Rishi Sunak braced for collision with right-wing Tories as Rwanda bill returns to Commons
Rishi Sunak is gearing up for a potential rebellion among his backbenchers when his controversial Rwanda bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday.
The prime minister is facing a dilemma over the question of whether to toughen up the bill to appease those on the right of his party. If he does, he risks losing the support of the more centrist wing who already feel the bill goes too far in testing the boundaries of international law.
What is the latest Rwanda plan?
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is aimed at reviving Mr Sunak’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda if they attempt to come to the UK via small boat crossings in the Channel.
The plan, which forms part of his strategy to “stop the boats”, was dealt a blow last year when the Supreme Court ruled the policy unlawful on the grounds there was a risk genuine refugees sent to Rwanda could be returned to their home country, where they would face “ill-treatment”.
In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, Mr Sunak was forced to amend the bill to address its concerns.
The Safety of Rwanda Bill is designed to enable parliament to confirm Rwanda is a “safe country”.
Controversially, the legislation gives ministers the powers to disregard sections of the Human Rights Act, but does not go as far as allowing them to dismiss the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) entirely.
What is happening from Tuesday?
From Tuesday, the bill will go through committee stage, where detailed examination of the bill is carried out.
There will be debates and votes on Tuesday and into Wednesday. On Wednesday evening, there will be the third reading of the bill, which is the final chance for the Commons to debate the bill.
MPs will then vote on whether or not to approve the contents of the bill, in a crunch moment for Mr Sunak.
Why is Sunak facing a rebellion?
The right-wing rebels want the prime minister to go further in distancing the UK from human rights laws that might be used to stop flights taking off to the African country.
Robert Jenrick, who resigned as immigration minister in protest at the bill and has tabled a number of amendments, wants changes including a clause to allow ministers to ignore so-called “pyjama injunctions” issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – last-minute orders from judges that could stop planes from taking off.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Calls to ‘strengthen’ Rwanda bill
He also wants migrants to be blocked from bringing individual claims to suspend flights “in all but a limited set of circumstances”, and a broader block on claims that could be made under international treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The amendments are designed to close off the vast majority of routes to legal challenges by migrants while leaving a few exceptions, such as when a migrant is medically unfit to fly (including pregnancy), or when they are under 18.
They are understood to be supported by around 56 Tory MPs, including the recently sacked home secretary Suella Braverman, former cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and leaders of the New Conservatives Danny Kruger and Miriam Cates.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
PM asked if he will discipline frontbenchers who oppose plan
On Monday evening, Lee Anderson – the Conservative Party deputy chair who takes a hardline stance on immigration issues – confirmed he would back the rebel amendments, as did fellow deputy chair Brendan Clarke-Smith.
In an ominous sign for Mr Sunak, the Times also reported that Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch had privately warned the prime minister’s aides that the bill did not go far enough and that it needed to be tightened by stopping migrants from lodging individual appeals against their removal except in only the most exceptional circumstances.
Read more:
Rebel Tories not expecting to secure major changes to Rwanda bill
Tory MP appeals for unity ahead of Rwanda bill’s return to parliament
However, if Mr Sunak does accede to the rebels’ demands, he risks losing the support of the more centrist One Nation group, who have warned him against “rewriting” international obligations in the name of “self interest”.
The prime minister has also previously argued that moving a further “inch” on the bill would risk the Rwandan government pulling out.
What happened before Christmas?
The prime minister was braced for a Commons showdown when the Rwanda bill had its first test in the Commons – known as second reading – in mid-December.
But despite much fanfare and threats from right-wing Tories, Mr Sunak avoided a damaging rebellion and the legislation passed by 313 votes to 270 – a majority of 43.
Downing Street is hopeful that this outcome will be replicated once again – and that if any MPs do vote against the legislation, the numbers will be small.
Sky News can reveal that the government has rowed back on a national compensation scheme for victims of child sexual abuse, despite it being promised under the previous Conservative administration.
Warning – this story contains references to sexual and physical abuse
A National Redress Scheme was one of 20 key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), but a Home Office report reveals the government has scrapped it because of the cost.
Marie, who is 71, suffered alleged sexual, physical, and emotional abuse at Greenfield House Convent in St Helens, Merseyside, between 1959 and 1962, and is still fighting for compensation.
Greenfield House Convent, where Marie says she was abused
As soon as she arrived as a six-year-old, Marie says her hair was cut off, her name changed, and she experienced regular beatings from the nuns and students.
She claims a nun instigated the violence, including when Marie was held down so that her legs were “spread-eagled” as she was sexually abused with a coat hanger.
Merseyside Police investigated claims of abuse at the convent, but in 2016, a suspect died before charges could be brought.
Marie has received an apology from the Catholic body that ran the home; she tried to sue them, but her claim was rejected because it was filed too long after the alleged abuse.
Marie, 71, is still fighting for compensation for the abuse she says she suffered as a child
In February, ministers said the law would change for victims of sexual abuse trying to sue institutions for damages, which was a recommendation from the IICSA.
Previously, people had to make a civil claim before they were 21, unless the victim could prove a fair trial could proceed despite the time lapse.
Campaigners argued for the time limit to be removed as, on average, victims wait 26 years to come forward. Changes to the 1980 Limitation Act could lead to more people making claims.
Peter Garsden, President of The Association of Child Abuse Lawyers
Civil cases ‘can take three to five years’
But Peter Garsden, president of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, worries that when it comes to historical abuse where the defendant is dead, institutions will still argue that it is impossible to have a fair trial and will fight to have the case thrown out of court.
Mr Garsden said it takes “between three and five years” for a civil case to get to trial.
He warned that claimants “can end up losing if you go through that process. Whereas the Redress Scheme would be quicker, much more straightforward, and much more likely to give justice to the victims”.
Victim awarded £10 compensation
Jimbo, who was a victim of abuse at St Aidan’s children’s home in Cheshire, took his case to the High Court twice and the Court of Appeal three times, but, after 13 years, all he ended up with was £10 for his bus fare to court.
Despite the Lord Justice of Appeal saying he believed that the abuse had occurred, Jimbo lost his claim because of the time limit for child sexual abuse claims to be made.
Read more from Sky News:
Call for Labour minister to resign over grooming gang remarks
PM says govt will fund further local grooming gangs inquiries if ‘needed’
Neither Marie nor Jimbo is likely to benefit from the removal of the time limit for personal injury claims, which is why Mr Garsden is calling on the government to implement a National Redress Scheme for victims of sexual abuse, as recommended by the IICSA.
Hundreds of millions paid to victims
The governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland have set up compensation schemes and paid hundreds of millions of pounds to victims.
In 2023, the then Conservative government said a similar scheme would be organised for England and Wales.
But the Home Office admitted in its Tackling Child Sexual Abuse: Progress Update that it “is not currently taking forward any further steps on the IICSA proposal for a separate, national financial redress scheme for all survivors of child sexual abuse”.
“In the current fiscal environment, this recommendation is very difficult to take forward,” it added.
For victims, the scheme was the last chance of compensation for a lifetime blighted by abuse.
“The money is about justice and about all the other people who have had to suffer this abuse,” Marie said.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway