbourg court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of parliament…

…I am prepared to do what necessary to get flights off.

I will not take the easy way out.

Because I fundamentally do not believe that anyone thinks the founding aim of the European Convention on human rights…

…was to stop a sovereign parliament removing illegal migrants…

…to a country deemed to be safe in parliamentary statute and binding international law.

And I do not believe we are alone in that interpretation.

Updated

Q: How can you be sure that attempts to have further flights won’t be held up in the courts again?

Sunak says he understands people’s concerns.

But, he says, he has made progress.

Legislation will help the government do the job.

Q: The Home Office says it identified some concerns about Rwanda. It says Rwanda is “generally” a safe country. How can parliament be sure Rwanda is safe if the Home Office can’t give that guarantee?

Sunak says the Home Office has decided Rwanda is safe.

And he says, in the court of appeal, the lord chief justice said Rwanda was safe.

(He did, but the supreme court today said the lord chief justice was wrong about this.)

He says the new treaty will provide binding assurances that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will not be returned to their home country if that is problematic (ie, that it will not allow refoulement, as it is called in the jargon).

Q: Can you guarantee a flight will leave before the election?

Sunak says the government is working hard to get those flights started in the spring.

Sunak says new treaty will allow deportation flights to Rwanda to start in spring next year, as planned

The BBC’s Chris Mason goes first. He puts it to Sunak that the situation is “a total shambles”.

Sunak says the government has done more than any other to tackle illegal migration.

The government is making “strong progress” on stopping the boats.

The treaty with Rwanda is “almost ready to go”, he says.

He says that will provide the assurances the supreme court was asking for.

He says that means flights to Rwanda will be able to leave, as planned, in spring next year.

Sunak says he will pass emergency law saying Rwanda is safe country, and won't let ECHR block deportation flights

Rishi Sunak starts by saying he does not agree with the supreme court decision, but he “accepts it and respects it”.

He says the rule of law is fundamental in this country.

The government will agree a new treaty with Rwanda, he says.

But he says he will introduce emergency legislation. This will assert that Rwanda is safe, he says.

(This is the Boris Johnson plan – see 4.07pm.)

And Sunak goes further. He says, once this legislation is passed, he will not let the European court of human rights stop flights to Rwanda.

I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.

Updated

Rishi Sunak to hold press conference to explain his response to supreme court finding Rwanda policy unlawful

Rishi Sunak is about to hold a press conference in Downing Street. There may be questions on other topics, but Sunak is holding it so he can give more details of the government’s response to the supreme court finding the Rwanda policy unlawful.

One effect of the judgment is that, on an issue designated by Sunak as one of his five priorities, the government no longer has an operable policy. The theory was that the threat of being deported to Rwanda would – at least once deportations started – function as a strong deterrent, and small boat crossings would stop. Now there is no prospect of that happening in the immediate future – which could mean before the election.

But the judgment has also opened up the split in the Conservative party between those who say the UK must withdraw from the European convention on human rights, and other international agreements, so that it can operate its own border policy, and those who say ending up in the same human rights camp as Russia is not such a good idea.

It is not technically a Brexit split but, like Brexit, it is a fundamental rift relating to sovereignty and nationalism. Different versions of this argument have divided the Conservative party for at least 50 years.

Sunak – not for the first time – is trying to appeal to both factions. Other Conservative PMs have done the same, with varying degrees of success. It is probably too soon to know how much damage this row will do to party unity, but Sunak’s performance may give some indication.

Updated

Braverman calls for emergency legislation to stop people using ECHR or other laws to challenge Rwanda policy

Suella Braverman, who was sacked as home secretary on Monday, has called for emergency legislation to stop people using the European convention on human rights, or other legal routes, to challenge the Rwanda policy.

Today’s Supreme Court judgment is no surprise. It was predicted by a number of people close to the process. Given the current state of the law, there is no reason to criticise the judges. Instead, the government must introduce emergency legislation.

The Bill must block off ECHR, HRA, and other routes of legal challenge. This will give Parliament a clear choice: control illegal migration or explain to the British people why they should accept ever greater numbers of illegal arrivals settling here.

Those who - like me - believe that effective immigration control is vital must understand that they cannot have their cake and eat it: there is no chance of curbing illegal migration within the current legal framework. We must legislate or admit defeat.

Other Tory MPs (most, but not all, of whom are rightwing, hardline Brexiters) have been saying much the same thing. Some of those are MPs closely associated with Braverman (like Sir John Hayes [see 3.04pm] and Danny Kruger [see 3.32pm]), but others aren’t associated with the Braverman camp.

Rishi Sunak has said that legislation of this kind is an option. (See 12.03pm.)

But, in his statement to MPs, James Cleverly, the home secretary, in effect ruled out immediate legislation along these lines. He said the priority would be turning the Rwanda agrement into a treaty, to address the concerns of the court. (See 12.44pm.) He also said that, in practice, he did not think ECHR withdrawal would be necessary. (See 1.57pm.)

Updated

The former PM Boris Johnson has posted on X a Daily Mail column he wrote in June implying the government could just get round the legal objections to its Rwanda policy by designating it a safe country. Here is his tweet.

There is only one way to end the legal blockade on Rwanda - and that is to do exactly what this piece proposes - and do it NOW. If you want to know what the government of 2019 -2022 would have done, here is your answer. It’s the only way

And here is an extract from the article.

The government has the power, under Schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004, to ask ­parliament to deem Rwanda a safe country. That has not so far been done and it should now be done – immediately.

Yes, of course there would be a row. The House of Lords might well be difficult – but we have been here before.

It is time for the government to settle the legal position. It is time – with a large remaining majority — for parliament to determine that Rwanda is safe, bust the evil people traffickers, stop the boats, recapture the spirit of 2019 and get Rwanda done.

An asylum seeker who challenged the legality of the government’s Rwanda policy in the supreme court said that the legacy of trauma would cast a long shadow among them.

The man, who cannot be identified, fled a conflict zone in the Middle East and was shocked after he finally reached safety in the UK in May last year, only to be arrested and placed in a detention centre for two months.

He said that the combination of being left in limbo without a decision on their cases by the Home Office and fearing being exiled to Rwanda made many asylum seekers contemplate suicide. He said:

After today’s ruling I can start to have hope again but I think the trauma of Rwanda will stay with me for a very long time. I’m not expecting to feel better soon. I have had a lot of support from British members of the public. I don’t feel that the government reflects the views of the British people.

I got involved in the legal challenge not just for myself but on behalf of many other asylum seekers fleeing persecution like I did who are just seeking a peaceful life. I felt it was my duty to bring this legal challenge. After everything I went through in my home country I was not scared to take on the government in the Rwanda case.

Updated

'Ceasefire now' protesters removed from public gallery in Commons after holding signs up during debate

Protesters have been removed from the House of Commons after holding up “Ceasefire now” signs during the king’s speech debate, PA Media reports. PA says:

A group of five or six people stood up and held aloft the messages as the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, turned to the Israel-Hamas conflict in her speech.

Doorkeepers approached the group and removed them from the public gallery.

Extinction Rebellion (XR) claimed responsibility for the protest.

XR spokesperson Rosie Merrifield said: “Parliament must today demand that the government calls for an immediate ceasefire and commits to back an internationally arbitrated resolution which ensures the absolute protection of human rights for all, and lasting safety and peace for the Palestinian and Israeli people.”

Updated

Danny Kruger, co-chair of the New Conservatives group, which represents socially conservative MPs pushing for lower immigration and tax cuts, said the government should legislate immediately to assert UK sovereignty.

Speaking after meeting other MPs to discuss the supreme court judgment this morning, he called for legislation to override the ECHR. He said:

The government should immediately announce an intention to do what is necessary to insist on our sovereignty.

That means legislation to override the effect of the European court, of the ECHR itself and of other conventions including the refugee convention if necessary.

Miriam Cates, co-chair of the New Conservatives, would not say whether she maintained full confidence in the PM. Asked about this by journalists, she replied:

He has said he will do whatever it takes to stop the boats. The next few days will show whether we’ve got the legislative power and the political will to do that … We will support him to do whatever it takes.

Updated

No 10 says MPs right to have 'strong views' on small boats when asked to defend Lee Anderson wanting to ignore law

In the Commons James Cleverly was quite happy to disassociate himself from Lee Anderson’s call for the government to just ignore the supreme court judgment. (See 1.13pm.)

But at the post-PMQs lobby briefing the PM’s press secretary was less willing to criticise the Tory deputy chairman. Asked about Anderson’s comment, she said MPs had “strong views” on this topic and she went on:

I think we appreciate that our MPs have strong views on this because, frankly, the country cares about this.

A reader asks:

How much money has the UK taxpayer paid on the government’s attempts to establish this scheme and defend it?

The government has already given £140m to Rwanda in relation to this scheme – £20m for it to spend on preparations for dealing with asylum seekers, and £120m for the economic development partnership that is part of the deal.

Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney general who left the party over Brexit, told Bloomberg that it was “fantasy” to think that options like a notwithstanding bill would allow the UK to easily ignore the European convention on human rights.

Braverman ally John Hayes joins calls for 'notwithstanding' law to allow ECHR to be ignored

Sir John Hayes, who chairs the Common Sense Group of rightwing Tory MPs and who works closely with Suella Braverman, told Radio 4’s the World at One that the government should introduce “notwithstanding” legislation to allow the European convention on human rights to be bypassed. It is called “notwithstanding” because it would say the government can do X notwithstanding the ECHR saying it’s illegal.

Hayes told the programme:

The court judgment does draw on the ECHR but not the ECHR alone.

We need to withdraw from that because it has [metamorphosed]. In its genesis, those who put together the European framework in the wake of the second world war rightly took the view that international cooperation was necessary to avoid the horrors that we experienced in the 20th century.

But it has [metamorphosed], it has become a means of defending all kinds of horrors, so, yes, we do need to withdraw.

In the short-term, a simpler process would be to have a piece of legislation that says, notwithstanding the obligations described, notwithstanding some of the things the court drew on today, that we will affect our policy.

I hope that is what will be brought forward. It is what some people have described as a ‘Plan B’.

In December last year 69 MPs voted for legislation of this kind when the Tory backbencher Jonathan Gullis triggered a division using the 10-minute rule bill process.

Updated

Starmer braced for rebellion as MPs set to vote on Gaza ceasefire

While much of Westminster’s focus today is on the Rwanda judgment and the Tory party crisis it has triggered, Keir Starmer is also battling to maintain discipline in his party, over the issue of Gaza.

Tonight could see the biggest rebellion of Starmer’s leadership as dozens of Labour MPs prepare to defy party whips and vote in favour of an amendment to the king’s speech calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Somewhere between three and 15 frontbenchers are thought to be ready to join them.

Party managers hoped to stave off a rebellion by publishing their own amendment falling just short of calling for a ceasefire. But as of Tuesday afternoon, Starmer was still locked in talks with some of his shadow ministers trying to persuade them to abstain on the other one, being promoted by the Scottish National party.

Labour officials say “normal consequences will apply” for frontbenchers who defy the whip – ie they will be sacked. Starmer may have to conduct an emergency reshuffle of some of his more junior ministers later this week.

In the Commons James Cleverly’s statement is now over, and the king’s speech debate is just starting. Rosie Winterton, the deputy speaker, has just announced that three amendments are being put to a vote: amendment (r), the official Labour one; amendment (h), the official SNP one; and amendment (k), one of the Lib Dem ones.

That means there definitely will be a division on a ceasefire in Gaza.

Rishi Sunak has spoken to the Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, on the phone after the supreme court judgment, and expressed his “disappointment.” A Downing Street spokesperson said:

While he welcomed the court’s confirmation that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country is lawful, the prime minister expressed his disappointment at the overall outcome and recognised that there are challenges we must overcome.

He thanked President Kagame for his government’s work over the last 15 months and the extra assurances we have already agreed as they said they would continue to work together to address the court’s concerns.

Both leaders reiterated their firm commitment to making our migration partnership work and agreed to take the necessary steps to ensure this is a robust and lawful policy and to stop the boats as soon as possible.

Updated

Cleverly says he does not think UK needs to withdraw from ECHR or refugee convention to stop small boats

Jonathan Gullis (Con) said his constituents wanted to know if the government would be wiling to disapply legal treaties like the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention in order to take back control of its borders

Cleverly replied:

I don’t believe those things are necessary.

He said the government’s focus was on what was needed. There were no silver bullets, he said.

Updated

In the Commons, repeating the point he made in PMQs (see 12.32pm), Neil O’Brien (Con) said the government should change the law. He said he was against an “incremental approach”.

Cleverly repeated the point about how he did not believe in silver bullet options. (See 1.39pm.)

Bob Seely (Con) asks Cleverly to say, not that the government is prepared to revisit its domestic legal framework, but that the government will revist its domestic legal framework.

Cleverly gives a non-committal answer, saying the government wants a proper framework in place.

Rishi Sunak has told MPs in private that a new treaty with Rwanda could be ready with a week or so, Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt reports.

Rishi Sunak told Tory MPs in a visit to the tea room after PMQs that he may be able to lay the new treaty with Rwanda – to provide a stronger legal footing for the deal on migrants – within the next week. But priority is to tick every box and get it right so it might be delayed

One Tory MP who saw the PM in the tea room told me: “I saw a PM absolutely determined to get this delivered and to stop the small boats.” Interestingly that Tory MP believes the Rwanda policy is dead. Says money should be spent on better asylum processing and detention

Updated

Sir Bill Cash, the veteran Tory Brexiter, says the government should be preparing legislation to enable it to implement the Rwanda policy.

Cleverly says he would advise against relying on “silver bullet solutions”. They rarely work, he says.

No 10 says Sunak discussed policy with Braverman during leadership contest, but rejects claim there was deal

At its post-PMQs lobby briefing No 10 said Rishi Sunak did not accept the claim that he struck a secret deal with Suella Braverman when he chose her as home secretary.

Asked about what Braverman said in her open letter yesterday, and the suggestions there was a firm deal, the PM’s press secretary said: “I do not accept that characterisation.”

No 10 would not confirm whether the prime minister signed any document in a meeting with Braverman before she joined cabinet, with the press secretary saying: “It’s not something I’m aware of.”

But the press secretary did not deny Braverman’s claim she handed a document to Sunak before she was appointed and said there was a discussion of priorities after she entered government. The press secretary said:

They obviously had a discussion on priority areas to work on and if you actually look at what we’ve worked on together with the Home Office during the last year, the toughest legislation on immigration, boats down by a third, crime falling, that would have been the basis of the ask for the home secretary, and obviously she would have had the opportunity to respond.

Updated

David Jones (Con) asks if legislation will be needed to remedy the problems identified in the judgment. And when will it be passed?

Cleverly says the Home Office has already been working on options.

Damian Green (Con) asks Cleverly if he agrees that one of the glories of our system is that governments have to obey the law, as well as individuals and corporations. And he asks Cleverly if he agrees that any MP who thinks there is a simple solution to this (ECHR withdrawal, he implies) will be disappointed.

Cleverly says the UK is taken seriously on the international stage because it abides by international law.

Cleverly tells MPs government 'cannot just vote themselves out of international commitments'

Sir Simon Clarke, the former levelling up secretary, says time is crucial. Voters sent MPs to parliament to sort out the small boats issue. Can Cleverly say at what point the government will give up trying to revise the Rwanda deal to make it legal, and when it will instead introduce notwithstanding legislation allowing the ECHR to be sidelined.

Cleverly says the government is determined to make the Rwanda deterrent work. It is already having a deterrent effect, he says.

He says national government “cannot just vote themselves out of international commitments”.

But he says the government is determined to drive down small boat crossings.

Updated

Chris Bryant (Lab) tries again to get Cleverly to say what he thought about Suella Braverman’s suggestion that claims from LBGT asylum seekers were bogus.

Cleverly says as foreign secretary he believed in standing up for LTBT rights. He says it would be nonsense to say all people claiming to be persecuted on the basis of their sexuality are lying. But some people do abuse the system, he says.

Cleverly rejects call from Tory deputy chair Lee Anderson for government to just ignore court's judgment

Alistair Carmichael (Lib Dem) points out that, in his statement, Cleverly said that the government would not “put forward proposals simply to manufacture an unnecessary row for short-term political gain”. He says that would make a welcome change from the approach taken by Suella Braverman.

But he asks Cleverly if he will disassociate himself from Lee Anderson saying the government should just ignore international law. (See 11.46am.)

Cleverly says this government is law-abiding. It respects the judgment, he says. He says the government is responding to what the court says, so that when the Rwanda scheme is operationalised, it complies strictly with international law.

Updated

Labour’s Ben Bradshaw says 2% of people claiming asylum are LGBT+. Does Cleverly agree with Suella Braverman that they are pretending?

Cleverly says, if Bradshaw wants to know what he thinks, he should ask about his views, not Braverman’s.

(That sounded like a clear “no”.)

Updated

Dame Priti Patel, who negotiated the Rwanda deal when she was home secretary, says the refoulement issued was raised at the court of appeal. Ministers have had time to consider this, she says. She urges Cleverly to work with Rwanda to address the supreme court’s concerns.

Cleverly welcomes what Patel said. He says the Home Office has been working already on removing the risk of refoulement.

Alison Thewliss, speaking for the SNP, repeats May’s point about how leaving the ECHR would not make the Rwanda policy lawful.

And she says Scotland should have the power to decide its own migration policy.

Cleverly says, if Scotland wants to operate a more generous asylum policy, it could. But it chooses not to do so, he claims.

Theresa May challenges Cleverly to admit that leaving ECHR would not make Rwanda policy lawful

Theresa May, the former home secretary and former PM, asks Cleverly to confirm that the supreme court said the Rwanda policy was unlawful regardless of the European court of human rights. (See 10.48am.)

Cleverly ignores the ECHR point, but says the UK is working with Rwanda to address the concerns of the court.

(May herself was actually in favour of withdrawal from the ECHR at one point.)

Cleverly is replying to Cooper.

He says, listening to her response, he was left wondering what Labour’s plan is for dealing with illegal migration.

He describes the court judgment as a “temporary setback to this delivery of our plan”.

And he says the glee on evidence in the Labour benches today shows how they do not really want to control immigration.

Updated

Cooper suggests Cleverly has never personally supported Rwanda plan and privately regards it as 'batshit'

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, says Cleverly is the eighth home secretary in eight years.

Suella Braverman was not fit to be home secretary, she says. But she says Braverman was right to say, if the government lost in the supreme court, it would have wasted a year.

Cooper says there are now 20% more people in asylum hotels than when Rishi Sunak promised to end them.

How much has the government spent on this policy so far?

How much will a new treaty cost?

And she says she court said the problems it described could not be solved in the short term.

She asks Cleverly to confirm that the main points of the Illegal Migration Act will not be implemented this year.

And she says she thinks Cleverly never supported the Rwanda plan in the first place. She goes on:

He may even on occasion have privately called it batshit.

Cooper might just be guessing, but it sounds as if she is quoting something she knows Cleverly to have said in private.

Updated

Sky’s Sophy Ridge says the main message from Cleverly’s statement is that the government is not giving up on the Rwanda policy.

Cleverly says other countries are seeing illegal migration numbers going up.

But in the UK arrivals are going down, he says.

And he claims decisions are being taken more quickly, and that returns are going up.

Updated

Cleverly says government will turn agreement with Rwanda into full treaty to help address court's concerns

The government has a plan, Cleverly says. It anticipated this result as a possiblity. It has been working with Rwanda to built up its capacity and to ensure that asylum seekers cannot be removed to another country.

He says the government will upgrade its agreement with Rwanda to a treaty.

He repeats what Rishi Sunak said about the government being willing to revist its domestic legal frameworks.

But, he says, the government will not “put forward proposals simply to manufacture an unncessary row for short-term political gain”.

UPDATE: Cleverly said:

We have been working with Rwanda to build capacity and to amend our agreement to make it clear that those sent there cannot be sent to any country other than the UK. Our intention is to upgrade our agreement to a treaty as soon as possible, which will make it absolutely clear to our courts and to Strasbourg that the risks laid out by the Court today have been responded to, will be consistent with international law and will ensure that parliament is able to scrutinise it.

The prime minister has said that, if our domestic legal framework frustrates our plans, he is prepared to change our laws, but we are not going to put forward proposals simply to manufacture an unnecessary row for political gain.

Updated

Cleverly tells MPs supreme court's Rwanda judgement based on facts from 15 months ago

James Cleverly, the home secretary, is now making a statement on the supreme court judgment.

He says this means the government cannot “yet” deport people to Rwanda.

But the judgment was made on the basis of facts from 15 months ago, he says.

The government will digest the judgment, and reflect on it.

It is only by breaking the business model of people traffickers that the government can save lives and control the borders.

Other countries are now exploring third-country models for dealing with asylum claims, he says. He cites Austria, Germany, Denmark and Italy.

He says nothing in the judgment dims the government’s enthusiasm for this idea.

Updated

Sir Bill Cash (Con) asks for an assurance that David Cameron’s foreign policy will be in line with the party’s 2019 pro-Brexit stance.

Sunak says he can give that assurance.

Ian Paisley (DUP) says 82% of retailers do not even bother reporting attacks on their staff. And they have to sell another 12 items to make up for one stolen. Will the PM ensure they get better protection?

Sunak pays tribute to the work that Paisley does as vice-chair of the all-party group on retail crime. He says, having worked in his mother’s pharmacy, he understands the importance of this issue.

Updated

Neil O’Brien (Con) says in the light of the supreme court judgment is it now clear that a new law is needed to override the Human Rights Act.

Sunak says the government will go through the judgment carefully. It has already been working on a new treaty with Rwanda. So changes can be made, he says. But, if it becomes clear that domestic legal frameworks or international conventions have to be revisited, the government will do that, he says.

UPDATE: Sam Coates from Sky News has the clip.

Updated

Kate Osborne (Lab) says it is insulting that Esther McVey has been made a minister when she repeatedly attacks the LGBT community.

Sunak claims the government has a proud record tackling LGBT rights.

Updated

Kevin Brennan (Lab) asks what David Cameron’s most successful foreign affairs achievement was.

That prompts a lot of laughter.

Sunak says Cameron hosted one of the most successful G8 summits in recent times.

Sir Desmond Swayne (Con) asks if Sunak agrees the Israelis need to operate a more enlightened policy of administration on the occupied West Bank.

Sunak says the government favours a two-state solution.

Janet Daby (Lab) asks about the high turnover in housing ministers, suggesting this is why the government is failing on home ownership.

Sunak says first-time buyer numbers are at an all-time high.

Updated

Back at PMQs Nick Smith (Lab) says, given the investigations into Greensill Capital, what does it say about the PM’s judgment that he appointed David Cameron as foreign secretary? Cameron was a lobbyist for Greensill.

Sunak says Cameron has unrivalled experience of foreign affairs. And he says Labour wanted to make Jeremy Corbyn PM.

Updated

Beth Rigby from Sky News says it is not really clear what Sunak was offering when he talked about revisiting international conventions as a means of stopping the boats. She says the ambiguity may have been deliberate.

I read domestic law as putting thru emergency legislation to overwrite court ruling - but could ‘revisiting’ legal framework also a hint on ECHR…. That’s unclear - perhaps what he wants…

And Steven Swinford from the Times points out that, if people like Lee Anderson want the government to ignore the supreme court altogther, Sunak will find it hard satisfying his backbenchers on this.

Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, says in 2010 David Cameron described Gaza as an open-air prison. He asks if Sunak agrees there needs to be an immediate ceasefire.

Sunak says he has repeatedly called for humanitarian pauses.

Flynn asks if Sunak thinks MPs should get a free vote on a ceasefire.

Sunak says the government’s position is clear. Israel should have the right to defend itself, he says.

Updated

Starmer says Sunak sees himself as the first AI PM. But his big idea is to keep turning the government on and off and hope that will generate signs of life.

Sunak goes back to inflation, saying he has met his most important promise. Labour would push up the cost of living, he claims.

Starmer asks Sunak to admit he has failed to stop the boats.

Sunak says Labour does not believe in controlling migration.

Starmer says Labour has changed. The asylum backlog is now up to 175,000, he says. Plan A has failed. Sunak will have to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch. Will he drop what Braverman calls his “magical thinking” and start treating the topic seriously?

Sunak claims Starmer cannot even make his party do the right thing in terms of standing by Israel. He quotes figures that he says show his small boats policy is making progress. Under Labour, the UK would accept 100,000 more illegal migrants, he claims.

(This is not accurate, as this Full Fact factcheck explains.)

Starmer says Sunak bet everything on his Rwanda policy. He has wasted £140m of taxpayers’ cash. Will he apologise?

Sunak said Starmer did not hear the bit about his being willing to do everything to stop the boats. And he says his plan has reduced small boat crossings by a third.

And he attacks Starmer for serving in the shadow cabinet with Jeremy Corbyn.

Updated

Keir Starmer devoted his first question to David Cameron, pointing out that his relations with China were criticised by the intelligence and security committee. In his second question he attacked Sunak for making Suella Braverman home secretary.

Updated

Sunak also says he is willing to reconsider international conventions as part of his drive to stop the boats.

Sunak, in his second answer, says, as well as being willing to revisit domestic legal frameworks, he is also willing to consider international conventions if that is needed to stop the boats. He says:

If it becomes clear that our domestic legal frameworks or international conventions are still frustrating the plans at that point, I am prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships.

The British people expect us to do whatever it takes to stop the boats and that is precisely what this government will deliver.

Updated

Sunak says he is willing to 'revist domestic legal frameworks' if that is needed to stop the boats

Rishi Sunak starts by saying at the start of the year he made halving inflation his number one priority. Today he has delivered, he says.

On Rwanda, he says the supreme court said that in principle deporting asylum seekers to a third country was legal, but that on other issues they wanted “additional certainty”.

(He is making it sound like the government won!)

He says the home secretary will make a statement. And he says, if necessary, he is prepared to “revisit our domestic legal frameworks” if that is needed to stop the boats.

UPDATE: Sunak said:

This morning also the supreme court gave a judgment on the Rwanda plan. They confirmed that the principle of removing asylum seekers to a safe third country is lawful.

There are further elements that they want additional certainty on and noted that changes can be delivered in the future to address those issues.

The government has been working already on a new treaty with Rwanda and we will finalise that in light of today’s judgment.

Furthermore, if necessary I am prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks.

Rishi Sunak speaking at PMQs.
Rishi Sunak speaking at PMQs. Photograph: Maria Unger/UK PARLIAMENT/AFP/Getty Images

Updated

Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs

Rishi Sunak is about to take PMQs.

Rishi Sunak leaving No 10 ahead of PMQs.
Rishi Sunak leaving No 10 ahead of PMQs. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Updated

Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns claims six other MPs are joining her in calling for no confidence vote in Sunak

Dame Andrea Jenkyns told GB News she was aware of six other Tory MPs who were going to join her in writing to the chair of the 1922 Committee asking for a vote of no confidence in Rishi Sunak. (See 9am.) She said:

I spoke to several colleagues and I know six who have said to me that they’re putting letters in today, so that’s seven we now know about.

I’ve had lots of constituents contact me who are really frustrated, and actually when I put my letter in, I had hundreds of people from all over the country saying thank you for doing this.

I’ve wrestled with this, the fact that we could look very stupid toppling another leader, but I think we’ve got to bite the bullet now.

For a no confidence vote to take place, 53 Conservative MPs would have to submit letters.

Updated

And Nick Emmerson, the Law Society president, has said the judgment calls into question the whole basis of the Illegal Migration Act. He said:

The ruling must also call into question the Illegal Migration Act as a whole as it is heavily connected to the Rwanda policy.

We have repeatedly raised concerns about whether the act is workable in practice. It is also widely considered to be incompatible with international law.

The act is reliant on removing people from the UK. The Rwanda removals agreement has been ruled unlawful and there are currently no other removal agreements in place to ‘safe’ third countries.

A growing number of people will be left in limbo under the act as they cannot be removed, and they cannot be granted asylum.

The cost to the taxpayer will continue to increase as the individuals left in limbo are housed in either detention centres or Home Office supported accommodation indefinitely.

This therefore undermines both the government’s justification for the act and its ability to offer a sustainable solution for the UK’s asylum system.

Updated

The Refugee Council has welcomed the supreme court’s judgment. This is from its CEO, Enver Solomon.

This is a victory for the rights of men, women and children who simply want to be safe. Every day at the Refugee Council we work with people who have fled from bombs and bullets in war ravaged countries such as Sudan and Syria, children and families who’ve fled death threats and persecution in Afghanistan and women who’ve escaped the clutches of the oppressive regime in Iran. They have been highly distressed, anxious, and traumatised about the prospect of being shipped as though they are human cargo to Rwanda.

The plan goes against who we are as a country that stands up for those less fortunate than us and for the values of compassion, fairness and humanity. The government should be focusing on creating a functioning asylum system that allows people who seek safety in the UK a fair hearing on our soil and provides safe routes so they don’t have to take dangerous journeys.

Tory deputy chair Lee Anderson suggests government should just ignore supreme court judgment

The Conservative party used to be the party of law and order. But today its deputy chair, Lee Anderson, has said the government should ignore the supreme court judgment and just deport asylum seekers to Rwanda anyway. This is from the Times’ Aubrey Allegretti.

Lee Anderson says ministers should go ahead and “put planes in the air” to Rwanda anyway.

When I asked if he was suggesting ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, the Tory deputy chairman said govt should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”.

Rishi Sunak has been challenged by rightwing Tory MPs to produce emergency legislation within days to demonstrate how the Conservatives will deliver on the “stop the boats” promise,.

“It’s an existential threat to our party,” said Danny Kruger after a meeting in parliament attended by a range of other MPs from different factions, including Iain Duncan Smith, Bill Cash, and the deputy chair, Lee Anderson. Twenty-five MPs were said to have attended, including Miriam Cates and Marco Longhi.

The MPs declined to say whether they would continue to support the prime minister, indicating that they would wait to see what his response would be.

Jonathan Gullis, a “red wall” MP who was also at the meeting, said the meeting had also discussed the need for a “plan B” which could involve an Australian-style move to push back boats in the Channel and even begin dropping people back on French beaches.

Updated

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, says Rishi Sunak’s small boats policy has now “completely failed”. In a classic “I told you so” political response, she says:

The prime minister’s flagship policy has completely failed. This damning judgment on his Rwanda policy, where he has already spent more than £140m of taxpayers’ money, exposes Rishi Sunak’s failure to get any grip or have any serious plan to tackle dangerous boat crossings, which are undermining border security and putting lives at risk.

Labour argued from the start this plan is unworkable and extortionately expensive. Now it has been confirmed as unlawful because the government failed to ensure they had a robust and workable policy. Ministers knew about the weaknesses in this scheme from the start and yet they insisted on making it their flagship policy.

The Conservatives have broken our asylum system leading to a record asylum backlog, with 175,000 stuck in limbo, costing British people £8m a day in hotel bills. With 615 small boat crossings last Sunday alone, the government must stop chasing headlines and unworkable gimmicks, and urgently adopt Labour’s plan to reduce the backlog and for a cross-border police unit to go after the criminal gangs.

Updated

Jacob Rees-Mogg and Simon Clarke lead Tory calls for government to now bypass ECHR

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary and a leading Brexiter, says the government should now legislate to allow the UK to deport people to Rwanda regardless of what the European convention on human rights says. He told GB News.

Unless we deal with the application of European human rights in the UK, we will not get flights to Rwanda. If we don’t get flights to Rwanda, we will not deal with the small boats problem.

This is a real test for His Majesty’s government, and what they need to do, what’s in its power to do, is to introduce primary legislation that will override all these obstacles.

That’s the basic constitutional principle of our country, that parliamentary sovereignty means that the highest court in the land is not the supreme court, it’s the high court of parliament …

The key here is that parliament can legislate to say anything. It can legislate to amend the Human Rights Act, it can legislate to override the European convention on human rights.

Essentially, this judgment boils down to who do you trust to decide whether Rwanda is safe? Do you trust the judgment of the home secretary, or do you trust the judgment of a United Nations agency which has had all sorts of problems?

Simon Clarke, the former levelling up secretary, has also called for emergency legislation. In an inteview with Sky News, he said the government should either pass notwithstanding legislation – a law allowing the UK to ignore the European convention on human rights – or, if notwithstanding legislation is not legally viable, just withdraw from the convention altogether.

As the day goes on, we are likely to hear a lot more comments along these lines from Tory rightwingers.

But Rees-Mogg and Clarke have not addressed the supreme court’s point about non-refoulement being embedded not just in the convention, but in a lot of other international law too. The court even said that non-refoulement could be seen as “a principle of customary international law” which would mean “it is consequently binding upon all states in international law, regardless of whether they are party to any treaties which give it effect”. (See 10.48am.)

Updated

But Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover, who is normally seen as being on the right of the party, has said the government should now abandon the Rwanda policy and focus on getting a returns agreement with France.

The Supreme’s Court decision on Rwanda means the policy is effectively at an end. No planes will be leaving and we now need to move forward.

A fresh policy is now needed: a new Cross Channel Agreement with France to stop the boats leaving and return those that do to the safety of the French coast. That should be David Cameron’s top foreign policy priority.

Some Tory MPs are saying the government should respond to the supreme court ruling with a much more aggressive policy on small boats. These are from my colleague Ben Quinn, who has been outside the room where some members of the New Conservatives group have been meeting.

Jonathan Gullis MP wants the Home Office to revive its push-back policy – using boats to force small boats away from Britain and back into French waters. (The Home Office did briefly explore the idea, but concluded it was impractical, and probably illegal too.)

o

Another rightwing Tory, Brendan Clarke-Smith, has retweeted this famous headline from the Daily Mail, published in response to a court ruling that the government needed parliament’s approval to trigger article 50 (the start of the Brexit process).

Updated

Amnesty urges government to abandon Rwanda policy and repeal Illegal Migration Act after supreme court ruling

Amnesty International UK says the government should now abandon the Rwanda policy, and repeal the Illegal Migration Act, in the light of the supreme court judgment. Its chief executive, Sacha Deshmukh, said:

This judgment is vital to protect people seeking asylum in this country, but the government must now draw a line under a disgraceful chapter in the UK’s political history.

The deal with Rwanda – a country with a track record of serious human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, torture and the repression of free speech – was massively ill-conceived and cruel.

It’s now time for the government and the new home secretary to not only abandon the idea of doing a deal with Rwanda, but to scrap the underlying policy of refusing to process people’s asylum claims and the Illegal Migration Act that has entrenched that dismal policy.

This policy has made complete chaos of the UK’s asylum system and this shameful deal has simply exacerbated the mess.

The only responsible, effective and decent response to this judgement should be to get down to the serious task of fairly and efficiently determining people’s claims.

The idea that the UK should withdraw from the European convention to pursue this failed policy is nonsensical and should be immediately binned. The government should make policies which fit with the law, not fit the law around their policies.

Updated

Sunak to hold press conference at 4.45pm following supreme court judgment

No 10 has also announced that Rishi Sunak will hold a press conference at 4.45pm.

Before that, James Cleverly, the home secretary, will give a statement to MPs after 12.30pm.

Updated

Sunak says he remains committed to doing 'whatever it takes' to stop small boats despite supreme court judgment

No 10 has released a response to the supreme court judgment from Rishi Sunak. In his statement the PM says:

We have seen today’s judgment and will now consider next steps.

This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats.

Crucially, the supreme court – like the court of appeal and the high court before it – has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the government’s clear view from the outset.

Illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so.

Because when people know that if they come here illegally, they won’t get to stay then they will stop coming altogether, and we will stop the boats.

Rwanda policy would still be unlawful even if UK were not party to European convention on human rights, says supreme court

The supreme court judgment will reignite the debate in the Conservative party about whether or not the UK should leave the European convention on human rights.

But one of the interesting features of the judgment, referenced by Lord Reed in his speech (see 10.06am), is that it says that it is not just the ECHR that obliges the UK to respect the principle of non-refoulement for refugees. It says:

It may be that the principle of non-refoulement also forms part of customary international law. The United Kingdom has subscribed to this view, along with the other states parties to the refugee convention, in the 2001 Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The fourth recital to the preamble to the declaration acknowledged the continuing relevance and resilience of the international regime of rights and principles established for the protection of refugees, “including at its core the principle of non-refoulement, whose applicability is embedded in customary international law”. The significance of non-refoulement being a principle of customary international law is that it is consequently binding upon all states in international law, regardless of whether they are party to any treaties which give it effect. However, as we have not been addressed on this matter, we do not rely on it in our reasoning.

The principle of non-refoulement is therefore given effect not only by the ECHR but also by other international conventions to which the United Kingdom is party. It is a core principle of international law, to which the United Kingdom government has repeatedly committed itself on the international stage, consistently with this country’s reputation for developing and upholding the rule of law.

The judgment also says the UK government would still have to respect the non-refoulement principle even if it repealed the Human Rights Act (another target of Tory rightwingers). It says:

Asylum seekers are thus protected against refoulement not only by the Human Rights Act but also by provisions in the 1993 Act, the 2002 Act and the 2004 Act, under which parliament has given effect to the refugee convention as well as the ECHR.

Updated

Why supreme court ruled Rwanda policy unlawful - extract from its judgment

Here is the text of the supreme court’s judgment in the Rwanda case.

And here is a key extract.

The secretary of state’s submission, in effect, is that the evidence of current inadequacies in Rwanda’s asylum system, and of its past history of refoulement and of failing to comply with assurances given to the government of another country, is not a reliable guide to how asylum seekers removed to Rwanda under the MEDP [migration and economic development partnership – the UK’s deal with Rwanda] will be treated. A predictive evaluation is required, and the MEDP provides assurances that the necessary improvements to the system will be implemented. No one has questioned the good faith of the Rwandan government in giving those assurances, and it has financial and reputational incentives to honour them. The monitoring arrangements under the MEDP will deter non-compliance and ensure that any failures come to light.

There is no dispute that the government of Rwanda entered into the MEDP in good faith. We accept that Rwanda has a strong reputational incentive to ensure that the MEDP is adhered to. The financial arrangement may provide a further incentive. In addition, the monitoring arrangements, and the degree of attention which would be likely to be paid to the operation of the MEDP by organisations such as UNHCR, provide further incentives and safeguards. Nevertheless, intentions and aspirations do not necessarily correspond to reality: the question is whether they are achievable in practice. That is illustrated by the history of Rwanda’s agreement with Israel: we have no reason to doubt that Rwanda gave its undertakings to Israel in good faith, and that the government of Israel believed that they would be fulfilled. The central issue in the present case is therefore not the good faith of the government of Rwanda at the political level, but its practical ability to fulfil its assurances, at least in the short term, in the light of the present deficiencies of the Rwandan asylum system, the past and continuing practice of refoulement (including in the context of an analogous arrangement with Israel), and the scale of the changes in procedure, understanding and culture which are required.

In agreement with the court of appeal, we consider that the past and the present cannot be effectively ignored or sidelined as the secretary of state suggests. Of course, since the application of the Soering test requires a consideration of risk, it therefore involves prediction. But risk is judged in the light of what has happened in the past, and in the light of the situation as it currently exists, as well as in the light of what may be promised for the future.

The matters which we have discussed are evidence of a culture within Rwanda of, at best, inadequate understanding of Rwanda’s obligations under the refugee convention. The evidence also goes some way to support the suggestion of a dismissive attitude towards asylum seekers from the Middle East and Afghanistan. It is also apparent from the evidence that significant changes need to be made to Rwanda’s asylum procedures, as they operate in practice, before there can be confidence that it will deal with asylum seekers sent to it by the United Kingdom in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement. The necessary changes may not be straightforward, as they require an appreciation that the current approach is inadequate, a change of attitudes, and effective training and monitoring.

As matters stand, the evidence establishes substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin. In that event, genuine refugees will face a real risk of ill-treatment in circumstances where they should not have been returned at all. The right of appeal to the high court is completely untested, and there are grounds for concern as to its likely effectiveness. The detection of failures in the asylum system by means of monitoring, however effective it may be, will not prevent those failures from occurring in the first place. We accept the secretary of state’s submission that the capacity of the Rwandan system (in the sense of its ability to produce accurate and fair decisions) can and will be built up. Nevertheless, asking ourselves whether there were substantial grounds for believing that a real risk of refoulement existed at the relevant time, we have concluded that there were. The structural changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate that risk may be delivered in the future, but they were not shown to be in place at the time when the lawfulness of the policy had to be considered in these proceedings.

Updated

Refugee charities welcome supreme court's judgment as 'victory for humanity'

Campaigners who work with refugees have welcomed the supreme court’s ruling. Steve Smith, CEO of refugee charity Care4Calais, said:

The supreme court’s judgment is a victory for humanity. This grubby, cash-for-people deal was always cruel and immoral, but, most importantly, it is unlawful.

Today’s judgment should bring this shameful mark on the UK’s history to a close.

Never again should our government seek to shirk our country’s responsibility to offer sanctuary to those caught up in horrors around the world.

All the architects of the Rwanda plan may be gone but unless the government changes course and introduces a policy of safe passage, then the rest should follow them out the door. There can be no more time wasted attacking the vulnerable when all they seek is our help.

And Sonya Sceats, the chief executive at the charity Freedom from Torture, said:

This is a victory for reason and compassion.

We are delighted that the supreme court has affirmed what caring people already knew: the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, but it also flies in the face of the laws of this country.

Updated

The Green party has welcomed the supreme court’s decision. Its co-leader Carla Denyer said:

This is welcome news. The government must now admit that its cruel and inhumane policy is finished and drop it.

The new home secretary has the chance now to turn over a new leaf and make clear that there is no intention to quit the European convention on human rights.

He should pledge to create an asylum system that works. That is one with clear, open, safe and legal routes for applicants, quick and efficient determinations and support for resettlement into local communities with properly funded local services.

Supreme court concludes Rwanda policy unlawful because of risks to asylum seekers being sent there

Reed says, given this evidence, the court of appeal concluded that there were good grounds for thinking asylum seekers going to Rwanda were at risk.

He says the supreme court is unanimously of the view that the court of appeal was right.

UPDATE: PA Media says:

Lord Reed said the “legal test” in the case was whether there were “substantial grounds” for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at “real risk” of being sent back to the countries they came from where they could face “ill treatment”. He said:

In the light of the evidence which I have summarised, the court of appeal concluded that there were such grounds.

We are unanimously of the view that they were entitled to reach that conclusion. Indeed, having been taken through the evidence ourselves, we agree with their conclusion.

Updated

Reed says the UNHCR also raised the Israel-Rwanda deal, operating between 2013 and 2018. Israel sent asylum seekers to Rwanda. Rwanda was meant to comply with the non-refoulement rule, he says. It was similar to the UK deal.

But, Reed says, under this system asylum seekers were routinely sent to a neighbouring country from where they were likely to be refouled.

Reed says UNHCR also raised concerns about how the Rwandan judicial system operates.

He says Rwanda has a 100% rejection of asylum claims from countries such as Syria and Afghanistan. The UK often finds such claims are well founded, he says.

Updated

Turning to the evidence, Reed says Rwanda has been criticised for extrajudicial killings. He says the police in the UK have had to warn Rwandan refugees about threats to kill them.

The evidence raises questions about Rwanda’s compliance with its international obligations, he says.

Updated

Reed says the court of appeal was right to overturn the high court’s decision on the grounds that the UNHCR evidence had not been properly considered.

He says the supreme court has had to decide if the court of appeal was right.

Reed says the home secretary says Rwanda can be relied on because of the memorandum of understanding it has agreed with the UK.

But UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, has provided evidence suggesting Rwanda cannot be relied upon to treat asylum seekers properly.

If Rwanda does not have an adequate system for dealing with refugees, they may be returned to their country of origin – ie, they may be subject to refoulement, he says.

He says UNHCR has produced evidence of Rwanda failing to respect non-refoulement in a deal with Israel.

Updated

Reed says the court has had to decide whether the Rwanda policy breaches the non-refoulement rule.

The policy is in the Home Office’s immigration rules, he says.

He says people can only be sent back to a safe third country if it accepts the non-refoulement rule.

He says the controversial decision was the home secretary’s decision to say Rwanda was a safe third country.

Both sides accept the same legal test: whether there are substantial grounds for believing asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will be at risk of refoulement.

If there are substantial grounds, the policy is illegal. If there are not, the policy is legal, he says.

Updated

Reed says the court has looked at whether the policy is lawful.

This is a legal matter, he says. He says the court has not taken a political view on the policy. And nothing in the judgment should be seen as a political stance.

He says refugees should not be returned to their country of origin if they could face persecution there. That rule is known as non-refoulement.

This rule is in the UN refugee convention, to which the UK is a party, he says. Other conventions to which the UK is party support this rule.

Reed says this means it is not just the European convention on human rights that stops asylum seekers being sent back to their country of origin without proper consideration of their claims.

And he says UK law has backed this principle, including the Human Rights Act.

He says the HRA is “not the only relevant legislation”.

Updated

Supreme court president Lord Reed delivers judgment in Rwanda case

Lord Reed, president of the supreme court, is giving the ruling now.

He explains what the Rwanda policy is. It is not about letting Rwanda decide if people get asylum in the UK, he says. It is about sending people to Rwanda, where they can claim asylum to stay in Rwanda.

The judgment is being streamed here:

Updated

If you are looking for a Twitter thread on the supreme court to read while we wait for the judgment, you could do a lot worse than start with this one. It is from Sir Jonathan Jones, who used to be head of the government’s legal department. He resigned when he thought Boris Johnson’s government wanted to break the law over Brexit legislation. It starts here.

Esther McVey says Sunak made her minister to help bring about 'common sense changes'

GB News has issued a statement from Esther McVey, who was appointed minister without portfolio in the Cabinet Office on Monday, confirming she is giving up her presenting job with the channel. It quotes McVey as saying:

The prime minister asked me to join his government to help bring about the common sense changes the country needs. Given the scale of the challenges we face, it is incumbent on all of us to do what we can, and I will roll up my sleeves and do my best for the government and the country.

But this was far from an easy decision for me to make as it means relinquishing my role on GB News – in particular presenting a show I love with Phil [Davies]. I don’t think it is a coincidence that when the prime minister looked for a champion for common sense he selected someone from GB News – the home of common sense.

On Monday the Sun carried a story saying the “common sense tsar” tasked with “tackling the scourge of wokery”. But Richard Holden, the Conservative party chair, and No 10 were both relectant (here and here) to confirm that this was how they saw McVey’s job.

The supreme court is now in session. But, before it gets to Rwanda, it is delivering a judgment in another case related to Bernie Madoff.

There is a live feed here.

New health secretary Victoria Atkins says she will get 'around the table' to find fair solution to NHS strikes

New health secretary Victoria Atkins has suggested she will take a new approach to dealing with NHS strikes and plans to find a “fair and reasonable resolution”, PA Media reports. PA says:

In a video message to the NHS Providers’ annual conference in Liverpool, she told delegates she is “an optimist”.

Atkins said she planned to work with staff to overcome the challenges in the health service and “take the long-term decisions that will build a brighter future for our NHS”.

She added: “And this is the approach I will take to industrial action. I’m acutely aware of how the strikes have disrupted patient care and I’m committed to getting around the table, because I want to see a fair and reasonable resolution.”

What will the supreme court’s Rwanda judgment mean for UK immigration policy

Here is my colleague Rajeev Syal’s guide to what might happen with the supreme court’s judgment, and what the implications would be.

Labour frontbenchers who vote for SNP's Gaza ceasefire amendment face being sacked, Pat McFadden suggests

Last night Labour published its amendment to the king’s speech motion – amendment (r), on page 15 here – and it calls for longer humanitarian pauses in Gaza, but not a full ceasefire. Many Labour MPs would rather vote for the SNP amendment – amendment (h), on page 10 here – which does call for a full ceasefire. The speaker has not announced yet which amendments will be put to a vote, but in the queen’s speech debate last year the SNP amendment was called, and so that is likely to happen again this evening.

Pat McFadden, Labour’s national campaign coordinator, confirmed this morning that Labour MPs would not get a free vote on the SNP amendment. And he would not deny reports that frontbenchers who do vote for the SNP ceasefire proposal will be sacked. He told Sky News:

Like every frontbencher, I serve at the pleasure of the leader. Who is on the frontbench is a matter for him and the chief whip.

Defending the Labour amendment, he told LBC:

It deals with the three critical aspects of this, which are: how this began on October 7 with the greatest slaughter of Jews since the end of the Second World War; it deals with the current humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza, calling for pauses in the fighting for more aid for more electricity, water, medicine to get into help the people there and, critically, it also deals with the future.

And in setting it out in a comprehensive way, just as Keir Starmer did in his Chatham House speech a couple of weeks ago, we have given a position that Labour MPs can vote for.

Updated

Rishi Sunak to take PMQs as supreme court prepares to deliver judgment on Rwanda policy

Good morning. Sometimes the news arrives in a steady flow, and sometimes it tumbles out all at once. Today is one of those days. Within less than two hours, in its most important judgment since the prorogation case, the supreme court will deliver its judgment on whether the government’s Rwanda deportation policy is lawful. Two hours later Rishi Sunak will take PMQs, and he will be speaking as he faces the biggest challenge to his leadership in his (admittedly short) prime ministerial career. The Today programme has just given its 8.10 interview slot to a Tory MP calling for him to be replaced. And later, at 7pm, there is likely to be a vote in the Commons on a Gaza ceasefire proposal that will expose serious splits in the Labour party.

All this will overshadow some good news for Sunak this morning; he has achieved his target of halving inflation.

As a leader, it is never great to have one of your backbenchers calling for your resignation, but Sunak can take some comfort from the fact that Today’s guest was Dame Andrea Jenkyns, a relatively obscure hardline Brexiter and Boris Johnson loyalist whose open letter calling for a vote of no confidence in Sunak on Monday has failed to persuade colleagues to join her cause. On the Today programme she said:

Constituents have been writing in and saying Rishi must go. And I think we’ve got to bite the bullet now. I think it’ll get to the stage anyway, if we are going to keep going so behind in the polling, where Rishi will be gone – let’s do it now, let’s get a new leader.

Jenkyns said she would like to see Priti Patel as the next leader.

The interview with Jenkyns was immediately followed by an interview with Michael Howard, a former home secretary, a former Conservative leader, and now a peer. He said any Tories who thought it would be a good idea to have another leadership contest were “some distance from reality”. He said the party was “very fortunate” to have Sunak as PM and that it was better off without Suella Braverman as home secretary. It is Braverman’s open letter to Sunak last night that has reignited talk of a leadership challenge.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The supreme court delivers its judgment in the Rwanda case.

12pm: Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.

After 12.30pm: James Cleverly, the home secretary, delivers a Common statement on the Rwanda judgment.

After 1.30pm: MPs resume their debate on the king’s speech.

7pm MPs vote on the king’s speech, with Keir Starmer facing a potential revolt on an amendment calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Do monsteras like being root-bound? Expert advice on keeping this statement houseplant happy
Not accommodating your monstera's growth may hinder its health long-term
Homes & Gardens
Homes & Gardens
“There is a line there that you cross where you are just spending money for the sake of the name or the label”: Slash says you don’t need to spend “an arm and a leg” to get a guitar that’s as good as you’ll ever need
The Guns N' Roses guitarist has a formidable guitar collection but argues a lot of vintage guitars sound bad, and the same people who'd drop a million bucks on a guitar have a Rolls-Royce mentality
MusicRadar
MusicRadar
Alan Wake and Alan Wake Remastered will have different ending songs starting next week
Expiring licenses means some of you will continue to enjoy one of David Bowie's greatest tracks, and some of you will not.
PC Gamer
PC Gamer
Katy Perry finally reveals why she broke up with Orlando Bloom
Katy Perry finally reveals why she broke up with Orlando Bloom
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
Is your cocktail ultra-processed? Nutrition labels won’t tell you
Many ready-to-drink cocktails have as much sugar as Coca-Cola – but a loophole avoids the ‘ultra-processed’ tag
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
“No More Linkin Park For Me”: Band’s New Singer Emily Armstrong Slammed Over Scientology Claim
“Disconcerting information is coming out alleging that Emily supports Danny Masterson and rallied for him at his trial.” The post “No More Linkin Park For Me”: Band’s New Singer Emily Armstrong Slammed Over Scientology Claim first appeared on Bored Panda.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play