The group of moderate Tories known as One Nation is contemplating proposing changes to Rishi Sunak’s bill on Rwanda in order to safeguard the contentious legislation from violations of international law.
Members of the conservative party who hold more moderate views are worried that the government may give in to pressure from the more conservative members to make the bill stricter, in order to prevent it from being voted down in the upcoming year.
The Guardian has learned that Robert Buckland, a former justice secretary and member of the One Nation group, is contemplating proposing his own amendment to ensure that the bill is legally sound and in accordance with the European convention on human rights.
He refuted the claim that the proposed amendment would cause harm to the bill, stating that his goal was for the prime minister’s plan for Rwanda to be successful. He also mentioned that this amendment could potentially gain support from members of all political parties, unlike other amendments that may be proposed by the right wing.
The government’s third reading will be crucial. Although some colleagues on the right have proposed amendments to improve the bill, I am concerned that these changes will ultimately lead to a confrontation with the courts.
Some moderate Conservative Members of Parliament are exploring options to ensure that the government keeps its promise to abide by international law and prevent Sunak from making major concessions to the right.
The ex-vice prime minister, Damian Green, stated that One Nation representatives would only approve minimal changes from the conservative side, as the present law “approaches the boundary of what is tolerable”.
Following the decision by 29 Tory MPs to not vote on the bill on Tuesday, with the majority coming from the right wing of the party, a source from the Common Sense Group stated that there is potential to collect enough votes to oppose the legislation in the upcoming year.
One member stated that they were willing to change their vote from supporting the bill to opposing it if needed, and claimed they could gather 15 to 20 additional votes to do so. Many members initially felt they should trust the government’s intentions with the bill, but may now be reconsidering.
Unless there is a serious effort to prevent legal action against the Rwanda scheme, they will not be as generous next time. This is because we are aware that the current state of affairs will result in the case being delayed in court.
The five families, a group of right-wing Tory organizations, plan to continue discussions with the government in the upcoming year regarding the bill and potential ways to make it more stringent in order to appease their faction of the party. According to a source, they have a track record of effectively and innovatively reviewing legislation.
A member of Parliament from the right-wing party who had a meeting with Sunak before the vote mentioned proposing changes to clause 4 of the bill. This clause currently allows migrants to make individual claims, but the suggestion was to impose more restrictions. Additionally, there were talks about the possibility of making similar agreements with other countries, similar to the deportation plan with Rwanda.
The group has expressed discontent with the limited range of the bill that aims to exempt certain parts of human rights legislation. They feel that it does not adequately tackle the potential obstacle of the European court of human rights impeding the plan. However, any attempt to amend this issue is expected to cause conflict with centrists.
The Prime Minister has stated that Sunak is open to considering reasonable suggestions for changes to the bill. They emphasized that any proposed amendments must be legally valid, have a deterrent effect, and prevent the scheme from failing.
Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, stated that the government will not concede to the demand by refusing asylum seekers the opportunity to appeal. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that the bill adheres to the UK’s international legal obligations.
“Although we value and are open to reasonable suggestions and perspectives, we also believe it is crucial to uphold certain aspects in order to comply with international law.”
In the meantime, Minister of Legal Migration Tom Pursglove has stated that the government does not intend for the increase in the income requirement for family visas to be applied retroactively.
The government has reversed its stance on the application of the new minimum income requirements for renewing existing visas. Initially, it was stated that the requirements would apply, but a few days later it was suggested that a decision had not been made.
Source: theguardian.com
