The One Nation faction of moderate Conservatives is contemplating proposing changes to Rishi Sunak’s legislation on Rwanda in order to safeguard it 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 rejected in the upcoming year.
Robert Buckland, a former justice secretary and member of the One Nation group, is contemplating proposing an amendment to ensure the bill is legally sound and aligns with the European convention on human rights, according to a report from the Guardian.
He refuted the idea that the proposed amendment would cause harm to the bill, stating that he hoped the prime minister’s plan for Rwanda would be successful. He added that the amendment could potentially gain support from all sides of the house, unlike potential amendments from the right.
The government’s third reading will be a crucial test. Although my colleagues on the right have suggested that their amendments will improve the bill, I am concerned that they will actually weaken it by causing a direct conflict with the courts.
Some moderate members of the Conservative party are exploring strategies to ensure that the government upholds its promise to abide by international law and stop Sunak from making major concessions to the far-right.
According to Damian Green, the ex-deputy prime minister, One Nation legislators will only agree to small changes from the right, as the present legislation pushes the boundaries of what is considered acceptable.
According to a source from the Common Sense Group, there is potential to gather enough votes to oppose the legislation in the upcoming year due to 29 Tory MPs abstaining from voting on Tuesday, with the majority coming from the right wing of the party.
They stated that they could potentially secure an additional “15 or 20 votes” if needed to change their vote from supporting the bill to opposing it. One member explained, “Many of us initially felt obligated to trust the government’s intentions with the bill.”
In the future, they may not be as generous unless there is a sincere effort to prevent legal action against the Rwanda scheme. This is because we are aware that it will likely become entangled in legal proceedings if left as it currently stands.
The coalition of conservative Tory organizations known as the “five families” anticipates continuing talks with the government in the coming year regarding the bill and its potential for further revisions to appease the right wing of the party. According to a source, they have a track record of assessing legislation in a productive and innovative manner.
A senior member of the conservative party who had a meeting with Sunak prior to the vote proposed making adjustments to clause 4 of the bill. This clause allows migrants to make individual claims and could be modified to include additional restrictions. The possibility of negotiating similar agreements with other countries for deportation, similar to the one with Rwanda, was also brought up.
The group expressed dissatisfaction with the limited scope of the bill that aims to remove certain aspects of human rights law. They believe it does not adequately address the potential obstacle of the European court of human rights rejecting the plan. However, any changes made to address this issue are likely to upset centrist individuals.
No 10 said that Sunak would listen to any sensible proposals for amendments to the bill. “The prime minister has been clear that, on the issue of people putting forward amendments, they need to be done in a way that is legally credible, has the deterrent effect and ensures the scheme does not collapse.”
Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, stated that the government will not give in to the demands of the right by denying asylum seekers the right to appeal. He explained that the bill must adhere to the UK’s international legal commitments.
“We are open-minded towards reasonable recommendations and perspectives. However, we do believe that there are specific elements that must be maintained to ensure our compliance with international law.”
The government has stated that they do not want the increase in the income requirement for family visas to be applied retroactively, according to legal migration minister Tom Pursglove.
The government has changed its stance on whether the updated minimum income requirements will affect renewals of existing visas. Initially, it was stated that they would, but just a few days later, it was suggested that a decision had not been made.
Source: theguardian.com
