Furious Tory MPs demand Rishi Sunak bring in a new ‘full-fat’ plan to tackle high immigration amid blazing party row over PM’s decision to ‘back off’ from plan to exempt Rwanda deportation flights from human rights laws

Furious Tory MPs demanded Rishi Sunak bring in a ‘full-fat’ reform of UK immigration rules today amid a fresh backbench rebellion.

The Prime Minister is facing a major backlash over claims he is going cold on moves to exempt controversial Rwanda deportation flights from human rights rules in order to bypass the courts.

Around 40 MPs are said to be ready to support an amendment that would waive parts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to get the Channel migrants policy up and running using a so-called ‘notwithstanding clause’.

According to the Times, lawyers have warned that the ‘full-fat’ approach of exempting the measures from the ECHR would merely provoke more legal challenges. 

Home Secretary James Cleverly has also signalled concerns about the proposal, while Lord Cameron’s Foreign Office fears it could damage the UK’s international standing. 

However, other senior ministers are believed to be more hawkish, including Mr Cleverly’s Home Office deputy Robert Jenrick. 

This afternoon Mr Jenrick threw some red meat to MPs in the Commons, hinting at backing for a full cap on legal migrant numbers and on the number of dependents they can bring with them.

But former minister Jonathan Gullis said: ‘I am deeply concerned and confused because at the weekend I get the Prime Minister saying that migration is too high and needs to come down to more sustainable levels – the full-fat option.

‘Yesterday I get the skimmed option, with the Prime Minister boasting about our competitive visa regime. The Cabinet members who sit round with (Mr Jenrick) – are they full-fat, semi-skimmed or skimmed?’

The Prime Minister is facing a major backlash over claims he is going cold on moves to exempt controversial Rwanda deportation flights from human rights rules in order to bypass the courts. 

This afternoon Mr Jenrick threw some red meat to MPs in the Commons, hinting at backing for a full cap on legal migrant numbers and on the number of dependents they can bring with them.

But former minister Jonathan Gullis said: ‘I am deeply concerned and confused because at the weekend I get the Prime Minister saying that migration is too high and needs to come down to more sustainable levels – the full-fat option. ‘Yesterday I get the skimmed option, with the Prime Minister boasting about our competitive visa regime. The Cabinet members who sit round with (Mr Jenrick) – are they full-fat, semi-skimmed or skimmed?’

Mr Jenrick replied: ‘I support (Mr Gullis) in his lobbying and campaigning for the Government to take this issue seriously because he speaks for millions of people across the country who see the levels of net migration as far too high.’

Later, in reply to party deputy chairman, Lee Anderson, Mr Jenrick said there were ‘strong arguments’ for introducing a cap on migration numbers.

Anderson told MPs: ‘People in Ashfield have had enough of this. 7,000 people on the council house waiting list, people struggling to get a GP appointment, people struggling to get a dental appointment, struggling to get school places.’

Pointing to the Labour benches, he added: ‘Isn’t it about time, minister, that we had a cap on migration and put some clear divide between us and that lot over there?’

Tory MP for Dudley North, Marco Longhi, also pressed for a cap, telling the Commons: ‘Does he agree with me that… it is time for a cap on net migration?’

In response to Mr Anderson, Mr Jenrick said: ‘He speaks for my constituents as he does for his in saying that the British public want us to get on with the job now and bring down the numbers coming into this country. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I are committed to bringing forward a set of fundamental reforms which I hope will achieve the objective that he has set out.

‘There are definitely strong arguments for using caps, whether in general or on specific visas, but these are conversations that we need to conclude within Government.’

The PM has insisted that all options are on the table to ensure that flights take off next year, after the Supreme Court ruled the current plans were illegal. 

But there are claims that Downing Street is going cold on the idea of including a ‘notwithstanding’ clause in emergency legislation set to be unveiled in the coming weeks.

Home Secretary James Cleverly has signalled concerns about the idea of dropping out of the European Convention on Human Rights 

Channel migrants being brought ashore in Kent earlier this month

Mr Cleverly was assailed by Tory MPs calling for action to curb human rights rules in the Commons yesterday.

Dozens are thought to be preparing to back an amendment to any emergency legislation if it does not include a derogation from the ECHR and UN refugee provisions. 

The Supreme Court ruled that deportations could not go ahead because Rwanda might send asylum seekers back to their country of origin, where they could be in danger.  

Mr Cleverly insisted he would not ‘pre-judge’ whether emergency legislation would allow ministers to disapply parts of international agreements.

He said: ‘We will do everything we can to ensure that we break the business model of the evil people smugglers, that we drive down small-boat arrivals. 

‘The deterrent effect of Rwanda is a key element of that multi-strand approach. The Rwanda scheme is an incredibly important part of our basket of responses.’

Connected plans for a new Treaty with Rwanda that could swing the legal position in the government’s favour also seem to have run into problems.

The agreement had been initially mooted to conclude last week, but now looks unlikely until next week – and potentially not until after Christmas.

With the time required to ratify any deal and the prospect of more legal challenges, it throws the PM’s timetable of the first Rwanda flights taking off by Spring into doubt.  

The government also felt the heat from Conservative MPs over legal migration yesterday.

Jonathan Gullis said last week’s record net migration figures were ‘completely unacceptable’ for the people in his constituency. 

He urged them to ‘copy and paste’ proposals to reduce the figures put forward by the New Conservatives grouping of Tory MPs.

Mr Jenrick replied: ‘The level of legal migration into this country is far too high. We have already announced a specific policy with respect to dependants which comes into force at the beginning of next year.’

It came after claims that Mr Sunak agreed to raise the salary threshold for migrant workers from £25,000 to £40,000 as part of a deal with Suella Braverman, who was sacked as home secretary two weeks ago.

Lord Cameron’s Foreign Office fears a bold Rwanda move could damage the UK’s international standing

Mr Cleverly fielded angry interventions from Tory MP yesterday, and insisted the Rwanda scheme remains a ‘key element’ of efforts to tackle the Channel crisis

Identical measures were proposed by former PM Boris Johnson in his Mail column on Saturday, after figures showed net migration hit a record 745,000 last year, mostly driven by foreign workers.

Raising the minimum salary which must be paid by employers to overseas recruits would see a huge reduction in the number of work visas granted.

Mr Sunak yesterday insisted he was determined to cut net migration, saying the figures ‘need to come down to more sustainable levels’.

Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove admitted the immigration figures will force Britain to build thousands more homes on greenfield sites, and that the Government’s target to build a million new homes in this parliamentary term would not be enough.

Source: Read Full Article