Party rebels’ stance on migrants is a betrayal of Conservative tradition

Every Conservative wants to stop the boats illegally bringing people across the Channel. As someone who is supporting the Government’s Rwanda Bill, and wants to see it passed as soon as possible, I think getting flights off to Rwanda will act as a deterrent to those who want to try this route and therefore forms a significant part of the defences needed to establish better control of our borders. This aim is consistent with the best Conservative values of patriotism and protection of the rule of law.

It is already the toughest piece of immigration legislation proposed on a single policy issue. Many of us have reservations about its effects, as expressed in the various changes proposed by Sir Robert Buckland, a former lord chancellor. These will give rise to interesting debates in the Commons and I look forward to hearing what ministers have to say.

As well as the reservations of those who care about the rule of law and the reputation of Britain as a country that keeps its promises, on the other side of the argument is the contention that the Bill needs to be pushed further by the various amendments proposed by Sir Bill Cash and Robert Jenrick. There is a serious practical problem with all these amendments, as well as the principled debate about Britain tearing up international agreements whenever it suits. The practical point is that the Rwandan government has made clear it will not be part of any scheme if it is seen to be based on a challenge to international law. It is impossible to argue credibly that amendments that deliberately say the Government can ignore its obligations under, say, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not put the UK in that position.

The practical effect of the Cash/ Jenrick amendments would be to ensure no flights to Rwanda ever take off. It would be a terrible irony if those who say they are helping achieve the Government’s goals were making it certain those aims cannot be achieved.

Even more importantly, if the flights do not take off, the deterrent effect would not be there and we risk a resurgence of the small boat activity after last year’s welcome decline.

There are of course further objections to these amendments. One seeks to disapply “any other protection or rule of domestic law (including any common law)”. Reading the amendments reveals that they go far beyond the debate about the European Convention on Human Rights and create a class of people with fewer rights than the most vicious criminal. This would betray the Tory tradition of trying to unite our society. We can surely find ways to achieve our common aim of stopping the boats without resorting to legislation that is designed more to strike a tough pose than achieve a practical result.

Another amendment seeks to make it impossible for a minister to agree to a temporary injunction stopping a removal if one is granted by the courts. Ministers are already giving themselves the power to ignore such an injunction, a significant extension of state power. To take away any right of such an appeal is both unnecessary and a touch authoritarian.

I supported the Government when the Bill passed its second reading debate in the Commons because I believe they have found a way to meet the objections of the Supreme Court to the existing scheme while staying

( just) within the bounds of the law. I would therefore be content if the Bill passes the next stages of the debate intact, not least because it will bring forward the day when we can expect to see the flights taking off. As a moderate compassionate Conservative, I am in favour of strict immigration controls but impractical measures that sound tough but achieve nothing will not help us get flights off the ground.

‘It is already the toughest piece of immigration legislation proposed on a single policy issue’