Lords delay Rwanda bill to next week in blow to Rishi Sunak’s agenda

Published

2 weeks ago

April 18, 2024

admin

The House of Lords has delayed the passing of the government’s Rwanda bill until next week – in a blow to Rishi Sunak’s attempts to get planes off the ground deporting illegal migrants to the country.

MPs overturned Tuesday’s attempts by the House of Lords to dilute the plan – but peers have now put forward even more changes to the proposed new law.

It is now expected that the Commons will consider the changes on Monday next week, dashing No 10’s hopes to get it through today.

Downing Street has been unwilling to concede any ground on the areas that peers are trying to amend, including on the treatment of people who served with or for the British armed forces abroad.

Politics latest: Tory MP who made Rayner complaint faces awkward questions

No 10 had set its sights on passing the legislation this week as part of its plans to get planes in the air in the spring.

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill was tabled last year after the Supreme Court ruled the previous scheme to deport asylum seekers who arrived illegally in the UK was unlawful.

The current bill aims to declare Rwanda safe and not allow courts to consider the safety of the nation during appeals.

This is being done based on a new treaty agreed between the UK government and the government in Rwanda.

Speaking earlier on Wednesday, the prime minister’s spokesperson ruled out doing a deal on any of these changes. “We are not considering concessions,” they said.

“We believe the bill as it stands is the right bill and the quickest way to get flights off the ground.”

What are the latest amendments suggested by the Lords?

Of the four amendments added on Tuesday, three were tabled by Labour peers and one by a crossbencher.

The proposed changes sought to:
• ensure the bill complies with domestic and international law;
• that Rwanda would not be declared safe until a report was completed;
• that appeals based on safety would be allowed;
• and that exemptions would be allowed for people who served with or for the British armed forces.

Peers want to insist on the amendments about people who assisted the UK’s armed forces, and a report advising on the safety of Rwanda, in particular.

The government was defeated on the first by 245 votes to 208 – a majority of 37, and the second by 247 votes to 195 – a majority of 52.

Labour and crossbench peers – those who do not associate with a political party – worked together to outvote the Conservatives.

A government source told Sky News: “We wanted to get it done today, but it shows Labour for their true colours.”

Responding to the latest defeats, Northern Ireland minister Steve Baker told Sky News that he was “extremely disappointed” with the delays.

He denied the government had “slammed the door” on people like interpreters in Afghanistan who worked with UK armed forces.

But Mr Baker said people wanting to come to the UK who had served with British armed forces had to go through the Ministry of Defence.

“They shouldn’t be travelling with people smugglers illegally across the channel – and that’s what we’ve got to break,” he said.

👉 Listen above then tap here to follow the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts 👈

Approach to military interpreters ‘shameful’ – Labour

The amendment on people who helped the armed forces has been at the centre of a heated debate – with the government saying it is waiting for a report on the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) before setting out its steps.

But Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Tory MPs just voted to insist that Afghan interpreters who served British armed forces can be sent to Rwanda.

“A scheme which costs £2m per asylum seeker. A £500m plus scheme for less than 1% of asylum seekers. Which now includes those who worked with our troops

“Shameful and shambolic.”

Johnny Mercer, a former soldier and the government’s veterans minister, replied: “My team have worked night and day to find permanent accommodation for circa 25,000 Afghans who the UK have provided sanctuary to, without you lifting a finger to help.

“We want them to use safe routes, not undertake lethal channel crossings. Your concern is fake.”

Politics

Sir Keir Starmer considered quitting after 2021 local elections and Hartlepool loss

Published

7 mins ago

May 1, 2024

admin

Sir Keir Starmer considered quitting after 2021 local elections and Hartlepool loss

Sir Keir Starmer has admitted he considered quitting as Labour leader after the party lost both the Hartlepool by-election and council seats in 2021.

Speaking to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby ahead of tomorrow’s contests, Sir Keir called it “a low point”, with his party recording a net loss of eight councils, as well as the North East constituency – which had been held by Labour since the 1970s, but went to the Conservatives on the night.

“I did [consider quitting] because I didn’t feel that I should be bigger than the party and that if I couldn’t bring about the change, perhaps there should be a change,” he said.

“But actually, in the end, I reflected on it, talked to very many people and doubled down and determined, no, it is the change in the Labour Party we need.”

Politics live: Scottish government survives no-confidence vote

Sir Keir said he felt “vindicated” by his decision to stay on “because we are now a changed party, nobody argues with that”.

He added: “And the biggest change is we are now a party that confidently and proudly says country first, party second. That is a changed Labour Party.”

Voters will be heading to the polls on Thursday for a range of local council and mayoral elections, as well as a by-election in Blackpool South following the resignation of its Tory MP Scott Benton.

But reflecting on the losses his party suffered the last time the seats were up for grabs, the Labour leader told Beth Rigby: “Oh yes, it was the low point and it really hit me because my job was to turn around the Labour Party and take us from defeat to success.

“Losing hurts and it should hurt in politics, because this isn’t about me, it is about whether the Labour Party can come back into government and serve working people. So yes, it was a very, very low moment.”

However, Sir Keir said the experience – which came around a year after he took over the party and while Boris Johnson was enjoying a surge in popularity in so-called Red Wall seats – led him to “double down and turbocharge the change that we needed”.

“So, in that respect, retrospectively, it was a good thing because it forced that onward pace, but I am not going to pretend it wasn’t a really hard time.”

Thursday’s vote is predicted to be a different story for Labour, which has come out of the shadows of their worst-ever loss in the 2019 general election and when they are soaring ahead of the Conservatives in the polls.

But Sir Keir would not put a target on the number of council seats or mayoralties he hoped to win by the end of the counts, saying instead he just wanted his party to “show progress”.

“We have to show that people have the confidence and the trust to vote for this changed Labour Party so we do need to show that progress,” he said.

“The polls don’t predict the future, the polls don’t change the country, but I’ll be looking for that progress because it is really important in the locals and the mayoral elections, but also because of the story it tells for the change we need at the general election.”

Meanwhile, the Conservatives were playing down their prospects ahead of Thursday’s vote, with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt saying he expected it to be a “difficult day” for his party.

Speaking to The Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge, he said: “We are very realistic. “We have been in power a long time and a government in office can often get punished in the local elections.

“It happened to Tony Blair in 2001 and 2005 and we are expecting it to be a difficult day tomorrow.”

Mr Hunt added: “Tony Blair lost… councillors and David Cameron lost hundreds of councillors in the run up to the 2015 election, so we are expecting to see significant losses, that often happens in local elections.

“But what we say to people is, look, this may be a moment where you want to express a view about the national picture, but actually the local services you depend on will be decided by how you vote – and if you want better public services as independently audited time after time, and lower taxes, then you should vote Conservative tomorrow.”

For all the ways you can follow the local elections live across Sky News, click here.

Politics

Scottish government survives vote of no confidence at Holyrood

Published

7 mins ago

May 1, 2024

admin

Scottish government survives vote of no confidence at Holyrood

The Scottish government has survived a vote of no confidence at Holyrood.

Scottish Labour pressed ahead with its motion despite Humza Yousaf announcing earlier this week his intention to stand down as SNP leader and first minister.

It failed by 58 votes to 70.

The Scottish Greens voted against the motion, with party co-leader Patrick Harvie branding it “chaos for the sake of chaos”.

If it had passed, all ministers in the minority SNP government would have been forced to quit.

Opening the debate, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar thanked Mr Yousaf for his service and wished him well, but said Scotland was “crying out for change” from the UK Conservative government and the SNP Scottish government.

He said the country needed “credible and effective leadership” to deal with “twin crises” in the economy and NHS.

Mr Sarwar added: “I have no confidence in the SNP’s ability to deliver that and that is why I am bringing this motion to parliament today.”

The outgoing first minister defended his government’s record, adding that in the 13 months he has spent in charge he had not “heard a single positive idea” from Scottish Labour.

Mr Yousaf added: “What I have heard is the deafening sound of principle after principle being thrown out of Anas Sarwar’s window.

“U-turning on the two-child cap, U-turning on the devolution of employment law, U-turning on the devolution of drug law, U-turning on his support for Waspi women.”

Mr Yousaf said pro-UK parties, in their “cosy Westminster alliance”, would be “terrified” of a vote of no confidence.

He added: “As I have found out only too well in the last few days, politics is definitely about the choices we choose to make.

“As a government, I am exceptionally proud of our choices.”

The debate and vote has come following the breakdown of the Bute House Agreement.

Within hours of the powersharing deal with the Scottish Greens coming to an end last week, Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross announced he would be bringing a motion of no confidence in the first minister.

Angry over the way the party was dumped from government, the Scottish Greens announced its MSPs would be backing the motion.

Scottish Labour then announced it was planning a motion of no confidence in the Scottish government.

Mr Yousaf reached out to his political opponents in an effort to stem the uprising but conceded that he had “underestimated the level of hurt and upset” his actions had caused Scottish Green colleagues.

Speaking to Sky News earlier on Wednesday, Mr Yousaf said: “I will certainly be regretting the way it ended.”

The Scottish Tories dropped their motion following Mr Yousaf’s resignation, but Scottish Labour pressed on as the party believes the decision on the next first minister should be put to the public.

Mr Yousaf intends to remain in post until his successor is announced.

Former deputy first minister John Swinney and ex-finance secretary Kate Forbes have emerged as potential frontrunners to throw their hat into the ring.

Mr Sarwar pointed to reports that Ms Forbes could struggle to appoint ministers and described Mr Swinney as “the finance secretary that broke the public finances and the worst education secretary in the history of the Scottish parliament”.

Mr Ross, whose party threw its support behind the Scottish Labour motion, was forced to apologise to Mr Swinney after referring to him as “not so honest John” in the Holyrood chamber.

Mr Ross was first reprimanded for referring to Mr Swinney as “honest John”, but when presiding officer Alison Johnstone reminded him not to use nicknames, he said: “Oh sorry, I thought it was on accuracy because it would be not so honest John with some of the things we’ve heard recently.”

Apologising, Mr Ross said: “I will apologise. I’m very sorry for any hurt caused.”

The Scottish Tory leader added: “Whether we have a bitter battle or a cosy coronation to elect the next leader of the SNP, they will continue campaigning for independence and the Scottish people will continue to be failed by them.”