Rwanda bill sent back to MPs after peers inflicts new defeats on government

Published

8 months ago

March 20, 2024

admin

A government bill centred on deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda has been sent back to MPs after peers rejected it.

The Safety of Rwanda Bill had been debated in the House of Lords after their previous changes were dismissed by the Commons earlier this week.

In the upper chamber, the government lost seven votes by margins of around 50. The last time peers voted on amendments, the government lost by around 100 votes.

This means that a new vote will need to be scheduled in the Commons for MPs to consider the changes.

Politics latest: Talk of plot to oust PM ‘falling away’

While Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he wants flights to get off the ground in the spring, it is unclear if the two parliamentary houses will be able to reach a consensus before they go on recess next week.

The defeats for the government included:

• An amendment to make sure the legislation has “due regard” for international law, by 271 to 228;

• An amendment that states it is only safe in Rwanda while the provision in the treaty with the UK is in place, by 285 to 230;

• An amendment to check whether Rwanda complies with its treaty obligations, by 276 to 226;

• An amendment allowing individual appeals based on safety in Rwanda, by 263 to 233;

• An amendment requiring age assessments for those being deported to be carried out by the local authority, by 249 to 219;

• An amendment preventing those who say they are victims of modern slavery from being deported, by 251 to 214;

• An amendment to prevent the deportation of those who have served with or for the UK’s armed forces, by 248 to 209.

Labour’s Lord Vernon Coaker was among those who spoke against the government’s proposals.

He criticised the Commons for rejecting all the Lords’ initial amendments “carte blanche”.

Lord Coaker also bemoaned the continuing parliamentary ping pong which is set to continue after the Easter Christmas recess, saying it was the “government’s own management of its own timetable”.

Lord Alf Dubs, who arrived in Britain in 1939 on the Kindertransport – which organised the rescue of children from the Nazis – told the Lords it would be “an appalling dereliction of our responsibilities to vulnerable young people” if children who had been wrongly assessed as adults were sent to Rwanda.

On the other side of the debate, government and Conservative peers repeated the previous arguments, including that Rwanda was being judged as “not safe” because it’s “black”.

Lord Peter Lilley said: “I think we’re making a bit too much of the lack of provisions and safeguards now about one black country, when we had no concerns about a list of white countries.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

And Lord Keith Stewart – who is a government law officer – said: “Accountability is at the heart of democracy. That is why the government are fully entitled to bring forward the bill and why much of the criticism directed at them for doing so is fundamentally misconceived.”

Earlier in the day, Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer clashed over the policy – with the Labour leader branding it a “gimmick”, and claiming that the prime minister doesn’t believe in it.

Politics

Coinbase CEO to meet with Trump to discuss personnel appointments — WSJ

Published

5 hours ago

November 18, 2024

admin

Coinbase CEO to meet with Trump to discuss personnel appointments — WSJ

Before US Election Day, Brian Armstrong said Coinbase was “prepared to work” with either a Kamala Harris or Donald Trump administration.

Politics

Row over how many farms will be affected by inheritance tax policy – as PM doubles down ahead of farmers protest

Published

6 hours ago

November 18, 2024

admin

Row over how many farms will be affected by inheritance tax policy - as PM doubles down ahead of farmers protest

Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the “vast majority of farmers” will not be affected by changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) ahead of a protest outside parliament on Tuesday.

It follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing a 20% inheritance tax that will apply to farms worth more than £1m from April 2026, where they were previously exempt.

But the prime minister looked to quell fears as he resisted calls to change course.

Speaking from the G20 summit in Brazil, he said: “If you take a typical case of a couple wanting to pass a family farm down to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, with all of the thresholds in place, that’s £3m before any inheritance tax is paid.”

Politics latest: No 10 insists chancellor has been ‘straight’ about her CV

The comments come as thousands of farmers, including celebrity farmer Jeremy Clarkson, are due to descend on Whitehall on Tuesday to protest the change.

And 1,800 more will take part in a “mass lobby” where members of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) will meet their MPs in parliament to urge them to ask Ms Reeves to reconsider the policy.

Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir insisted the government is supportive of farmers, pointing to a £5bn investment announced for them in the budget.

He said: “I’m confident that the vast majority of farms and farmers will not be affected at all by that aspect of the budget.

“They will be affected by the £5bn that we’re putting into farming. And I’m very happy to work with farmers on that.”

Sir Keir’s spokesman made a similar argument earlier on Monday, saying the government expects 73% of farms to not be affected by the change.

Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Reed said only about 500 out of the UK’s 209,000 farms would be affected, according to Treasury calculations.

However, that number has been questioned by several farming groups and the Conservatives.

Government figures ‘misleading’

The NFU said the real number is about two-thirds, with its president Tom Bradshaw calling the government’s figures “misleading” and accusing it of not understanding the sector.

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the policy could affect 70,000 farms.

Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused the government last week of “regurgitating” figures that represent “past claimants of agricultural property relief, not combined with business property relief” because he said the Treasury does not have that data.

Agricultural property relief (APR) currently provides farmers 100% relief from paying inheritance tax on agricultural land or pasture used for rearing livestock or fish, and can include woodland and buildings, such as farmhouses, if they are necessary for that land to function.

Farmers can also claim business property relief (BPR), providing 50% or 100% relief on assets used by a trading business, which for farmers could include land, buildings, plant or machinery used by the business, farm shops and holiday cottages.

APR and BPR can often apply to the same asset, especially farmed land, but APR should be the priority, however BPR can be claimed in addition if APR does not cover the full value (e.g. if the land has development value above its agricultural value).

Mr Moore said the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Treasury have disagreed on how many farms will be impacted “by as much as 40%” due to the lack of data on farmers using BPR.

Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said last week1,400 farmers in Cumbria, where he is an MP, will be affected and will not be able to afford to pay the tax as many are on less than the minimum wage despite being asset rich.

Politics

Cabinet split over assisted dying as Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson latest to reveal she will vote against bill

Published

6 hours ago

November 18, 2024

admin

Cabinet split over assisted dying as Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson latest to reveal she will vote against bill

A split is emerging in the cabinet, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson revealing she will join several of her colleagues and vote against the bill to legalise assisted dying.

Ms Phillipson told Sky News she will vote against the proposed legislation at the end of this month, which would give terminally ill people with six months to live the option to end their lives.

She voted against assisted dying in 2015 and said: “I haven’t changed my mind.

“I continue to think about this deeply. But my position hasn’t changed since 2015.”

Politics latest: Starmer on Ukraine as he attends Rio G20

MPs will be given a free vote on the bill, so they will not be told how to vote by their party.

The topic has seen a split in the cabinet – however, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has yet to reveal how he will vote on 29 November.

Ms Phillipson joins some other big names who have publicly said they are voting against the bill

These include Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.

Border security minister Angela Eagle is also voting against the bill.

Senior cabinet members voting in favour of assisted dying include Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Science Secretary Peter Kyle, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens.

The split over the issue is said to be causing friction within government, with Sir Keir rebuking the health secretary for repeatedly saying he is against the bill and for ordering officials to review the costs of implementing any changes in the law.

Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates has been told Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is concerned about the politics of the bill passing.

He is understood to be worried the issue will dominate the agenda next year and, while he is not taking a view on the bill, he can see it taking over the national conversation and distracting from core government priorities like the economy and borders.

Details of the bill were published last week and include people wanting to end their life having to self-administer the medicine.

It would only be allowed for terminally ill people who have been given six months to live.

Two independent doctors would have to confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge would have to give their approval before it could go ahead.