Sunak ‘wanted to scrap Rwanda scheme’ at start of leadership campaign

Published

10 months ago

January 8, 2024

admin

Rishi Sunak “wanted to scrap the Rwanda scheme” when he begin his 2022 Tory leadership bid, a campaign insider has told Sky News.

The prime minister “had no serious interest” in illegal or legal migration “until he was persuaded otherwise during the campaign”, the insider told our political editor Beth Rigby.

Politics Live: Sunak addresses calls to remove ex-Post Office boss’s CBE

It follows a report in The Sun which claimed Mr Sunak pushed back against the policy while chancellor because he was concerned about the costs.

The newspaper said his reservations remained when he unsuccessfully took on Liz Truss in the first Tory leadership contest of 2022, but was warned off scrapping it on the grounds it could upset Conservative MPs.

Mr Sunak has made the scheme central to his premiership since entering Downing Street.

On Monday he insisted he never said he was going to axe the Rwanda policy, but did not deny considering it.

In a carefully-worded answer to a question about the report at an event in Accrington, he said: “I didn’t say I was going to scrap it. I mean, that’s completely false. Of course I didn’t.”

He said it was his job as chancellor “to ask some probing questions” and scrutinise money spent on taxpayers’ behalf.

But he said he ultimately backed the policy because “I believe in this scheme” and “we need a deterrent” to small boat crossings.

It came after Mr Sunak on Sunday admitted questioning the “value for money” of the policy while he was chancellor, but insisted it was “wrong” to infer that he did not back sending asylum seekers to the east African country.

Leaked documents seen by Sky News suggested Mr Sunak wanted the scheme “scaled back” and was described as believing the “deterrent won’t work”.

The Rwanda policy is seen as key to Mr Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats” ahead of the next election, which the prime minister has signalled is likely to be held in the second half of 2024.

The government has committed at least £400m to the Rwandan government, but no asylum seekers have been relocated as yet after the Supreme Court ruled the proposal unlawful.

Mr Sunak is hoping to address the legal issues with his Safety of Rwanda Bill which is due to return to the Commons this month for debate.

But he could face a showdown with his own MPs, as critics on the right of his party have threatened to amend or even vote down the legislation if it is not tightened, while moderates in the opposite wing have warned against any changes that could breach the UK’s international obligations.

On Monday, the prime minister said he was open to “bright ideas” that could make the bill more effective “whilst complying with our international obligations and retaining Rwanda’s participation in the scheme”.

Labour said claims Mr Sunak contemplated cancelling the plan altogether was evidence of “the total Tory chaos over their failing Rwanda scheme and the weakness of Rishi Sunak”.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: “The idea that Rishi Sunak could doubt the policy when chancellor, plan to cancel it in his leadership campaign, and then end up belatedly championing it once it failed and will cost the taxpayer £400m shows how incredibly weak and hopeless he is, and how far he is just chasing gimmicks to pander to parts of the Tory party and keep his job.”

Politics

Assisted dying opponents believe they have the momentum – as Streeting criticised for ‘overstepping the mark’

Published

2 hours ago

November 14, 2024

admin

Assisted dying opponents believe they have the momentum - as Streeting criticised for 'overstepping the mark'

Labour MPs who are opposed to legalising assisted dying believe the momentum is swinging behind their side of the campaign, Sky News has learnt.

MPs are currently weighing up whether to back a change in the law that would give terminally ill people with six months to live the choice to end their lives.

At a meeting in parliament on Wednesday, Sky News understands Labour MPs on the opposing side of the argument agreed that those who were undecided on the bill were leaning towards voting against it.

One Labour backbencher involved in the whipping operation for the no camp told Sky News: “The undecideds are breaking to us, we feel.”

The source said that many of those who were undecided were new MPs who had expressed concerns that not enough time had been given to debate the bill.

“They feel they are too new to be asked to do something as substantive as this,” they said.

Politics latest: Farage mocked over ‘rare’ PMQs appearance

Issues that were being brought up as potential blocks to voting for the legislation include that doctors would be able to suggest assisted dying to an ill patient, they said.

The source added: “We were elected to sort the NHS out rather than assisted dying.

“And there is no going back on this – if any doubt, you should vote it out.”

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, is due to be debated on 29 November, when MPs will be given a “free vote” and allowed to vote with their conscience as opposed to along party lines.

In a recent letter to ministers, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case said the prime minister had decided to “set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill” and that the government would “remain neutral” on its passage and the matter of assisted dying.

There has been much debate about the bill since its details were published on Monday evening, including that the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and that people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.

Ms Leadbeater, who has the support of former government minister Lord Falconer and ChildLine founder Dame Esther Rantzen, believes her proposed legislation is the “most robust” in the world and contains safeguards she hopes will “reassure” those who are on the fence.

They include that two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and that a High Court judge must give their approval.

The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life or pressuring them to take life-ending medicine.

She has also argued the fact terminally ill patients will have to make the choice themselves and administer the drugs themselves “creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.

However, several cabinet ministers – including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who would be responsible for the new law – have spoken out against the legislation.

Mr Streeting, who has said he intends to vote against the bill owing to concerns that people might be coerced into taking their own lives, announced a review into the potential costs of assisted dying if it is implemented.

The health secretary warned that a new assisted dying law could come at the expense of other NHS services – and that there could be “trade-offs” elsewhere.

Sky News understands Ms Leadbeater has said she is “disappointed” by Mr Streeting’s comments about the bill.

And another Labour MP who is voting for the legislation told Sky News they believed Mr Streeting had “overstepped the mark”.

“I think it’s a bit of a false exercise,” they said.

“It’s definitely going to raise eyebrows – it’s one thing to sound the alarm but he is purposefully helping the other side.”

The MP said that while it did feel “the momentum is moving away from us, a lot of it will come down to the debate and argument in the chamber”.

“Some of the scaremongering tactics might backfire,” they added.

“It’s still all to play for but it’s undoubtedly true the other side seems to be making headway at the moment.”

A source close to Mr Streeting told Sky News: “Wes has approached this issue in a genuine and considerate way, setting out his own view while respecting others’ views.”

As a private member’s bill that has been put down by a backbencher rather than a government minister, the legislation will not receive as much time for consideration as a government bill – but proponents say it can always be amended and voted down at later stages.

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Tory MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke questioned whether enough time had been set aside to debate the bill and urged Sir Keir Starmer to allow two days, or 16 hours, of “protected time” to “examine and debate” the legislation before the vote.

Sir Keir replied: “I do think there is sufficient time allocated to it but it is an important issue.”