One Nation Tory MPs will back Rwanda bill but drop support if there are any amendments Damian Green, speaking to reporters after the One Nation group meeting, warned that the government must “stick to its guns” on the current iteration of the Rwanda legislation. “We support the bill unamended, but if anyone brings forward any amendments that breach our international obligations or breach the rule of law, we vote against those amendments at future stages. “We will vote with the government tomorrow, but we want the government to stick to its guns and stick to the text of this bill,” he said. Closing summary Rishi Sunak is engaged in a desperate lobbying push to persuade Conservative MPs to back his Rwanda bill as he hopes to avoid a defeat which could fatally undermine his authority. The prime minister will host an emergency breakfast in Downing Street with members of the rightwing New Conservative group of backbenchers on Tuesday in an effort to reassure wavering Tory MPs. The New Conservatives group are demanding “major surgery” or “replacement” of the government’s Rwanda bill. In a statement read out on Sky News, the group said more than 40 Tory MPs met in Richmond House, Westminster, to discuss the legislation. They added: “Every member of that discussion said that the bill needs major surgery or replacement and they will be making that plain in the morning to the prime minister at breakfast and over the next 24 hours.” Sky News is reporting that the group is split over how to vote on the bill tomorrow, with some wanting to abstain while others wish to vote against. Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick and former home secretary Suella Braverman were among those attending the meeting in backbencher Danny Kruger’s office, alongside senior MPs Simon Clarke and Jacob Rees-Mogg. However, the One Nation Tory MPs will vote for prime minister Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda legislation on Tuesday, the group said. Damian Green, speaking to reporters after the One Nation group meeting, warned that the government must “stick to its guns” on the current iteration of the Rwanda legislation. “We support the bill unamended, but if anyone brings forward any amendments that breach our international obligations or breach the rule of law, we vote against those amendments at future stages. “We will vote with the government tomorrow, but we want the government to stick to its guns and stick to the text of this bill,” he said. Damian Green, speaking to reporters after the One Nation group meeting, warned that the government must “stick to its guns” on the current iteration of the Rwanda legislation. “We support the bill unamended, but if anyone brings forward any amendments that breach our international obligations or breach the rule of law, we vote against those amendments at future stages. “We will vote with the government tomorrow, but we want the government to stick to its guns and stick to the text of this bill,” he said. Ministers are using an “outdated and flawed” Home Office analysis to persuade Conservative MPs to vote for Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill, informed party sources have said. Modelling distributed to MPs claims that 99.5% of individual legal challenges submitted by asylum seekers will fail to block their deportation to Rwanda. The document, entitled High Level Process for the New Bill and first disclosed in the Times, is being circulated by whips before the first vote on the bill in the Commons, due on Tuesday. Sir Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, has told MPs that in theory Rwanda could walk away from its deportation deal with the UK with £240m – the money it has received already – without having to accept a single asylum seeker. Giving evidence to the public accounts committee, Rycroft said if the UK instigated the break clause in the deal, Rwanda would keep the money already paid. But if Rwanda activated the break clause, the money would be repaid “proportionately”. Rishi Sunak has forcefully defended his record as chancellor during the Covid crisis, saying he did not need to consult scientists about the “eat out to help out” scheme, and that descriptions of the Treasury as being “pro-death” were deeply unfair. During five hours of often cautious evidence to the Covid inquiry, during which he repeatedly said he could not remember meetings, comments or other details, Sunak dismissed the idea he overrode scientific objections to his flagship hospitality scheme. In testimony punctuated by apparent lapses in memory, Sunak said he was unable to recall details of the meetings that imposed the first lockdown in March 2020, or whether he or other ministers had opposed extending free school meals to poorer children during holidays, a decision reversed after a campaign by the footballer Marcus Rashford. He also denied hearing anyone dismissing parents whose children needed free meals as “freeloaders”, a comment Vallance recorded in his diary as being made by someone in government during this debate. UK ministers have offered Northern Ireland a financial package that they say is worth £2.5bn on condition that the Stormont executive is revived. Chris Heaton-Harris, the Northern Ireland secretary, made the offer at a roundtable meeting of party leaders on Monday against a backdrop of political deadlock, budget overruns and crumbling public services. The move will increase pressure on the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to abandon a boycott of power-sharing that has paralysed the Stormont executive and assembly amid a mounting fiscal crisis. That’s it from me, Tom Ambrose, and indeed the UK politics live blog for today. Thanks for following along. Rishi Sunak desperately lobbying Tory MPs to avoid defeat on Rwanda bill Kiran Stacey Rishi Sunak is engaged in a desperate lobbying push to persuade Conservative MPs to back his Rwanda bill as he hopes to avoid a defeat which could fatally undermine his authority. The prime minister will host an emergency breakfast in Downing Street with members of the rightwing New Conservative group of backbenchers on Tuesday in an effort to reassure wavering Tory MPs. Danny Kruger, the co-chair of the New Conservatives, was one of a number of senior Tories to warn on Monday that they did not support the bill in its current form. A Tory source said MPs would use the meeting to tell the prime minister that the bill needs “major surgery or replacement”. The No 10 breakfast follows a series of meetings on Monday involving ministers and factions from the right and left of the party on a day of frenetic activity in Westminster reminiscent of Brexit fights from 2017-2019. One person close to the talks described the government’s whipping operation as “belated, panicked and intense”. Sunak himself spent Monday testifying to the Covid-19 inquiry, but Downing Street dispatched the home secretary, James Cleverly, and the illegal migration minister Michael Tomlinson to hear MPs’ concerns. Cleverly said after the meeting: “We’re determined to get [the bill] through. It’s important legislation.” New Conservatives group demand "major surgery or replacement" of Rwanda legislation The New Conservatives group are demanding “major surgery” or “replacement” of the government’s Rwanda bill. In a statement read out on Sky News, the group said more than 40 Tory MPs met in Richmond House, Westminster, to discuss the legislation. They added: Every member of that discussion said that the bill needs major surgery or replacement and they will be making that plain in the morning to the prime minister at breakfast and over the next 24 hours. It refers to the fact that 20 of the group – on the right of the Conservative party – will be having breakfast with the prime minister on Tuesday morning. Sky News is reporting that the group is split over how to vote on the bill tomorrow, with some wanting to abstain while others wish to vote against. Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick and former home secretary Suella Braverman were among those attending the meeting in backbencher Danny Kruger’s office, alongside senior MPs Simon Clarke and Jacob Rees-Mogg. The former deputy prime minister Damian Green, representing the One Nation caucus of Tory MPs, is speaking to Sophy Ridge on Sky News. He tells the Politics Hub show: The sense of the meeting I was at … all those who were there agreed with this strategy of thus far and no further. We will not accept amendments that push it in a way that we regard as undesirable but we are prepared to vote tomorrow night with the government. Asked about potential amendments, he adds: I know that the government thinks this is the legislation that they want because they proposed it. They are publishing this evening their legal advice explaining why, written like this, the bill is legal. It seems to me that the sensible things for anyone to do, left or right of the party, is to support the government. We all want to stop the boats, we all think that the Rwanda scheme will act as a deterrent for that, so it seems the sensible thing to do is to get on with this as fast as possible. One Nation Tory MPs will back Rwanda bill but drop support if there are any amendments Damian Green, speaking to reporters after the One Nation group meeting, warned that the government must “stick to its guns” on the current iteration of the Rwanda legislation. “We support the bill unamended, but if anyone brings forward any amendments that breach our international obligations or breach the rule of law, we vote against those amendments at future stages. “We will vote with the government tomorrow, but we want the government to stick to its guns and stick to the text of this bill,” he said. One Nation Tory MPs will back Sunak"s Rwanda bill tomorrow One Nation Tory MPs will vote for prime minister Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda legislation on Tuesday, the group has said. Damian Green is expected to make a statement in front of the cameras shortly. Elsewhere, UK ministers have offered Northern Ireland a financial package that they say is worth £2.5bn on condition that the Stormont executive is revived. Chris Heaton-Harris, the Northern Ireland secretary, made the offer at a roundtable meeting of party leaders on Monday against a backdrop of political deadlock, budget overruns and crumbling public services. The move will increase pressure on the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to abandon a boycott of power-sharing that has paralysed the Stormont executive and assembly amid a mounting fiscal crisis. The package would include a new funding formula for public services and a lump sum to settle pay claims that have led to industrial action by education, health and transport workers. Martin Vickers, the MP for Cleethorpes, has just been speaking about the upcoming Rwanda legislation vote on Sky News. He told The News Hour with Mark Austin that he expects the bill to pass through the Commons tomorrow, adding: I would very much hope that is the case. I’ve been in meetings all afternoon so I haven’t actually caught up with the various reports that are coming from different meetings but either way, whichever side of the argument you are on, let’s get it through its second reading and debate any changes we want at a later stage. Asked if prime minister Rishi Sunak is right to be putting his premiership on the line over this issue, Vickers said: Well, strictly speaking, he hasn’t because it’s been made clear that it isn’t a vote of confidence. There are big ifs here but if there were a defeat tomorrow then a vote of confidence would probably follow, which he would win overwhelmingly. Vickers added that he “sincerely hopes” flights to Rwanda would take off before the next general election, adding that it is what his Cleethorpes constituents – as well “most of the British people” – would like to see happen. Around 20 Tory MPs are attending a meeting convened by the New Conservatives to discuss the Rwanda legislation, PA reports. Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick and former home secretary Suella Braverman were among those attending, alongside senior MPs Simon Clarke and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Danny Kruger, who leads the New Conservative grouping, welcomed MPs into his office on the parliamentary estate from 6pm onwards. Tory MPs meet to discuss Rwanda bill Two groups of Conservative MPs are meeting, separately, about now to discuss the Rwanda bill. The rightwing European Research Group is holding a meeting with Robert Jenrick, who resigned as immigration minister over the bill. Jenrick has said he cannot support the bill as it is now, but he has not said he will vote against tomorrow, implying he will abstain. The chair of the ERG, Mark Francois, has said that he wants the bill pulled (see 2.50pm) and he has also said that the ERG may not give its collective view on how its members should vote until the last minute (see 12.56pm). The centrist One Nation Caucus is also meeting, and we are expecting to hear how its members are likely to vote later. The One Nation Caucus has more than 100 members and so, in theory, it ought to be a much more powerful body in the party than the ERG, whose members number a few dozen. But in practice it doesn’t work like that. The ERG are zealots and ideologues, while the One Nationers are pragmatists. The One Nation lot believe that willingess to compromise is virtue; on the ERG side, it’s seen as a vice, or selling out. The former Tory cabinet minister Rory Stewart described the difference perfectly in his brilliant memoir, Politics on the Edge. Referring to meetings of a One Nation group during the Brexit years, and how they measured up against their Brexiter opponents, he said: “We felt like a book club going to a Millwall game.” That’s all from me for tonight. Tom Ambrose is taking over now. Rwanda will keep its £240m without taking single asylum seeker if UK abandons deal, MPs told Sir Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, has told MPs that in theory Rwanda could walk away from its deportation deal with the UK with £240m – the money it has received already – without having to accept a single asylum seeker. Giving evidence to the public accounts committee, Rycroft said if the UK instigated the break clause in the deal, Rwanda would keep the money already paid. But if Rwanda activated the break clause, the money would be repaid “proportionately”. That prompted Meg Hillier, chair of the committee, to say: So they could still have the money with having perhaps not had to receive a single asylum seeker. Rycroft replied: “It would depend on the circumstances.” Tory MPs given ‘outdated’ analysis in push for Rwanda bill Ministers are using an “outdated and flawed” Home Office analysis which claims 99.5% of legal challenges to the Rwanda bill would fail (see 9.25am) to persuade Conservative MPs to vote for it, informed party sources have said. Rajeev Syal and Pippa Crerar have the story. Christopher Hope from GB News says Tory whips are in a panic about tomorrow’s vote Senior Tory MPs tell me the whips have a problem with their backbenchers ahead of tomorrow’s Rwanda vote. One says trust was eroded in last week’s infected blood defeat, and colleagues are not being straight with the whips any more. Another MP: “The whips are wetting themselves.” In a thread on X, the Covid Bereaved Families for Justice campaign group says Rishi Sunak should resign. It starts here. Rishi Sunak, or as the Chief Medical Officer called him, ‘Dr Death the Chancellor’ has a catalogue of failures to answer for, from the ‘Eat Out To Help Out the Virus’ policy to refusing financial support for care workers to stop the spread of Covid between care homes. And it concludes: In a pandemic, public health relies on public confidence in decision makers. Rishi Sunak was and continues to be a public health hazard, and for the sake of our safety, he must resign. Sunak"s evidence to Covid inquiry - snap verdict For much of this year it was assumed that Rishi Sunak’s evidence to the Covid inquiry would be a big, and difficult, moment for him. In the event, for the most part, he got through it fairly easily, on a day when what was happening elsewhere in London was much more relevant to the future of his premiership. The parallel is not exact, it was a bit like that afternoon Boris Johnson spent the afternoon answering questions about council funding at the liaison committee as cabinet ministers were queuing up in Downing Street waiting to tell him to quit. Sunak was at his most tetchy when asked to defend “eat out to help out”, and for many people his biggest weakness will be his claim not to have access to his old WhatsApp messages. (See 10.42am.) There were times when, like other witnesses, he showed himself susceptible to Covid inquiry memory loss, but at other times he was remarkably well briefed on the issue at hand. If his main aim was to convince Lady Hallett that he was not a “let rip” opponent of all public health measures, then he probably succeeded. When Hugo Keith KC put it to him that he was “violently opposed to a lockdown”, Sunak replied: “I think that’s not a fair characterization of my position.” Perhaps what was most surprising about Sunak’s evidence was his determination to defend Johnson against claims that his decision making in No 10 chaotic. The evidence to back this charge has been overwhelming. When Sunak resigned in the summer of 2022, he said it was because under Johnson the government was not being run “properly, competently and seriously”. At that point he made a virtue of being very different from Johnson. But today he claimed (not very convincingly) not to be aware that officials working in No 10 for Johnson thought it was all a shambles (see 11.46am) and he even endorsed the Johnson argument that what Dominic Cummings called trolleying was just a robust means of testing alternative propositions. This was also an answer where the two stories of the day melded. At one point it was easier for Sunak to disown Johnson. But the Tory MPs – and the newspapers – causing him most trouble in the Commons over Rwanda are also those most enthusiastic about his predecessor bar one, and today probably wasn’t the day to wind them up. At the Covid inquiry Sunak says he did not see any evidence that higher payments for people who had to isolate when they were sick would increase compliance with Covid rules. But he said the Treasury set up a £500 support scheme anyway. Q: The scheme had very low take-up. Yes, says Sunak. Take-up was around a fifth. Q: Was that because it was run by local authorities? Sunak says there was no clear alternative. The only alternative was getting the Deparment of Work and Pensions to make those payments, but that would have required primary legislation, and DWP did not have a delivery mechanism, he says. That is the end of Sunak’s evidence. Lady Hallett says that is the end of the oral evidence for module two. But she stresses that oral evidence is only part of the evidence she considers. The Society of Conservative Lawyers has issued its own briefing on the Rwanda bill. The 10-page paper by Lord Sandhurst KC and Harry Gillow and it comes down in favour of the bill. Here is the conclusion. While the Rwanda bill does allow individual challenges and there is the possibility of delay by the courts, our view is that the objectives of the MEDP [migration and economic development partnership – the Rwanda deal] are met better by the Rwanda Bill as drafted than the proposed alternative approaches. In particular, so far as the MEDP’s objectives are concerned, the approach in the Rwanda Bill is far preferable to one that runs a serious risk of collapsing the scheme in its entirety ultimately a political question and the importance of clause 5 [allowing ministers to ignore European court of human rights’ injunctions] is to prevent interference by UK courts (notwithstanding that there would be no basis on which to do so in any case). As recently reported, France appears to have ignored an order from the European court of human rights not to deport an individual to Uzbekistan, an important development in respect of wider attitudes to the ECHR among signatory states. Second, our view is that clause 5 in essence simply states the constitutional position, that the ECHR (including, therefore, Rule 39 orders) have no binding effect as a matter of domestic UK law, and it is for the executive (given prerogative powers to conduct foreign affairs) to decide how to respond. While there is nothing preventing parliament constraining the prerogative powers of the executive to act in this field, it would nevertheless be an unusual step, particularly where, as here, ministers are better placed to make a case-by-case assessment than parliament would be. Accordingly, we at present consider that imposing a duty to ignore Rule 39 orders would be inadvisable. We consider that insofar as there are concerns about whether ministers will comply with Rule 39 orders, this is best resolved through political pressure, rather than binding legislation. The European Research Group, in its legal paper on the bill (see 1.22pm), said the bill should require ministers to ignore ECtHR injunctions – the proposal described by the Society of Conservative Laywers as “inadvisable”.