Peers resume Rwanda bill debate – UK politics live

Key events

You can read the paper with the full list of amendments to the Rwanda bill being debated in the Lords this afternoon here.

Vernon Coaker tells peers this is not an argument between people who want to stop the boats and people who don’t. He says this is a debate about how it is done.

He says he wants to push his amendment.

Peers are now voting on amendment A1 – the one saying the bill must be enforced “having due regard for domestic and international law”. (See 4.13pm.)

Lords amendments would do 'significant damage' to core purpose of Rwanda bill, minister tells peers

Lord Stewart of Dirleton, the adocate general for Scotland, is winding up this stage of the debate for the government. He claims the opposition amendments would do “significant damage to the core purpose of the bill”.

Claire Fox, who joined the House of Lords after being a Brexit party MEP and who now sits as non-affiliated peer, says she does not support the bill, but objects to those saying supporters of the bill lack compassion. The country has lost control of its borders, she says.

Jenny Jones, a Green peer, goes next, and she broadly agrees with Lipsey. She says the public is more kinder and caring than the government, which she say does not represent public opinion on the Rwanda policy any more.

Lord Lipsey, the Labour peer, is speaking in the Lords now. He says peers normally work on the basis that the will of the elected house should prevail. But the Lords are also there to act as a constitutional backstop, to stop the government going too far?

He says this bill is “perilously near” the point where the Lords should act as a backstop, he says.

The government does not have a mandate for this bill and, with an election so close, it should delay until the election, and let the public decide, he says.

Peers resume debate on Rwanda bill, with Labour making fresh bid to ensure it must comply with international law

In the House of Lords peers are just starting their debate on the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill. As the bill was going through the Lords for the first time, peers passed 10 amendments, all intended to strengthen safeguards for people facing deportation to Rwanda, and on Monday MPs voted them all down when the bill went back to the Commons.

The bill is now in the “ping pong” process – where it will shuttle between the Lords and the Commson until they agree on a text.

There is no real doubt about the outcome; the Lords will eventually back down, as it almost always does. Occasionally at this stage in the process it can secure a minor concession, but there seems to be little chance of that now. The government has said it wants the bill as it was originally passed.

But what is uncertain is how long peers will choose to hold up the bill. “Ping pong” can run to up to about five rounds. In theory the bill could become law this week, but government sources have indicated that if peers vote today to re-insert some of their amendments, the bill might not return to the Commons until after the Easter recess.

Today we are expecting about seven votes on fresh amendments. Peers cannot just retable the amendments voted out by MPs, but what they can do is seek to re-insert new versions of the previous ones.

Vernon Coaker, a Labour home affairs spokesperson, has finished speaking. MPs rejected a Lords amendment saying the bill should be implemented “while maintaining full compliance with domestic and international law”.

Coaker said he had reworded this, and he proposed a new amendment saying the bill has to be implemented “having due regard for domestic and international law”.

He said this is important because, if the government wanted to oppose President Putin, on the grounds that what he was doing was against international law, and if it opposed the Houthis, on the grounds that their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea were against international law, then it should comply with international law in its own legislation.

Deparment of Health publishes bill intended to ensure future generations never smoke

The Department of Health and Social Care has today published its tobacco and vapes bill, the legislation that will very gradually ban smoking by ensuring that children turning 15 this year or younger will never legally be able to be sold tobacco. There is a summary of the measures from the DHSC here, and the bill itself is here.

Commenting on the bill, Rishi Sunak said:

If we want to build a better future for our children we need to tackle the single biggest entirely preventable cause of ill health, disability and death: smoking.

That is why, alongside new measures to curb the alarming rise in youth vaping, we are delivering on our commitment to create a smokefree generation and stop our kids from getting hooked on harmful cigarettes and other nicotine products.

This important change will save thousands of lives and billions of pounds for our NHS, freeing up new resource than can be spent to improve outcomes for patients right across the UK.

Gething accuses UK government of 'unprecedented hostility' to devolution in speech in first speech as Welsh first minister

Vaughan Gething used his first speech in the Senedd after being formally nominated as first minister of Wales to accuse the UK government of “unprecedented hostility” to devolution. He declared:

In recent years we have pushed the boundaries of what is possible with devolution. We did it, for example, to keep Wales safe [during Covid].

But in that same period, we have seen unprecedented hostility towards democratic Welsh devolution from a UK government determined to undermine, frustrate and bypass the Welsh government and this Senedd.

As well as leaving Wales with less say over less money, it is deeply corrosive, wasteful and undemocratic.

As first minister, I look forward to standing up for Wales and for devolution in the weeks and months to come.

Gething, who became first minister after being elected to succeed Mark Drakeford as the leader of the Welsh Labour party, said that he was relishing the chance “to cooperate for Wales with a new UK government that invests in partnership and in Wales’ future”.

He also said it was a matter of pride to be the first Black person to lead a European country – “but also a daunting responsibility for me – and one that I do not take lightly”. He went on:

Today, we can also expect the depressingly familiar pattern to emerge: abuse on social media, racist tropes disguised with polite language.

People questioning my motives and, yes, they will still question or deny my nationality. Whilst others question why I’m ‘playing the race card’.

To those people, I say once more – it is very easy not to care about identity when your own has never once been questioned or held you back.

Gething was elected first minster with the support of Labour MSs (members of the Senedd), as well as Jane Dodds, the Senedd’s only Liberal Democrat member.

The Conservative and Plaid Cymru members voted for their respective party leaders.

Matt Hancock loses bid to have libel case brought against him by Andrew Bridgen struck out

Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, has lost a bid to have a libel claim brought against him by MP Andrew Bridgen thrown out by a high court judge, PA Media reports. PA says:

Bridgen wants to “clear his name” after allegedly being accused of antisemitism in a “malicious” social media post by Hancock, the court was previously told.

The MP for North West Leicestershire is bringing a libel case against Hancock over a January 2023 tweet that followed Bridgen posting a comment about Covid-19 vaccines.

A judge was told that, on 11 January, Bridgen shared a link to an article “concerning data about deaths and other adverse reactions linked to Covid vaccines”, and stated: “As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”

Hours later, Hancock wrote on Twitter – now known as X – that “disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society”.

Bridgen believes “every person reading the tweet knew it was about me”, that it was “seriously defamatory and untrue” and intended to cause “grievous harm” to his reputation, the court was told.

At a preliminary hearing in London earlier this month, Hancock’s lawyers argued the claim against him should be thrown out as it did not have “a realistic prospect of success” and because of the “lack of a properly articulated case”.

In a ruling today, Mrs Justice Steyn “struck out” certain parts of Bridgen’s case but did not dismiss the whole claim, instead giving the Independent MP the opportunity to make amendments and “remedy the deficiencies”.

Sunak to urge Tory MPs at 1922 Committee to 'pull together' and to attack Labour over its record in Birmingham

Rishi Sunak will urge Tory MPs to “pull together” when he addresses them at the 1922 Committee later this afternoon.

Asked at the post-PMQs lobby briefing what Sunak would be saying to his backbenchers, the PM’s press secretary replied:

He will be talking about the local elections and I’m sure they will be talking about that we have got to pull together to make sure Labour don’t do what they have done to Britain, what they have done to Birmingham.

As the PM said, [there have been] eye-watering tax rises, bins uncollected, massive cuts to the arts in Birmingham – it is truly … worse than in the 1970s under Labour leadership there.

So he will be talking about that.

Asked if Sunak was concerned about disunity in the part, the press secretary replied:

He wants everyone going into these local elections taking about the Labour party’s poor record in Birmingham, Wales and London, and that will be the focus of the Conservatives as we go into these important local elections.

The press secretary refused to say whether Sunak had spoken to Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, about she was being lined up as a unity candidate to replace him, saying she did not want to “get into private discussions between colleagues”

The press secretary also refused to say whether Sunak was disappointed that Mordaunt did not issue a public statement denying the reports.

At the Labour post-PMQs briefing, asked about the PM’s attack on Labour-run Birmingham council (see 12.15pm), a spokesperson for Keir Starmer said Tory-run councils were facing similar problems.

Reform UK drops general election candidate over racist comments on X

A series of tweets by Ball were highlighted on X on Tuesday night, including one in which her account suggested that Shola Mos-Shogbamimu should be deported.

After Paulette Hamilton was elected Birmingham’s first black MP, Ball’s account tweeted “Staggered it is still called The black country …. or perhaps not”?

A Reform UK spokesperson said that the party had acted after aspects of her social media were brought to the party’s attention late on Tuesday. Ball’s account on X was protected on Wednesday and her biography on X no longer described her as a Reform UK candidate.

The lord chancellor, Alex Chalk, has defended the bill which will overturn convictions relating to the Post Office IT scandal en masse, saying that it is for the state to fix its own mess, in what are “exceptional and unique circumstances”.

The bill has been criticised as contrary to the rule of law, because parliament is interfering with judicial independence, and for setting a dangerous precedent.

Appearing before the House of Lords constitution committee this morning, Chalk said:

Those of us who value and cherish and are passionate about the rule of law also have to recognise that a miscarriage of justice on this extraordinary scale is of itself an affront to the rule of law.

He said that the sheer number of people affected by the scandal, which resulted in more than 980 convictions, the lapse of time, the loss of evidence in many cases and the loss of faith in the system amounted to “wholly unique circumstances” which justified the bill.

Chalk said he looked extremely carefully at whether the courts could deal with the individual cases but there was a difference of views on whether they had the capacity (the lady chief justice has said that they do) and there was potential for delays which would cause the public to think “the state couldn’t even clear up its mess”.

He also said that parliament had made clear that it did not create a precedent but, in response, Lord Falconer, a member of the committee and former lord chancellor under Tony Blair, said:

How can it not be a precedent that the executive will get parliament to overturn courts on findings of fact, which you would accept undermines fundamentally the rule of law?

PMQs - snap verdict

For all the media chatter about a possible Tory leadership challenge, the majority view in the parliamentary party seems to be that, although they are heading for a massive defeat, there is no evidence a new leader would do much better and so on balance it is best to leave things as they are. The local election results may change that calculation, but it is hard to imagine anything else doing so before May, and that PMQs won’t alter Sunak’s position, for better or worse. He was underwhelming, but no worse than usual.

In fact, the whole session was a bit routine. That was the last PMQs for a month, because the Commons rises for the Easter recess on Tuesday and does not return until Monday 15 April, and that may explain why Keir Stamer decided to open with all-encompassing soundbite that summarised Labour’s case well.

Violent prisoners released early because the Tories wrecked the criminal justice system, 3,500 small boats arrivals already this year because the Tories lost control of the borders, the NHS struggling to see people because the Tories broke it, millions paying more on their mortgages, a budget that hit pensioners, a £46bn hole in his sums. Why is the prime minister so scared to call an election?

The cleverest question of the day came from the SNP’s Stephen Flynn, who found a zinger that managed to skewer the Conservative and Labour (the SNP’s main threat in Scotland). He asked Sunak:

With his backbenchers looking for a unity candidate to replace him, which of the now numerous born-again Thatcherites on the Labour frontbench does he believe best fits the bill?

Even Sunak found this funny.

As for the Sunak/Starmer exchanges, there were two features of particular interest.

First, Sunak is struggling badly with attack material to use against Starmer. He seems to have given up claiming Labour is committed to a £28bn annual green investment plan (Starmer ditched this earlier this year, but for a bit CCHQ tried to claim it was still a runner), and at various moments Sunak tried Labour not being ready for an election (even though they probably are), Labour not having plans (even they do, or at least as many plans as an opposition party), or Labour wanting to put up taxes (even though they say they don’t). Sunak ended up focusing mostly on the claim that Labour is on the side of the people smugglers, that it is soft on crime, and that Starmer as a lawyer once acted in a human rights case for Hizb ut-Tahrir. Does any of this register with anyone who isn’t already a tribal Tory? It does not feel like it, and Starmer’s retort about this being “nonsense” seemed apposite.

Second, this exchange provided yet further evidence that the Rwanda policy, which was supposed to be an election-winning wedge issue for the Tories, increasingly resembles a policy albatross. Starmer won the exchanges on this quite comfortably and the Labour arguments seem to be landing with voters. I covered some for the Savanta polling in the Telegraph earlier (see 9.36am and 9.46am), but some of the most striking figures were those showing that since January there has been a sharp drop in the number of people who think the policy will cut small boat numbers. Even Tory supporters are increasingly gloomy about its prospects.

Tahir Ali (Lab) says Sunak will soon be in opposition. Before then, will he recognise the state of Palestine?

Sunak says the government will do that when it will most help the peace process. But the government wants a two state solution, he says.

And that was the last question.

Andy Slaughter (Lab) says the PM has had advice about the legality of the Israel-Hamas war. Is the PM acting on that advice?

Sunak say he is calling on Israel to respect international humanitarian law. He says he and the foreign secretary have repeatedly made this point to Benjamin Netanyahu. He says the government believes Israel is capable of complying with international law.

Ashley Dalton (Lab) asks about the Tory donor Frank Hester, and his comments about Indian members of staff. Does the PM agree those comments were racist?

Sunak says he addressed this last week.