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Ministers are using an “outdated and flawed” Home Office analysis to persuade Conservative MPs to vote for Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill, informed party sources have said.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
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.
Updated
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.
Updated
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.”
Senior Tory MPs tell me the whips have a problem with their backbenchers ahead of tomorrow's Rwanda vote.
— Christopher Hope📝 (@christopherhope) December 11, 2023
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.
— Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (@CovidJusticeUK) December 11, 2023
1/6
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.
Updated
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”.
Leslie Thomas KC, counsel for the Federation of Ethnic Minority Healthcare Organisations (FEMHO), asked Sunak if he accepted that he exacerbated health inequalities by putting minority ethnic workers in a position where they had to work in environments where they were at risk of infection.
Sunak did not accept that. He said the “eat out to help out scheme” protected people’s jobs.
Updated
Rajiv Menon KC, who represents charities for children, is asking the questions now. He asks Sunak to accept the government was wrong to initially refuse to back Marcus Rashford’s call for poorer pupils to get free school meals during the holidays.
Sunak says the government did eventually fund the programme.
Q: Did you personally oppose this idea?
Sunak says that even when the pandemic supported ended, permanent programmes were put in place that were more generous than what had gone before.
Q: In his diary, Sir Patrick Vallance recalls someone saying: “Good working people pay for their children to eat and we don’t want freeloaders.”
Sunak says that was not him. And he says he did not hear anyone saying that.
Updated
Claire Mitchell KC, on behalf of Scottish Covid bereaved, shows the inquiry an excerpt from a letter from Nicola Sturgeon to the PM sent in September 2020 saying Scotland did not have enough financial autonomy to finance its own health measures.
Sunak repeats the point he made in relation to Wales about how as chancellor he gave the devolved administrations more flexibility.
Updated
Treasury acted on behalf of England, not UK as whole, during Covid, Welsh first minister Mark Drakeford tells inquiry
Gowman shows another extract from Drakeford’s statement, in which he claims that Treasury was acting on behalf of England, not the whole of the UK.
Again, Sunak says he does not accept this. He repeats the point about how allowed devolved adminstrations to get Barnett money earlier than normal. (See 3.45pm.)
Updated
Gowman shows an extract from the witness statement from Mark Drakeford, the Welsh first minister. He said Wales could have implemented its circuit breaker lockdown earlier if it had been guaranteed financial support.
Sunak does not accept this point. He says the UK government set up a special procedure during Covid to allow devolved adminstrations to access Barnett money (their equivalent for money going to England) early.
At the Covid inquiry, Rishi Sunak is now beinq questioned by Nia Gowman, counsel for Covid Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru.
She asks if the Welsh government had the option of opting out of the “eat out to help out” scheme.
Sunak says the Welsh government never asked to opt out of scheme.
Q: Doesn’t that show that they weren’t consulted?
Sunak says it was a matter for Westminster; he says there was no reason to consult the Welsh government about it. But they did not object, he says.
Updated
Yousaf accuses Cameron of being 'petty' after he threatens withdrawal of Foreign Office support for Scottish ministers
Scotland’s first minister, Humza Yousaf, has accused the new foreign secretary, David Cameron, of being “really petty and frankly misguided” after he threatened to withdraw Foreign Office support for Scottish ministers in an ongoing row about the SNP government’s international outreach.
Cameron wrote to the Scottish government warning it was a breach of protocol after Yousaf discussed the Gaza conflict and other matters with the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, at the Cop28 summit without UK officials.
Yousaf’s response on Monday morning came after briefings that Cameron wanted to take a “harder line” with the Scottish government than his predecessor, James Cleverly, who issued a similar threat after Yousaf met the Icelandic prime minister in August in New York, also without UK diplomats present.
Dismissing the intervention from an “unelected lord”, Yousaf said:
Scotland is the part of the UK, outside of London, that has attracted the most foreign direct investment for eight years in a row. That happens because the Scottish government’s international engagement is valued [and] has impact.
To threaten to curtail that, to stop that international engagement – the international engagement from the elected Scottish government from an unelected lord – I think is misguided and petty.
Yousaf has of course been outspoken in his calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, making often emotional pleas when his own in-laws were trapped under blockade for several weeks. But Cameron’s letter is understood to evidence ongoing disquiet about Yousaf’s position in contrast to current UK government policy.
Updated
Sunak says Boris Johnson's description of Treasury as 'pro-death squad' was wrong
Back at the Covid inquiry, Hugo Keith KC is now asking Rishi Sunak about claims that the Treasury was seen as the “pro-death” squad.
Sunak says he was not aware of that. And he says that is not a “fair characterisation”.
I do not think it is a fair characterisation on the incredibly hardworking people that I was lucky to be supported by at the Treasury.
Keith said officials in No 10 described the Treasury as the “pro-death squad”, but he did not mention the fact that Boris Johnson himself used the term. At an earlier hearing the inquiry was read an extract from Sir Patrick Vallance’s diary which said:
The PM is on record as saying that he wants tier 3, 1 March; tier 2, 1 April; tier 1, 1 May; and nothing by September, and he ends up by saying the team must bring in ‘the pro-death squad from HMT’.
Updated
ERG chair Mark Francois urges government to pull Rwanda bill and produce new version before second reading vote
Mark Francois, the chair of the European Research Group, has suggested the government should pull its Rwanda bill and produce a new version before the second reading vote. (See 2.11pm.) He told GB News:
This bill means that individuals can keep tying the government up in legal knots. That’s why it needs to be redrafted.
The bill, because of the shape of it, because of its style, its legal structure would be quite difficult to amend.
I very much hope that, rather than plough on and damn the torpedoes, the government will listen, exercise common sense, pull the legislation and come back with something that is fit for purpose.
We’ve had two previous legislative attempts at this. The nationalities and borders bill that didn’t quite work, the illegal immigration bill that didn’t quite work.
This really is the last chance so the government would be well advised to get it right.
Updated
Keith asks Sunak about a line in the Spectator interview where Sunak said, referring to Sage: “If you empower all these independent people, you’re screwed.”
Sunak says he was referring to the need for policy decisions to be taken by politicians. And he suggests there may be a case for an economic counterpoint to Sage.
Keith returns to the Spectator interview with Sunak published in the summer of 2022. He asks about a line in the article saying Covid policy “being decided by half-explained graphs cooked up by outside academics”.
Sunak says those are not his words.
Lady Hallett, the chair, tells Keith that justifying the phrase is a question for the author, the Spectator editor Fraser Nelson.
Sunak says he does want to make a point about Sage, the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. He says Sage’s views were presented as a consensus view.
But people did not realise how much divergence there was on Sage, he says.
Keith tells the inquiry that, while there is some evidence to suggest a link between use of the “eat out to help out” scheme and a rise in Covid cases, there is also other evidence showing that there was no correlation.
But he asks why the scheme was not extended.
Sunak says it was always intended to be temporary.
Sunak insists government's science advisers had opportunity to raise concerns about 'eat out to help out' scheme
At the Covid inquiry Rishi Sunak insists that the government’s main scientific adviser, Prof Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, and Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, had the opportunity to raise concerns about the “eat out to help out” scheme with him.
Sunak lists several meetings they attended, where they could have raised the topic but didn’t.
Hugo Keith KC said in their evidence Whitty and Vallance said they were not specifically consulted about this. If they had been, they would have advised against, he says.
UPDATE: Sunak said:
It’s precisely in those three meetings that you mentioned; Covid-S on 16th July, the chief medical officer, in the minutes, talked about two significant risk moments: schools and winter. He did not mention Eat Out To Help Out.
On the 22nd of July, the agenda item is August planning. And again, it was not raised by the chief scientific adviser or chief medical officer.
On 6th August, the Covid-S meeting that you acknowledged, again, the minutes show that returning to schools was the single riskiest element of the government’s plan. Those three meetings all happened after the announcement of “eat out to help out”, all of them involve the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer.
Updated
Government publishes its legal assessment of Rwanda bill
The government has just published a summary of its legal assessment of the Rwanda bill.
And here is the summary at the end of the document.
As set out above, the treaty, bill and evidence together demonstrate Rwanda is safe for relocated individuals, that the government’s approach is tough but fair and lawful, that it has a justification in the UK’s constitution and domestic law, and it seeks to uphold our international obligations. This is a novel and contentious policy, and the UK and Rwanda are the first countries in the world to enact it together. There are risks inherent in such an innovative approach but there is a clear lawful basis on which a responsible government may proceed. For the reasons set out in this paper, a bill that sought to oust all individual claims would not provide such a basis.
This is not the same as the government’s internal legal advice, which is always kept private.
Updated
Sunak says many hospitality jobs would have been at risk 'with devastating consequences' without 'eat out to help out'
At the Covid inquiry Hugo Keith KC is now asking directly about the “eat out to help out” scheme.
Rishi Sunak says the scheme was designed to come into force when safe lifting of other measures had been approved.
He says, without the scheme, many jobs would have been at risk “with devastating consequences”.
The consensus at Westminster has been that Conservative MPs will vote through the Rwanda bill tomorrow. The government has a working majority of 56, which means (roughly) that for the government to lose tomorrow night, 57 of them would have to abstain, or 29 of them would have to vote against. No Tory MP has yet said publicly they intend to vote against, and if the rightwingers or centrists want to amend the bill, they have to give it a second reading first.
But, according to Sky’s Beth Rigby, some ERG figures are now suggesting they would like to see the bill replaced altogether. They are not telling Sky they will vote down the bill, and to maximise their leverage it makes sense for them to keep No 10 guessing, but these comments do imply the bill might be in more jeopardy than previously assumed.
Francois tells me the consensus in the room was to pull the bill and revise it & come back to it.
Mark Francois is ERG chair.
NEW: Francois tells me the consensus in the room was to pull the bill and revise it & come back to it.
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) December 11, 2023
And David Jones, ERG deputy chair, said he doesn’t think the bill amendable in its current form, as he explains why they want bill pulled. So position hardening.
And David Jones, ERG deputy chair, said he doesn’t think the bill amendable in its current form, as he explains why they want bill pulled. So position hardening. https://t.co/PNVaBbJzCQ
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) December 11, 2023
At the briefing by the European Research Group earlier, Mark Francois, the ERG chair, was asked how his group would vote on the Rwanda bill. He replied:
You don’t always announce what you’re going to do well before the bell was ringing.
The briefing was also attended by Danny Kruger, co-chair of the New Conservatives, another group for rightwing Tory MPs. He said:
We’ll be discussing later with colleagues in light of the report that we’ve just received and having further conversations with government over the course of the next 24 hours.
Other groups invited were the Common Sense Group, the Conservative Growth Group and the Northern Research Group.
(In an act of mafia-chic hubris, some media reports have dubbed this lot the “five families”. But that may be more of a media invention than a term any of these Tories are using themselves. The memberships of the groups overlap a lot and it may be more helpful to think of them as just different iterations of the Tory right.)
Updated
Extracts from ERG's 'star chamber' legal assessment of Rwanda bill
Rishi Sunak will want to know what the European Research Group is saying about his Rwanda bill. Here are the main conclusions from the 10-page document legal assessment of the bill produced by the ERG’s “star chamber”, led by Sir Bill Cash. (Bold text added by me.)
The bill overall provides a partial and incomplete solution to the problem of legal challenges in the UK courts being used as stratagems to delay or defeat the removal of illegal migrants to Rwanda, for the following reasons.
Most importantly, the bill contains no restrictions on the bringing of legal challenges against removal to Rwanda based on grounds other than that Rwanda is not a safe country. Many such individual claims have already been brought on a variety of other grounds, and it is to be expected that if the bill successfully blocks challenges based on contentions that Rwanda is not safe, then migrants and their advisers will focus more of their efforts on generating and pursuing challenges of other kinds.
The restriction in the bill is only against pursuing claims that Rwanda is unsafe for migrants removed there in general. Clause 4(1) expressly preserves the possibility of legal challenges to removal based on arguments that a person’s individual circumstances may lead to them being subject to a risk of refoulement and ill treatment. The treaty is intended to address such concerns. However, by allowing individual claims, appeals, and injunctions, the statutory scheme is open to significant levels of legal challenge. Experience to date in cases about attempted removal of illegal migrants to Rwanda demonstrates that individual challenges are likely to be numerous, and that they have had a high rate of success.
The bill’s threshold requirement for interim relief that there should be a risk of “serious and irreparable harm” is in practice much easier to surmount than the words might suggest, for example through the provision of medical statements of mental conditions which are not easy to prove or disprove (for example, suicidal ideation). There is a serious risk that there will be no, or very few, actual removals to Rwanda for months after the bill comes into force.
Clause 5 of the bill deals with interim measures of the Strasbourg court (so-called “rule 39 indications”) by stating that a minister of the crown may decide not to comply with them. In our view this does no more than restate the existing legal position, since (1) there are compelling arguments that rule 39 indications do not give rise to an obligation in international law to comply with them, and (2) in any event Strasbourg court rulings do not of themselves create obligations which are enforceable under domestic UK law. Perversely, the inclusion of ministerial decisions relating to rule 39 indications in clause 5(2) of the bill might give rise to a possibility of bringing judicial reviews against such decisions which would not otherwise arise. It would be preferable if the bill were positively to require such interim indications [ECtHR injunctions] to be disregarded when UK courts refuse interim relief.
Updated
The Covid inquiry has stopped for lunch. Rishi Sunak is off somewhere – no doubt to get briefed on the latest prouncement from the ERG.
Back at the Commons, the ERG is meeting again tonight, ITV’s Carl Dinnen reports.
The ERG and others won’t yet commit to how they plan to vote.
The ERG and others won’t yet commit to how they plan to vote.
— Carl Dinnen (@carldinnen) December 11, 2023
They will meet again at 6pm to hear from Robert Jenrick.
They will meet again at 6pm to hear from Robert Jenrick.
— Carl Dinnen (@carldinnen) December 11, 2023
Back at the Covid inquiry Hugo Keith KC is now asking about the opening up measures planned for the summer.
Rishi Sunak says the scheme was delayed at one point because of the concerns of the scientists.
And he says asymptomatic transmission was not well understood at the time.
Q: Are you saying at the end of June you were not aware that the plans were at the riskier end of the spectrum, and that real care would have to be taken.
Sunak says he knew opening schools was a risk.
Updated
But the European Research Group won’t say how it will advise its members to vote in the second reading debate tomorrow, Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt reports.
Mark Francois will not be drawn on whether the ERG will vote against the bill. Another meeting tonight to decide voting
— Nicholas Watt (@nicholaswatt) December 11, 2023
On voting Mark Francois says the bells don’t ring until 7pm tomorrow night. A lot of time to pass between now and then
— Nicholas Watt (@nicholaswatt) December 11, 2023
Mark Francois is chair of the ERG.
During Brexit, dozens of Tory MPs were members of the ERG and in most of the key Brexit votes they operated an informal whip and stuck to an agreed line (normally voting against Theresa May).
But fewer MPs identify with the ERG now (the group will not divulge how many members it has), and even if the ERG leadership advises its members to vote a certain way, there is no guarantee they will comply.
Rwanda bill 'partial and incomplete solution' to small boats problem, Tory MPs told by ERG's 'star chamber'
The Conservative European Research Group has been told by its legal “star chamber” that the government’s Rwanda bill is a “partial and incomplete solution” to the problem posed by small boats, Aubrey Allegretti from the Times reports.
ERG Star Chamber says that Rwanda bill is a “partial and incomplete solution to the problem of legal challenges in the UK courts” to “delay or defeat the removal” of migrants
NEW: ERG Star Chamber says that Rwanda bill is a “partial and incomplete solution to the problem of legal challenges in the UK courts” to “delay or defeat the removal” of migrants.
— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) December 11, 2023
UPDATE: Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt has posted the ERG announcement on X.
The star chamber says government’s emergency legislation only provides a partial and incomplete solution pic.twitter.com/CR7uWfN6iQ
— Nicholas Watt (@nicholaswatt) December 11, 2023
Updated
Keith is edging towards “eat out to help out”.
He shows the inquiry an extract from a Treasury memo from early May 2020 highlighting the importance of reopening hospitality.
Sunak points out that the government wanted to open schools and non-essential retail first.
He says there was quite a lot of resistance from schools about going back early.
He says the Treasury’s input would have focused mostly on labour market issues.
Opening schools has an impact on the labour market, because parents can return to work, he says.
Treasury was worried about its Covid economic advice to PM being 'watered down' by Cabinet Office, memo suggests
Keith shows Sunak a memo he was sent in April 2020, when the government was considering the timing of lifting lockdown measures. Here is one extract.
But he focuses on this page, referring to the Treasury wanting the PM to see a document about the economy that has not been “watered down” by the Cabinet Office office. It is at line 3 b.
Sunak says he did not write this. He says he is not sure what concerned his officials, but he says he never felt he could not express his views to the PM.
Updated
Sunak says one government gilt auction failed ahead of full lockdown, causing Treasury concern about ability to borrow
At the Covid inquiry Rishi Sunak refers to a day during the early days of the Covid crisis when the government had a failed gilt auction.
That meant the government was not able to borrow in the normal way on the money markets.
It was a rare, and worrying, event.
Hugo Keith KC says this happened at a time when the government was considering locking down London. Did that influence the decision?
Sunak says he is not sure. That is a question for the PM. But he says this shows why he was doing such a difficult job.
He says that day closing schools was proposed. The government acted.
Updated
No 10 says it will publish summary of government's legal advice about Rwanda bill
The government will publish a summary of its legal advice about the Rwanda bill, Pippa Crerar reports. She has just come out of the No 10 lobby briefing.
NEW: No 10 says govt will published summary of legal advice on Rwanda bill today “in recognition of significant public interest”.
Very unusual move, presumably intended to aid factions of Tory MPs studying bill.
PM’s spox says still govt policy not to publish legal advice in full.
NEW: No 10 says govt will published summary of legal advice on Rwanda bill today “in recognition of significant public interest”.
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) December 11, 2023
Very unusual move, presumably intended to aid factions of Tory MPs studying bill.
PM’s spox says still govt policy not to publish legal advice in…
The inquiry has resumed, and Hugo Keith KC is asking about the “behavioural fatigue” argument – the claim that introducing the first lockdown too soon would be mistake, because after a while people would get tired of complying.
Rishi Sunak says he does not remember a lot about this debate. He says the Department of Health was on the lead on this.
According to the Sun’s Jack Elsom, Rishi Sunak has invited Tory MPs considering rebelling over the Rwanda bill to breakfast tomorrow.
Smoked salmon offensive!
I hear Rishi Sunak has invited Tory Rwanda rebels in for a breakfast meeting tomorrow morning.
If it’s the ERG lot, presumably he would do better offering them a Full English.
NEW: Smoked salmon offensive!
— Jack Elsom (@JackElsom) December 11, 2023
I hear Rishi Sunak has invited Tory Rwanda rebels in for a breakfast meeting tomorrow morning.
The Covid inquiry has stopped for a 10-minute break.
Sunak says one of his general reflections on Covid is about data, and access to good data.
Early on, good data was not available, he says.
Sunak claims he did not hear complaints at time about Johnson's decision-making being chaotic
Keith shows Sunak another minute sent to Sunak implying Johnson kept changing his mind. In it an official refers to “a high risk that this [decision] unwinds/is unpicked”.
Sunak says he is not clear what this refers to, but he repeats the point he made earlier about it being reasonable for Johnson to mull over decisions. (See 11.33am.)
Keith puts it to Sunak that the inquiry has heard evidence from some of Johnson’s closest advisers saying he kept changing his mind and that decision-making was chaotic.
Were you aware that his closest advisers had seemingly unanimously taken the view that there was a lack of efficiency, that the administration was described privately as brutal and useless, or criminally incompetent or operationally chaotic? Was any of that known to you?
Sunak replies:
I don’t think any of those comments were shared with me at the time.
He goes on:
But he says there were intense debates about policy, as there should have been. He says:
I don’t think that that is necessarily a bad thing. It’s right that there was a vigorous debate because these were incredibly consequential decisions for tens of millions of people in all in all spheres, whether it was health, whether it’s education, whether it was economic, whether it was social, whether it was a long-term impact. These these were incredibly big decisions, the likes of which no prime minister had taken in decades.
So the fact that there was debate and that people were passionate about it, and they had different points of view, is, I think, unsurprising and good.
Updated
Sunak defends Johnson against claims that he dithered too much over Covid decisions
Keith shows Sunak minutes of a bilateral meeting he held with Boris Johnson to discuss future measures. On the second page the official writing the minute for Sunak refers to the proposals and says: “Until announced you never know!”
Keith puts it to Sunak that this is evidence that Johnson kept changing his mind.
Sunak does not accept that. He says Johnson liked to test arguments for policies. As you review the evidence, the decision might change. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that,” he says. He suggests this is “entirely normal”. It shows Johnson was “engaging with the process and hearing from different people”.
Updated
Sunak says government did consider disadvantages of lockdown, but more ahead of later ones than first one
Q: So you reject the argument made in this article, that No 10 did not fully accept the need for a trade-off between different interests when deciding lockdown policy?
Sunak says that debate did not happen. With the first lockdown, it did not happen “particularly extensively”, because everything happened quickly, driven by the public health advice. But later there was more discussion.
Updated
Keith asks about this passage in the Spectator interview:
A cost-benefit calculation – a basic requirement for pretty much every public health intervention – was never made. ‘I wasn’t allowed to talk about the trade-off,’ says Sunak. Ministers were briefed by No. 10 on how to handle questions about the side-effects of lockdown. ‘The script was not to ever acknowledge them. The script was: oh, there’s no trade-off, because doing this for our health is good for the economy.’
And he shows Sunak an extract from a Treasury document shown to senior ministers in April 2020 that expressly referred to a trade-off.
Sunak says he is not sure that was a Treasury document. He says the author had worked for him, but went to work at a different department.
He says, when he spoke about trade-offs in the interview, he was referring to the government’s communications strategy.
He says the communications strategy was not necessarily wrong; there was a case for keeping it simple.
But he says he was making the case for having a wider debate.
Back at the Covid inquiry, Hugo Keith KC asks about a line in a Spectator interview with Rishi Sunak by Fraser Nelson in which Nelson said Sunak tried not to leave a paper trail of what he told Boris Johnson.
Sunak says that was what Nelson said, not what he said himself. And he says that he did write to Johnson about Covid matters.
Q: What should the inquiry make of the suggestion, that you seemed to back, that you had a form of communication with the PM that was not recorded.
Sunak says it is not possible for all conversations between cabinet ministers to be recorded. Civil servants do not follow ministers through the division lobbies, when they might talk. And he says when he was in the garden at Downing Street having lunch with his family, and Johnson was there too, they might have spoken – but a civil servant would not have been there.
He says what mattered was that decisions were recorded
Updated
Turning back to Rwanda for a moment, Sam Coates from Sky News has more on what rightwingers are up to this morning. He has posted these on X.
Emergency Rwanda legislation latest
— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) December 11, 2023
The Tory right is plotting its tactics. It remains unhappy with the bill and wants significant changes.
But
Some are now going to vote FOR second reading because they believe it gives them more leverage at committee stage.
Play loyal for…
Emergency Rwanda legislation latest
The Tory right is plotting its tactics. It remains unhappy with the bill and wants significant changes.
But
Some are now going to vote FOR second reading because they believe it gives them more leverage at committee stage.
Play loyal for now, bide time, remain in spotlight
So one calculation puts 20 abstentions on the right
Then have the big fight in the new year.
It is interesting that Cleverly and Pursglove did lots of calls yesterday and Pursglove implied he is open to looking at amendments, according to a source, which some see as a different message to No10
However others on the right fear that if you don’t show your strength - via abstentions - the moment the vote is done tomorrow No10 will say “we’ve won; no change necessary” So the right doesn’t get what it wants
There will be a brief media statement outside Grimond Room around 12.45pm. In time for for 1pm news slot
Updated
Sunak tells inquiry he does not think cabinet was sidelined when Covid decisions being taken
Q: Did you think cabinet was being sidelined, as some witnesses have said.
Sunak says this is not his “strong recollection”.
He says he was always able to give the PM advice.
And he says the Covid-O and Covid-S system Boris Johnson set up – two cabinet committees, one dealing with operations, and another with strategy – made sense for Covid decision-making.
He suggests the lack of a Covid taskforce at the start was a problem. But that was introduced.
And he says this is a model that can be deployed again “off the shelf”.
Q: And did you have a view as to how the Cabinet Office was performing was at the start?
Sunak says those first few weeks were very difficult. He says people were doing the best they could. But, once the taskforce was in place, things worked better, he says.
He says there are claims that decisions were not made in the right place. But his “strong recollection” is that they were. The Covid-O and Covid-S system worked well, he says.
Updated
Keith shows Sunak pages from minutes of a meeting he held with Boris Johnson on 15 March 2020 – the day before the “stay at home” order was issued.
Here is the first page
Other pages covered the potential costs of interventions.
Sunak says, as time went on, the quality of the analysis improved considerably.
Updated
Q: When there was a key decision to be made, the Treasury kept making arguments to the PM until the last moment.
Sunak says he is not sure that is fair. The PM set up a decision-making process that worked for him, he says.
He says he does not feel he did not get the chance to make arguments to the PM. He says the PM saw him more than he saw his wife during this period, he says.
Updated
Sunak says his main responsibility in making Covid policy was to put forward economic arguments
Sunak says the PM had to balance competing interests during Covid.
Only he could do that, because only he saw all the competing arguments made by different cabinet ministers.
Q: Did you see it as your job to promote the Treasury’s concerns about the economy? Or did you take a view as to what the ultimate decision should be?
Sunak says it is difficult to generalise. It depends what the meeting was considering.
It would be “context-specific”, he says.
But his primary responsibility was to feed in information about the economic advice.
If the PM asked him for a general view, he would give it.
Q: And was the PM the ultimate decision maker. A lot of your advice just went to him.
Sunak says the PM was the ultimate decision maker. That is not particularly controversial, he says.
Sunak confirms many of his Covid messages not available to inquiry, but says he was not 'prolific' WhatsApp user anyway
Hugo Keith KC, lead counsel for the inquiry, is questioning Sunak.
He starts by saying Sunak, in his witness statement, says he does not use text messages or WhatsApp messages much.
Your phone, you said, doesn’t retain, and nor do you have access to, text messages at all relating to the period of the crisis.
In addition, you said although on occasion you use WhatsApp to communicate around meetings and logistics and so on, you generally were only party to WhatsApp groups that were set up to deal with individual circumstances such as arrangements for calls, meetings and so on and so forth. You don’t now have access to any of the WhatsApps that you did send during the time of the crisis, do you?
Sunak confirms that. He says:
I’ve changed my phone multiple times over the past few years and, as that has happened, the messages have not come across.
As you said, I’m not a prolific user of WhatsApp in the first instance – primarily communication with my private office and obviously anything that was of significance through those conversations or exchanges would have been recorded officially by my civil servants as one would expect.
Updated
Sunak starts Covid inquiry evidence saying how sorry he is to people who lost loved ones
Rishi Sunak is giving evidence now.
He starts by saing how sorry he is to all of who lost loves ones, and who suffered during the pandemic.
UPDATE: Sunak said:
I just wanted to start by saying how deeply sorry I am to all of those who lost loved ones, family members, through the pandemic, and also all those who suffered in various different ways throughout the pandemic and as a result of the actions that were taken.
I’ve thought a lot about this over the past couple of years. It’s important that we learn the lessons so that we can be better prepared in the future. It’s in that spirit and with enormous respect for all of those who are affected that I’m here today.
I look forward to giving evidence in the spirit of constructive candour to help the inquiry with its deliberations.
Updated
Boris Johnson’s 200-page witness statement to the Covid inquiry was published at the end of last week, after he finished his oral evidence. This is what he said in it about Rishi Sunak’s “eat out to help out” scheme.
Before the Eat Out to Help Out scheme was implemented in August 2020, I had discussions with Rishi about the idea. It was of course impossible to model the impact of the scheme but Rishi and I both thought that there was a sound policy rationale for introducing the scheme. In particular, we were acutely conscious that women had been disproportionately affected by the lockdown and were also disproportionately likely to work in the hospitality sector. We thought it was especially important to do what we could to help the sector – even something novel – and ultimately to safeguard the jobs of women and others in minority groups that had been badly affected by the pandemic. It seemed to me a good idea; it was properly discussed, including with Chris [Whitty] and Patrick [Vallance], and it was not until later that some people started saying, ‘eat out to help the virus’. Of course, we considered the implications for infections, but we thought that this could and would be mitigated by the social distancing requirements still in force and it was very important to balance that against damage to the economy. The scheme was decided on the basis of the balance of risk that we were willing to run during that period.
Updated
Cabinet Office minister Esther McVey say she hopes Covid inquiry will consider argument lockdown unnecessary
The Covid inquiry has been getting a lot of criticism in the media in recent days, particularly from newspapers that have been critical of lockdown and supportive of Boris Johnson.
Mostly the government has not commented on how the inquiry is proceeding. On Any Questions at the weekend Esther McVey, the rightwing Cabinet Office minister dubbed “minister for common sense” when she was appointed, did suggest that lockdown had been a mistake. She told the programme:
I’ve been perturbed with the inquiry, that it seems one dimensional at the moment. However, it is an independent inquiry and it has got some time to run.
I do hope it asks the questions about the damage of lockdown, about why was no modelling done, that instead of going into lockdown we could have given advice to the public and how they would have reacted. Actually most of us are have got, I’m going to use the word common sense, and we would have protected the vulnerable, we would have looked after our own, we would have taken care and advice.
McVey also said that, as a backbencher, she has voted against lockdown.
Updated
In his interviews this morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, defended Rishi Sunak’s record during Covid, claiming that as chancellor Sunak “saved the economy”. He told GB News:
It’s so easy in hindsight to look at all these things with 20/20 vision and say: ‘Ah, if only you had done X at Y moment in time’. The fact of the matter is Rishi Sunak, during Covid, saved millions of jobs in this country through the furlough programme and saved millions of businesses as well, with huge amounts of support – over £400bn.
I think we should actually remember that he was the guy who saved the economy, an economy which – against all the expectations previously – has actually grown this year as a result of the decisions he made not to allow businesses and jobs to go.
Updated
Tories being touted in media as possible replacements for Sunak
Nigel Farage was one of the few prominent rightwingers not being touted as a possible replacement for Rishi Sunak in the papers yesterday. But in their Mail on Sunday story, Glen Owen and Dan Hodges did quote one Tory suggesting he could be given a peerage and appointed home secretary. They said:
One Tory MP said: ‘When Farage comes back he’s going to be all over the airwaves, and he’s going to have us in his sights.’
Another said: ‘Reform are going to kill us, so we have to buy Farage off. The plan is we get him into the Lords, give him some brief like we did with Cameron – maybe even home secretary – then go to the country with the dream team.
Among the Tories were touted as possible Sunak replacements were:
Boris Johnson: In its story, the Mail on Sunday said:
The Mail on Sunday has spoken to multiple Conservative MPs who believe that bringing back the former premier is the only way to save the party from an election wipe-out …
One red qall MP told the MoS: ‘I came out early to say [Johnson] had to go. But I think we have to think outside the box now. Whatever you feel about him, one thing no one can question is his effectiveness as a campaigner. And we need that now, we’re staring at obliteration.
Kemi Badenoch: The Sunday Times said the business and trade secretary is working on a leadership bid. In their story Tim Shipman and Harry Yorke said:
Cabinet colleagues accuse Kemi Badenoch, the trade secretary, of calling another minister to say: “The ship is heading for the rocks. What are we going to do about the captain?” One cabinet minister entertaining thoughts of a leadership run said: “Kemi’s people are already offering jobs. I know that because one of my people was approached.”
A source close to Badenoch told the paper this was untrue.
Dame Priti Patel: The Mail on Sunday floated the idea that the former home secretary could installed as a caretaker prime minister while Johnson arranged to return to the Commons.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg: The former Evening Standard editor Emily Sheffield posted this on X.
No surprise that to hear Robert Jenrick is allegedly going around canvassing on his leadership chances. More surprised I was rung yesterday by one Tory to ask if I would join @Jacob_Rees_Mogg & his plan of ditching Sunak & parachuting in a new leader. Pure derangement.
— Emily Sheffield (@emilysheffield) December 9, 2023
Sir Simon Clarke: This is what Alex Wickham and Kitty Donaldson said about the former levelling up secretary in their Bloomberg long read.
Some Tory lawmakers are plotting to oust him. Allies of his predecessor Liz Truss have held talks with colleagues about writing letters of no confidence in Sunak, and some want Simon Clarke, a rightwing backbencher, to challenge him, people familiar with those conversations said. Truss’s spokesman said she’s not plotting, while Clarke told Bloomberg he wants the government to succeed.
There are several other figures in the party also whose leadership ambitions are well known, such as Suella Braverman, the former home secretary.
UPDATE: The Times today has another addition to this list.
David Cameron: In his story Matt Dathan says:
Another ally of Johnson said the party’s fortunes were so dire that the former prime minister would struggle to win: “Even if he managed to secure a seat, what by-election can you imagine us winning,” the MP said.
They said it would be easier to install Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, the foreign secretary, as he has a winning record and is already in the House of Lords. Constitutionally the King could accept Cameron as prime minister so long as he agreed to stand for a Commons seat at an imminent general election.
Updated
Farage says 'never say never' when asked about possible political comeback, saying Tories 'in total shambles'
Ever since he gave up leadership of the Brexit party, and let Richard Tice lead it under its new name, Reform UK, Nigel Farage has liked nothing more than teasing the media with hints about a possible comeback. He was at it again this morning, in an interview with ITV’s Good Morning Britain after finishing third in I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here!
Farage was asked if he wanted to rejoin the Conservative party, which he used to belong to until he left to help set up Ukip in the 1990s. He replied:
I am looking at a Conservative government that is in total shambles, facing tomorrow effectively a confidence vote on an issue that affects every single living human being in our country, namely immigration on a level that never happened even during Tony Blair’s days.
Rishi [Sunak] is a lame duck walking. The Conservative party are headed for total defeat. As to whether I have a future in politics, I have no idea at this moment in time.
But what I would say is never say never. And our country needs, actually, people at the top with some firm guidance as to where we’re going in the future. At the moment we are rudderless and I don’t see a Labour party with strength to get us out of this mess.
'Are you seeking to use your I'm a Celebrity journey to rejoin the Conservatives and finally get into the UK Parliament?'@edballs questions Nigel Farage over a return to politics after he came third in the I'm a Celebrity jungle 🐛🐞🐜 pic.twitter.com/sLU7RaFmuL
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) December 11, 2023
Updated
Updated
Rishi Sunak to face Covid inquiry as Tory MPs meet to consider fate of Rwanda asylum bill
Good morning. Rishi Sunak is in “facing his worst week as prime minister” territory. All prime ministers have weeks that are described by the media as their most difficult yet, and this does not necessarily mean all his lost. Tony Blair was regularly having “worst weeks yet” throughout his entire 10-year premiership. But Sunak really is in a dire state. He is facing near-certain electoral defeat at some point in the next 13 months and now, for the first time since he became leader, there is real speculation about some sort of leadership challenge. In what will be seen by many non-Tories as a sign that the party is flirting with insanity, there has even been talk of a Boris Johnson comeback.
Sunak faces two particular challenges today. First, he is spending most of the day at the Covid inquiry, where he is likely to face questions about his lockdown-sceptical stance as chancellor that led him to be nicknamed “Dr Death” by Prof Dame Angela McLean, who is now the government’s chief scientific adviser (presumably that did not come up at her interview). Sunak will also be asked about his “eat out to help out” scheme. Tom Ambrose has a preview here.
But, more importantly, two groups of Conservative MPs will meet to decide their stance on the new Rwanda deportation bill that is getting its second reading in the Commons. This is the issue that is creating a division in the party deep enough to pose an existential threat to Sunak’s premiership. It seems likely the bill will pass tomorrow, but only because Tory MPs will put off the key fight until report stage after Christmas, when rightwingers will try to amend it in one direction, centrists will try yanking it in the opposite direction, and at that point there might be no bill left the party can unite around.
Even if the bill survives the Commons, it is bound to face challenge in the House of Lords. But perhaps the biggest danger of all for Sunak is that the bill does become law – only for it to fail to totally to “stop the boats” because of ongoing legal challenges (which is what his critics are saying is bound to happen). Rowena Mason has the latest on this here.
Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, was doing a media round this morning. He defended the bill, claiming that it would stop 99.5% of appeals against deportation. He told Times Radio:
I think my simple message is this plan is working, let’s unite behind it and get this further legislation through.
This legislation, by the way, based on Home Office calculations means that of the cases which currently allow people to appeal, that only about one out of 200 cases ultimately would be able to get through that appeal. So this is a very significant, even dramatic move, designed to make the Rwanda route work.
Shapps was referring to Home Office modelling leaked to the Times. In his story Matt Dathan says:
The Home Office believes 99.5% of individual legal challenges submitted by migrants will fail to block their deportation to Rwanda under Rishi Sunak’s emergency law, leaked documents reveal.
Modelling prepared by officials to assess the risk of individual legal challenges scuppering Rishi Sunak’s emergency Rwanda bill predicts nine in ten of all claims would be rejected with no right of appeal within ten days of their arrival in the UK …
The department believes that of the 10% that are granted a hearing, 90% will be struck out at the second stage of the legal process. Only half of the remaining cases that are allowed to progress to an upper tribunal appeal would succeed and lead to the migrant remaining in the UK, according to the Home Office modelling.
It means that if 1,000 migrants were to lodge individual legal challenges against their removal, 900 would be rejected at the first stage and only five migrants would ultimately succeed in blocking their deportation.
The Times: We will win legal battles on Rwanda,
— George Mann (@sgfmann) December 10, 2023
say officials #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/IwmEKXDmQd
Here is the agenda for the day.
10.30am: Rishi Sunak starts giving evidence to the Covid inquiry. He is due to give evidence all day.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Noon: Sir Bill Cash briefs members of the European Research Group and other rightwing Conservative groups in parliament on the findings of the ERG’s legal “star chamber” on the viability of the Rwanda bill.
1.30pm: Chris Heaton-Harris, the Northern Ireland secretary, holds talks with the main parties in Northern Ireland on efforts to resume power sharing at Stormont.
3pm: Sir Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, gives evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about the Rwanda deportation policy.
6pm: The Conservative One Nation Caucus meets to consider its stance on the Rwanda bill.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
