Rishi Sunak secures Commons approval for Rwanda bill as rebel MPs back down

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Rishi Sunak quelled a rightwing Conservative revolt over his flagship Rwanda asylum bill on Wednesday as the House of Commons approved the legislation in a pivotal vote.

A majority of the rightwing Tory MPs who were threatening to rebel over the bill had earlier indicated they would back down, and the bill was approved by 320 votes to 276 at its third reading in the Commons.

Sunak had been hit by the biggest rebellion of his premiership on Tuesday after 60 Tory MPs backed an amendment to toughen up the bill by blocking asylum seekers from appealing against their removal under international human rights law.

Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith resigned as Tory deputy chairs before they were sacked in order to vote for the amendment, as did Jane Stevenson, formerly a ministerial aide.

Sunak won Tuesday’s vote thanks to the backing of Labour and other opposition parties. With the bill having passed all its Commons stages following the third reading, it now goes to the House of Lords for scrutiny.

Earlier, the so-called five families of rightwing Tory factions held a meeting at which the majority of the 45 MPs present indicated they would give Sunak their backing on the bill at the third reading, according to a spokesperson for the rebels.

“A small number will vote against but it will probably pass quite comfortably,” they said, adding that the feeling in the room was that the “bill was as good as it could be” given the government’s stance.

But Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger, who lead the rightwing New Conservatives group of MPs, wrote to members of their caucus saying they intended to vote against the bill.

If the bill becomes law, the measure is supposed to ensure that migrants who come to the UK in small boats over the English Channel can be sent to Rwanda to have their asylum requests processed.

The government believes the measure would act as a strong deterrent, as it seeks to convince voters that it will cut irregular migration ahead of the next election.

The bill is a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in November that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful because the country was not safe for asylum seekers.

Ahead of the bill’s third reading, 61 rebel Tory MPs backed an amendment by former immigration minister Robert Jenrick that aimed to compel ministers to ignore injunctions by the European Court of Human Rights that sought to halt the removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The government opposed the amendment, and the Commons rejected it.

Rwandan president Paul Kagame said on Wednesday there were limits on how long his country would wait for flights to bring migrants from the UK, adding that “if they don’t come, we can return the money”.

The UK has so far paid £240mn to Kigali for the scheme.

Yolande Makolo, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, later said that “under the terms of the agreement, Rwanda has no obligation to return any of the funds paid”.

She added: “To talk about figures at this point is premature, as we are still awaiting the conclusion of the UK legislative process and remain committed to making the partnership work.” 

Asked about Kagame’s comments, a Downing Street spokesperson said “our focus is on securing the progress of the bill through the house and we’re confident in our ability to do that”.

The government has offered a series of concessions to the rebel Tory MPs in the hope of staving off further revolt.

These include a commitment to publish guidance stating that civil servants would not breach the civil service code, which sets rules on how public officials should conduct themselves, if ministers overruled ECHR injunctions relating to migrants.

Previously, civil servants had deferred the removal of asylum seekers when they received such orders from judges in Strasbourg.

Sir Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, wrote to the cabinet secretary Simon Case to confirm that he had updated his department’s guidance to instruct officials to “proceed with removal if the relevant minister approves that course of action” following notification of an injunction, known formally as a rule 39 order.

The move sparked criticism from Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA union that represents senior civil servants.

“Civil servants come to work expecting to serve the government of the day, regardless of their own politics,” Penman said on X.

“They do not expect to be told to break international law in order to resolve internal party disputes, as the new guidance on ECHR rulings does.”

Register for the FT’s subscriber webinar on January 24 2024 (1300-1400 UK time) on The Migration Debate: a challenge for liberal democracies?