Two deputy chairs of the Conservative Party have resigned from their roles after they both supported rebel amendments to Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill.
Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith both said they would support proposed changes designed to toughen up Mr Sunak’s bill, which seeks to declare Rwanda a safe country to deport asylum seekers to.
Jane Stevenson, a parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in the Department for Business and Trade, resigned from her role after she supported two key rebel amendments.
On Tuesday night, MPs voted on a series of amendments to the Safety of Rwanda Bill, including one submitted by veteran Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, whose amendment sought to disapply international law with regard to Rwanda being a safe country.
Image: (L-R) Former Tory deputy chairmen Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith
Sixty Tories, including two tellers who verify the count, supported the amendment, as did two independent MPs who were formerly in the Conservative parliamentary party – Scott Benton and Andrew Bridgen.
They were joined by eight MPs in the Democratic Unionist Party.
However, the amendment was rejected by 529 votes to 68, leaving a majority of 461.
Advertisement
Image: Jane Stevenson resigned from her role as parliamentary private secretary to Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch
Among the names who backed the amendment were former prime minister Liz Truss, ex-home secretary Suella Braverman, former immigration minister Robert Jenrick and the leaders of the New Conservatives Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger.
MPs also voted on an amendment by Mr Jenrick, which sought to make it more difficult for individuals to make claims against their deportation.
But the Commons again rejected it by 525 votes to 61 votes, among them 59 Tories – including tellers.
The results represent a significant rebellion and potentially spells trouble for the prime minister ahead of the third reading vote on the whole bill on Wednesday, when rebels may vote against it.
Speaking to Sky News’s political editor Beth Rigby, Tory MP Mark Francois said the numbers “speak for themselves” and that he hoped the government “will listen and take stock” and possibly tighten the bill.
They have been able to demonstrate their side is willing to go further than before Christmas – and that they have the numbers to defeat the government on Wednesday.
The question now is whether the government is prepared to risk a defeat by going ahead on Wednesday, or whether ministers abandon a plan to hold a vote in fear of defeat.
Mr Kruger, the co-chair of the New Conservatives, told the Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge he was “prepared” to vote against the bill at third reading.
“I really hope that the scale of the vote in favour of the amendments that were debated today will convince the government that they really should adopt these amendments as their own,” he said.
However, in an illustration of the dilemma Mr Sunak faces in appeasing the various factions of his party, Damian Green, chair of the One Nation group of moderate Tory MPs, said he would vote against the bill if it was toughened up further as the right-wing rebels demand.
But he said he believed the “high watermark” of the Rwanda rebellion was reached on Tuesday evening.
The bill, which is designed to enable parliament to confirm Rwanda is a “safe country”, 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 – a demand of some on the right.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:26
‘The numbers speak for themselves’
In a joint resignation letter, Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith said they supported the amendments “not because we are against the legislation, but because like everybody else we want it to work”.
“Our support for the party and this government remains as strong as ever and that is why we are so passionate about making this legislation work.
“However, we fully appreciate that with such important roles there is also the issue of being bound by collective responsibility.
“It is with this in mind that we fully appreciate that whilst our main wish is to strengthen the legislation, this means that in order to vote for amendments we will therefore need to offer you our resignations from our roles.”
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael MP said: “Sunak’s Rwanda scheme just won’t work – and even the deputy chairmen of his own party know it.
“Rishi Sunak has yet again been embarrassed by his own MPs.”
A Downing Street source said Mr Sunak accepted the resignations of Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith and added: “This is the toughest legislation ever brought before parliament to tackle illegal migration.
“This bill will make it clear that if you come here illegally you will not be able to stay. We must pass this bill to deliver what all Conservatives want – a credible plan to stop the boats.”
But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.
It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.
Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.
With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.
Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.
But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.
When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.
There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.
Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.
Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
However, he will continue to be known as a prince.
Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.
He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.
“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?
Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.
More on Prince Andrew
Related Topics:
Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”
Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.
Image: Andrew and his former wife continue to live on the Windsor estate. Pic: Reuters
Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.
“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”
Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:11
Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew
Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.
Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.
Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.
Warning: This article contains references to suicide
The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.
They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.
Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.
Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.
He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:05
Pete Aitken speaking to Sky News
Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.
“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.
Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.
The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.
Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.
In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.
“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”
The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”
Image: Hannah’s dad is one of the family members to have signed the letter
A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.
“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.
“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”
They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.
“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.