The Rwanda bill

I did not support the Rwanda bill in the Commons . It is a flawed draft in need of substantial revision.

I did not vote against it  because I agree with the aim of the policy to stop illegal migration into the UK. The Opposition parties who voted against the measure want more legal migration.

I have made various suggestions to Ministers over how they could reduce illegal migration more rapidly. I want them to make cutting legal migration their priority to make a bigger impact on the pressures affecting housing and our public services.


  1. Duyfken
    December 13, 2023

    The Conservatives, as always, fiddling whilst Rome burns.

    1. Hope
      December 13, 2023

      Sunak and his pro EU socialist govt was not interested in boat people until Farage raised it! How is the other Biby Stockholm expensive disaster coming along?

      Mass immigration is the Uni party policy. 3.5 million gross in two years! Govt does not decide who leaves. When you refer to the hall of the uni party wanting uncontrolled immigration I almost fell off my chair laughing. What do you call what your half of the party is doing against its repeated promises? Again another highest record set by your disastrous party. Highest tax to GDP, highest debt, highest debt interest, failing to deliver Brexit- good to see DUP vote against Rwanda con.

      Your govt has given away N.Ireland to EU making it a vassal state without a cross word while locking us to EU rules, regs, laws and courts, but given Ukraine two of our war ships!! How do we afford that JR? I note welfare claimants get an early £299 pounds hand out for Christmas!! Hunt says he makes work pay! Idiot.

    2. Peter
      December 13, 2023

      ‘ I did not support the Rwanda bill in the Commons .’

      Fair play, Sir John.

      However Rwanda is a side show. I will not follow the ups and downs of the bill. The possible date of the next general election is what I look out for.

      1. Mark B
        December 14, 2023

        Me too.

      2. Mickey Taking
        December 14, 2023

        everything comes to he who waits.

  2. Javelin
    December 13, 2023

    Have you ever stopped to considered that a few members of the cabinet actually want mass migration.

    1. Ian Wraggg
      December 13, 2023

      Especially the top two. Fishy and Chicom.

      1. Ian Wraggg
        December 13, 2023

        So the ONS predict the boat scandal will go on for at least 10 more years and the bill will rise to £32 billion annually.
        Just how far do you think this can go before the taxpayers revolt. I know you binned my post yesterday for pointing out something similar but we have a right to know.

    2. Mickey Taking
      December 13, 2023

      More than a few in both Houses, Judiciary etc. The country is rushing to widespread economic meltdown and possible social unrest. What sort of a s*** state will it be in by the time the electorate concedes re-joining the fragmented dictatorship across the Channel?

    3. Bloke
      December 13, 2023

      The Rwanda policy is like reverse-engineering the Tower of Babel from the top downwards.

    4. Hope
      December 13, 2023

      They do that is a fact by their 14 year record. GDP shrank by 0.3% therefore the notion mass immigration increases GDP appears to be shot and another excuse by Tories destroyed.

      Hunt in papers ruling out tax cuts because it will cause inflation. Who is right JR or Hunt? Highest taxation to GDP in history and we are to,d it is set to rise because of Snake and Hunt’s fiscal drag!

      Who in their right mind would trust or even vote for these village idiots?

    5. Denis Cooper
      December 13, 2023

      I think most parliamentarians of all parties want uncontrolled and unlimited mass immigration, legal or illegal.

      Different reasons, but: “… they all come back to the same secret desire to throw the flood gates wide open.”

      Conor Burns made a good speech, reviewing manifesto pledges on immigration and asylum back to 1997:

    6. Hope
      December 13, 2023

      N.Ireland not included in the bill. It is treated differently to GB as if a separate country because it has not left the EU!! Please explain why no air time to Sammy Wilson speaking about it in parliament by any of the TV channels?

      Today EU approves state aid to N.Ireland companies!! Why no mention of these two key issues from your lying treacherous party/Govt.?

    7. Timaction
      December 13, 2023

      They chose 1.2 million visas last year and the record numbers before. They just lie. The Rwanda stuff will never get through before any election. They could send the migrants back to France the same day. They choose not to. 7.4 million on English International Health Service….. I wonder why…..etc. Its deliberate or insane incompetence.

  3. Mick
    December 13, 2023

    I always thought that Westminster was full of educated lawyer types but seems I’ve been mistaken, it’s full of people who don’t give a toss about the people who put them their to represent us, who’s needed is another Oliver Cromwell to rid us of the self serving MPs who sit in the House of Commons and people put in their places that truly represent the public , the sooner the better

    1. Everhopeful
      December 13, 2023

      I do take your point but I wonder if Cromwell didn’t rather set us on this awful trajectory?
      Puritanical bigotry. It never went away?
      I always rather wished that the royalists had won!
      Anyway it’s a very interesting point you made.

      1. Mickey Taking
        December 14, 2023

        Did you not know Charles II exacted a violent awful price on the Puritans who condemned his father?

    2. Sea_Warrior
      December 13, 2023

      I’m with you in your sentiment.
      May I recommend Antonia Fraser’s superb biography of Cromwell. He wasn’t perfect – but he was an ‘action this day’ kind of man, and we need one of those in No 10.

      1. Mickey Taking
        December 14, 2023

        A miserable man creating a miserable country – just like the leaders of Tories this decade.

    3. glen cullen
      December 13, 2023


    4. Bloke
      December 13, 2023

      Traditional dress is good for law, but glued-on wigs are designed to deceive. John Kerry’s syrup at COP seems suddenly to have grown lustrous at some delight at stopping oil! In contrast, our member for Shipley’s is much more refined and authentic. He represents the people better.

    5. GaryC
      December 13, 2023

      If only.

  4. Lemming
    December 13, 2023

    Thank you, sir, for acting in the national interest. Watching angry Conservative backbenchers tear down yet another Conservative leader is just what we need. General Election now!

  5. agricola
    December 13, 2023

    I think your judgement on both illegal and legal migration is about right. I would be very surprised if sufficient in your party came to the same conclusion. You will therefore arrive at the next general election carrying the current marked divisions, making hollow manifesto pledges that the electorate at large know to be meaningless and dishonest. I think it tactically erroneous for you to remain attached to such a bucket of worms.
    Candidate selection and a passing relationship with the full meaning of Brexit will ensure that the conservative party in current form will endure a minor role after the next election.

    1. JoolsB
      December 13, 2023

      Totally agree. You are a Conservative John in a party which is anything but Conservative. Big state, high tax, big spending, PRO immigration, pro EU, anti English, more like the Labour Party to me. There is talk of Nigel Farage joining the not a Conservative Party, not a chance because he knows full well they’re all fake just like the rest of us do. What would be better is if those handful of true Tory MPs like yourself, and sadly it is a handful, were to move over to Reform because Reform is the only party for us Conservative voters to vote for now.

    2. Mitchel
      December 13, 2023

      “The boy stood on the burning deck
      Whence all but he had fled;
      The flame that lit the battle’s wreck,
      Shone round him o’er the dead…..”

      Felicia Hemans

  6. Mike Wilson
    December 13, 2023

    You are barking up the wrong tree with this sudden focus on legal migration. People are ANNOYED by the insane numbers you allow in.

    They are FURIOUS with the lack of action on ILLEGAL migration.

    Under YOUR government, this is the ONLY country in the world where you can turn up illegally, be put up in a 4 star hotel, given food, pocket money and medical treatment and be free during the day to go out and work! How can you work without a NI number and paying tax. EASY in this country under YOUR government.

    1. Michelle
      December 13, 2023

      and then people act surprised that more are making their way here!!

    2. JoolsB
      December 13, 2023

      +1. Spot on.

    3. Nigl
      December 13, 2023

      Great post. Yes looks past the rhetoric and exposes the ‘lies’

    4. Mark J
      December 13, 2023

      I strongly believe we now need a ‘Benefits Entitlement Card’, akin to what other countries use.

      No card = no access to public services and handouts.

      The only way we are going to preserve the Welfare State in the long term, is to permanently lock out those with no entitlement but somehow manage to find a way.

      Before some jump on the ‘privacy’ rubbish to dismiss this idea, do you hold a Biometric Passport and Driving Licence…

      1. hefner
        December 14, 2023

        Even without a Biometric Passport and Driving Licence, one’s postcode and DoB is more than enough to have one pretty much singled out. So the NHS effort to provide ‘anonymised’ data to Palantir is just a joke (, 21/11/2023 ‘Palantir gets £480m contract to run NHS platform’;, 21/11/2023 ‘US tech group Palantir wins lucrative NHS contract’).

        And on such a topic, who would you trust more, Victoria Atkins or David Davis?

  7. Sea_Warrior
    December 13, 2023

    Good for you. This voter wants:
    (1) A complete suppression of illegal migration routes.
    (2) A significant reduction in the number of applicants being granted (rubber-stamped) asylum.
    (3) The end to poulation growth in this country.
    Those, Sir John, are the outcomes I want. Yesterday, we saw five distinct Conservaive parties offering the voters what they wanted. Telling, isn’t it?

    1. Peter Parsons
      December 13, 2023

      How do you envisage implementing (3). Does that mean someone needs to wait for a grandparent to die before they can have a child? If someone’s grandparent dies will they get a “reproduction voucher” to allow them to have a child? Will those be tradeable? How will you balance the working age tax base with the retired population?

    2. Mark J
      December 13, 2023

      Currently being said that illegal migration via the back of lorries has never gone away, and is starting to become an issue once again….

      Do our customs and Border staff not check anything coming into, or leaving the country anymore?

      An easy thing to fix at source, if the will and competence was there to begin with.

  8. hefner
    December 13, 2023

    Isn’t it time than the UK finally gets out of adolescence, gets a proper voting system allowing the ‘bastards’, ‘scorched’, ‘semi-arid’ and ‘wets’ their own parties and let the voters see exactly what they are voting for?
    The UK has been the laughing stock of the ‘West’ for now seven years. Does anybody care?

    1. Hat man
      December 13, 2023

      Ah, but we’re told if we had continental-style PR, we’d have lots of different political factions in Parliament, weak indecisive governments and Prime Ministers changing all the time…

      Hmm, yes, I see what you mean, Hefner.

    2. Lynn Atkinson
      December 13, 2023

      Yes I care. The BDI did exactly that. It identified patriotic MPs on all sides of the House.

    3. Peter Parsons
      December 13, 2023

      Good comment. In terms of European countries, the UK shares a voting system with just Belarus.

    4. Mitchel
      December 13, 2023

      Not only the “west” …..and longer than seven years-

      “Britain is just a small island that no-one listens to anymore”-(allegedly)a Russian diplomat at the St Petersburg G20 meeting in 2013.

    5. a-tracy
      December 13, 2023

      The problem is Hefner with what I suspect you mean by ‘proper voting system’. People get very little that they voted for; they get a cobbled-together group where often the biggest winner of votes gets excluded by people who would do a deal with the devil to get a seat in government. It took Poland two months to decide who would lead them; all the other parties ran on separate tickets, so who knows what will be conceded by all of them. Tusk won support by 47 votes of 460.

      Who knows what the Netherlands will get next, and how long that will take. The far-right party led by Dutch election winner Geert Wilders should open negotiations with three other parties on forming a new government, the official appointed to investigate possible coalitions said Monday. Coalition talks will be tricky as the parties have significant ideological differences to bridge if they are to form the next Cabinet.

      1. So how is this cobbling together of a parliament of people with ‘significant ideological differences’ any better?

      2. Who in particular is laughing at the UK in your opinion?

      1. Peter Parsons
        December 13, 2023

        Wilders’ party secured less than a quarter of the votes cast (23.5%). That’s no mandate to be in government, certainly not alone.

        1. a-tracy
          December 14, 2023

          I agree Peter, that’s why I’m not too fond of PR. However, he does have the most significant mandate and should be prime minister. Don’t you agree to that either?

          I never said he should ‘be alone’? I’m saying not one of those multiple parties will get what they thought they were voting for.

          1. Peter Parsons
            December 15, 2023

            I don’t agree that simply having the highest vote share entitles the leader of a particular party to be PM, no. If that party has views or policies that none of the others agree with, so no other party wants to work with them, tough.

            Being a PM should be about being able to command a majority based on a majority (or as near as practical – see Holyrood elections) rather than being able to secure a single party majority based on a 35.2% or 36.9% vote share (which is no real mandate from voters) based on an unrepresentative voting system.

            I’m fully in favour of PR voting. It works fine in the UK where it’s used in Scotland and Northern Ireland (and, quite possibly soon, Wales). It is only party self-interest that means the UK retains an outdated system that renders millions of voters irrelevant and leaves them deliberately ignored by all parties.

            Nothing about PR voting stops any party gaining a single party majority other than a party’s ability to appeal to enough voters.

  9. Pat
    December 13, 2023

    Can the Rwanda Bill be sufficiently revised (strengthened) as it progresses through Committee stage? I can understand the government trying to hang on to the Rwanda scheme which might prove it’s worth as a deterrent BUT, as you say, more worrying is the high level of legal migration with it’s greater impact on housing and public services.

    If the Conservatives have any chance, and it is a slim one, of being returned to power at the next GE, they need to demonstrate they can control immigration and reduce overall levels of inward migration. Reducing illegal migration will always be a challenge but at least the government is attempting to ‘stop the boats’ and returning economic migrants to Albania seems to have been successful. Processing migrants’ applications also needs to be speeded up.

  10. R.Grange
    December 13, 2023

    Your party in government’s plan for dealing with illegal migrants is:- Keep taking them from a safe country (France), then propose to send them to a country that Supreme Court judges have called unsafe. Brilliant! It offers lots of well-paid work for m’learned friends, of course, so perhaps that’s the real aim of the Rwanda policy. The policy is certainly not a deterrent. As long as the migrants themselves don’t have to pay those lawyers, why should they be deterred?

    1. Denis Cooper
      December 13, 2023

      Plus, send them back here once it has been established that they have no valid claim for asylum.

    2. APL
      December 13, 2023

      “.. then propose to send them to a country that Supreme Court judges have called unsafe. ”

      Perhaps the supreme court ( chuckle ) will let us send the African migrants to a safe country, Israel perhaps ?

      Why is it that Israel doesn’t have any problem with it’s courts when it deports migrants ?

  11. Lifelogic
    December 13, 2023

    Indeed, the bill is surely there merely to distract from the 1.3m legal immigration levels this Gov. are encouraging and waving through?

    Tice just now in an X – UK economy falling, by 0.3% in Oct, more than expected. Flat over last 3 months.
    Toxic Tories socialism:
    💥 high taxes, high regs, mass immigration = low growth
    Disastrous for UK; we are all poorer

    How are Sunak’s other promises coming on? Stop the boats, growth, gov debt, NHS waiting lists… all heading the wrong way. Plus on inflation he caused it in the first place anyway with QE and lockdowns!

    1. Hope
      December 13, 2023

      This week a published national list on safe outcomes from hospitals. NHS not in top 20 nations, even Estonia beat UK for safety but in top percentile for funding!!

      1. Lifelogic
        December 14, 2023

        Lots of often excellent doctors and nurses but the system is just appalling. More a system of delay and rationing than one of providing healthcare.

  12. Nigl
    December 13, 2023

    The usual arcane political language. By not voting against it, you and colleagues allowed it to go through so in effect an abstention is a vote for.

    Yes we will get the BS about promises to look at suggestions but nothing will change and like sheep you will allow it to go through next time.

    This vote was about the needs of the Tory party, internal divisions keeping a weak PM in office rather than the needs of the voters.

    Another nail as if you need one.

    1. Mickey Taking
      December 13, 2023

      as usual – it merely allows others to decide the day! But somehow ‘head held high’.?

    2. Lord Joe Soap
      December 13, 2023

      Yet next year we’ll be told on this site that by abstaining or voting Reform we’ll let Labour in. What sauce for the goose etc.

      1. Lord+Joe+Soap
        December 13, 2023

        The point is that abstaining isn’t the way to promote the fastest change to the status quo. Either support the bill if you think it’s adequate, which it clearly isn’t, or vote against it to promote fundamental change. Abstaining just kicks this issue down the road. Again. It’s what’s been happening for 13 years.

  13. Bingle
    December 13, 2023

    It may be less expensive to pay the migrants not to come than pay Rwanda c £290m to take 100 of ours whilst potentially taking 100 or theirs in return.

    1. beresford
      December 13, 2023

      Or we could pay Albanian gangs to police our borders.

    2. Lord Joe Soap
      December 13, 2023

      There’s a thought. Handing them each Eur 2K cash every week to stay within the confines of Calais on the proviso that they would only get a 4 star hotel room and meals if they set foot in the UK might be the best solution. Eventually the French would need to deal with this and move them back!

    3. Denis Cooper
      December 13, 2023

      It might be more efficient and cheaper to only involve Rwanda for new arrivals who insist on claiming asylum.

      Under a simple triage system each one could be asked whether they thought they should be granted asylum.

      If the individual said “Yes” then they would be sent to Rwanda to have their claim to be processed, and they would only come back if their claim was found to be invalid.

      When they would join the other stream, those who admit from the start that they have no grounds for claiming asylum and so avoid being sent to Rwanda, and who are instead introduced to their case officer who will fix them up with comfortable hotel accommodation while they get themselves integrated into the black economy and are ready to disappear, so making their hotel room available for the next illegal economic migrant.

  14. Ian B
    December 13, 2023

    Good morning, Sir John
    I applaud your stance on this.
    On reflection, this was just another attempt by this Conservative Government at deflection, threats, speeches etc. so they could escape from doing their job.
    Which ever way people at the core of this party try to shake it out, this is close on 14 years of failures. Criminal entry in to the UK has been going on that long, and still no action to turn them back. In fact this Government has over the years actively encourage this criminality, simply from their refusal to manage it.

    1. Ian B
      December 13, 2023

      ‘As Sir Keir Starmer revelled in pointing out, when you’ve been elected with an 80-seat majority you really shouldn’t be struggling to get your flagship policy through the House of Commons.’
      Not that he has a plan!
      Labour has never been weaker, but they will win the GE hands down simply because this BoJo cabinet under Rishi is the worst of the worst and even weaker than Starmers left wing alternative.
      The next election will not be about some great local MP’s – it will ask do you support the Sunak/Hunt collective responsibility to run the Country. i.e do you support more fudges more deflection uncontrolled immigration, expenditure and a failing NHS for starters.

      1. Ian B
        December 13, 2023

        “Economy shrinks more than expected amid interest rate pain” the Sunak/Hunt destruction of the UK going to plan

  15. Paul Townson
    December 13, 2023

    Dear John,
    I am not sure I support you in not voting , however I do agree we have got to be much firmer in dealing with the problem. I do not understand when we have given money to France that they are not stopping the illegal immigrants. Why are all those people not rounded up and gone through the process in France and then they can pay the UK instead of the smugglers?
    Happy Christmas

  16. Ian B
    December 13, 2023

    A High Court Judge has permitted a large group of asylum seekers (the criminal invaders), to take the Home Office to Court for their treatment on arriving in the UK by criminal means. The are suing for damages said to be £20K each (another cost on the taxpayer).
    If this group is successful, it will open the door to all the other thousands that entered the Country from a safe haven by criminal means to seek taxpayer money.
    The Human Rights of the UK Citizens are being trashed because Government accepts bad Laws to rule the UK.
    In The meantime, the taxpayer gets to fund these actions by foreigners, by funding large legal teams that just see it a taxpayer funded gravy train.
    A UK Citizen abroad has to fund their own legal actions in foreign countries, why isn’t that the reciprocal arrangement for foreigners here?

  17. Roy Grainger
    December 13, 2023

    “The Opposition parties who voted against the measure want more legal migration”.

    No they don’t. And even if they did how would it be even possible for them to let in more than the 1.2 million legal immigrants the Conservatives did in 2022 ? It is easy for Starmer to pledge and achieve a reduction in numbers from that level and many of his party members and voters don’t want cheap imported labour to undercut their wages.

    Just incidentally Liz Truss wanted high levels of legal immigration too, as part of her growth agenda, and you were happy to support her so I don’t quite know why you’ve changed your mind now.

  18. Mike Wilson
    December 13, 2023

    You can see Rishi Sunak’s Christmas message – ‘Stay til Polling Day’ on Instagram. Search for politicsjoe

  19. Geoffrey Berg
    December 13, 2023

    Government spokesmen are telling everyone that only 1 in 200 appeals to the Courts against deportation to Rwanda will succeed.
    That is nonsense and misunderstands the nature of the Courts. The courts are not concerned, especially in controversial cases, to enact the letter of the law but are concerned to interpret, adapt and distort the law so as to conform to the prejudices of the Judges hearing the cases. It is not just I who have noticed that – it is what Bertrand Russell wrote (in A History Of Western Philosophy); it is what Lord Denning stated and it is what many who have been involved in Court cases have noticed and it is what nominating American Supreme Court Judges is all about.
    We know the great majority of British judges are ‘liberal’, left-wing and pro-immigration, even before the illegal immigrants turn up in their Court with their sob stories (whether true or fabricated yet credible for court purposes).
    So the inevitable result is not that just 1 in 200 cases will stop deportation but more like 1 in 2 , if not more – more than enough to frustrate and undermine this law.

  20. Mike Wilson
    December 13, 2023

    I see the economy contracted 0.3% in October. The Bank of England blamed the rises in interest rates which had nothing to do with them.

    Clearly we need more immigration to get some growth. Mr. Redwood – could your government come up with more immigration?

  21. Everhopeful
    December 13, 2023

    Wise to vote for the bill in a kind of “take what you can get “ sort of way.
    And at least it throws open a vital discussion that we really must have.
    It is not a shocking thing to defend one’s borders…or at least want to.

  22. Donna
    December 13, 2023

    So Sunak’s still got two wheels on his increasingly rickety wagon. For now.

    Meanwhile the criminal migrants continue to be ferried in for a life of “free everything” and the Rwanda Bill is unlikely to ever stop it.

    And the open border has been propped open for the next few months so Big Business can import hundreds of thousands more low-skill, low-wage immigrants and their extended families in the next few months.

    Is Sunak trying to destroy the Not-a-Conservative-Party?

  23. Brian Tomkinson
    December 13, 2023

    Far more could and should have been done since the last election to stop these illegal migrant boats. This Bill is just another pretence to be doing something whilst doing nothing in a practical sense other than squandering taxpayers’ money on a scheme meant to be a deterrent to over 30,000 migrants per annum by sending 100 to Rwanda sometime never.

  24. Bryan Harris
    December 13, 2023

    It would be nice if to think HMG was acting out of our best interests, regarding immigration, but clearly they are deliberately making theatre of it all to make out they are doing something while all the time making a hash of it.

    Like many I have stopped imagining HMG will actually do anything useful about us being invaded, and the newcomers welcomed with open arms – unlike pensioners and army veterans who don’t count.

  25. Lynn Atkinson
    December 13, 2023

    The PM thinks it’s less humiliating to be beaten in the Courts than to be beaten by Parliament. He does not actually have our system imbued in his bones and fibre.

  26. glen cullen
    December 13, 2023

    Forget Rwanda, that a £300m smoke screen – the real business is at the UN
    An international body has declared a transition away from fossil fuels, an instruction that no one in the UK voted for ….cop28 and the UN are undemocratic
    Your energy costs and consumer bills are about to increase (again)

  27. Berkshire Alan
    December 13, 2023

    By passing this bill the Prime Minister has just delayed the real solution for at least another 9 months or more, during which if it actually passes through the Lords, and has a second reading in the Commons, legal challenges will win a few Court battles, and so a proper solution will then be required.
    It will soon be election time, so the proper solution will be delayed yet again, so another 20,000 plus illegals will arrive here.
    Here a Fudge, There a Fudge, Everywhere a Fudge, Fudge.

    1. Mickey Taking
      December 14, 2023

      Well to be fair, fudge is a sweetener.

  28. Bert+Young
    December 13, 2023

    I watched much of the debate and the results ; there was nothing said that convinced me that the Rwanda Bill should succeed . Only a watertight approach makes sense to establish the sort of tough measure we should adopt – there are too many leaks in what the present Bill proposes . Sunak will meet a response after Christmas that – hopefully will cause a different and proper solution .

  29. The Prangwizard
    December 13, 2023

    Lots of very critical speeches of the Bill yesterday. And good ones too. Didn’t see Mr Redwood though.

    Those I did see expressed how the Bill was inadequate, had easy to exploit holes in it, that it would be exploited and grasping lawyers would make money, that our sovereignty was vital, and more in the line that our borders must be protected, etc., etc.. Their constituents knew it would not stop illegals and they would keep coming in their tens of thousands. It was no good as it was and could not bevaccepted.

    They then said they would not oppose it, they would vote for it because they believed the lying cheating deceiving Sunak would agree to the changes they wanted, and most of all the party had to be supported.

    So as usual, to hell with constituents and ordinary people. How more hideous can MPs become?

  30. Michael Saxton
    December 13, 2023

    UK GOV estimates £32 million daily will need to be spent on illegal migrants in 2026! £11 billion annually! This cannot be tolerated. The woeful lack of cross party support is frankly disgraceful given the scale of the problem, as indeed was yesterday evening’s unnecessary grandstanding by some of your conservative colleagues. Immigration, both legal and illegal, has reached a point where it’s a national emergency both economically and in terms of the damage it’s creating to the functioning of the nation. It is also flawed thinking to only concentrate on illegals entering from the Channel as there’s clear evidence of penetrations in HGV’s. Assuming the Rwanda legislation is eventually enacted, how many illegal migrants will be deported to Rwanda Sir John?

  31. APL
    December 13, 2023

    JR: “I did not vote against it because I agree with the aim of the policy to stop illegal migration into the UK”

    Well, shipping them back once the Royal Navy and British Coastguard has escorted them over the channel is the most stupid and probably expensive way to do it.

    I suggest a two pronged approach.
    1) The Royal navy should actually, you know … defend our coast line. Any unregistered boats travelling across the channel, any boats with passengers in excess of its legal capacity, should be towed back to French Waters.
    2) The UK government should be prosecuting those NGOs that are involved in what amounts to massive ‘human trafficking’ operation. The NGOs should be rooted out and the managers and employees prosecuted under the corporate negligence legislation that Blair brought in to prosecute the CEOs of Network Rail.

    Note: I notice the Minister avoided answering the question: ‘ Have the British government deployed British special forces in Gaza’. I think we should know the answer to that question.

    Secondly, and this is a question for John Redwood. If we have soldiers in ‘Gaza’/’Palestine’ ( given the minister avoided answering the question, we may conclude we do ), why on earth does the British government have a greater concern for the borders of a foreign country – which has declined to enter into any mutual defense treaties with the UK ) yet clearly does not give one single hoot about the borders of the UK ?

  32. Mark J
    December 13, 2023

    I would also like to see interfering with the immigration removal process being made a criminal offence. Punishable with a large fine and/or prison sentence.

    I’m getting a bit fed up with an increasing number of deportations being thwarted by members of the public whom think they know better than the courts and legal system – and see it is some kind of moral crusade to prevent undesirables being deported.

    There is a reason why people are deported. No one has the right to interfere with that process.

    1. Mark B
      December 14, 2023

      There are already laws in place. Obstruction of justice, interference with government officials in the course of their duties and contempt of court.

  33. mancunius
    December 13, 2023

    It was certainly amusing to watch Tory lawyers arguing against restrictions that would prevent them and their chambers earning high fees from defending immigrant appellants against removal.
    What’s happened to the HoC requirement that MPs (and ministers) should declare a professional/financial interest (both direct and indirect) before speaking on a relevant matter?

  34. Ian B
    December 13, 2023

    Plagiarising comments of others
    The Conservative Party should look at history, especially the Canadian Federal Election of 1993….the Conservative government had a majority with 158 seats….they angered and frustrated their supporters and ended up with 2 seats….be warned
    Sunak is a middle manager at best, just a globalist WEF puppet. Tories have been in govt but not in power as devolved quangos set policy and most of them are part of leftist international groups getting their instructions from globalist bodies
    I listened to Mr. Cleverly this morning telling the interviewer how the conservatives have made great progress reducing immigration. Has anyone noticed.
    Yes, they reduced it from roughly 220,00 to 1,200,000, which helps explain why our economy is in such a mess.

    1. Ian B
      December 13, 2023

      If labour does and says nothing between now and the Election, they will gain power with a massive majority. Why? Because the Conservatives in the Conservative Party the ones the electorate support have been sidelined, CCHQ and what some call a Government doesn’t care, isn’t listening and isn’t interested in winning the next election, they are all planning their next jobs elsewhere. They have destroyed the real Conservative Party just as they have destroyed the UK.
      Such an unnecessary shameful waste of talent sacrificed on the ego and self-gratification of the ‘entitled’ few.

  35. Peter Gardner
    December 13, 2023

    This is a farce. The Tory Party will never reduce immigration, legal or illegal, because it cannot agree within itself. it cannot agree on the national interest. It cannot agree on a philosophy of government. Until it corrects this it will remain incapable of developing and implementing effective policies, it cannot be a credible party of government. It has a simple choice: sort it out now or sort it out while on sabbatical after a crushing defeat in the next general election. Fiddling about with headline grabbing initiatives, legal shenanigans and other PR stunts will not cut it.

  36. Kayla Tomlinson
    December 13, 2023

    Please vote against it and ditch Sunak.

  37. James Freeman
    December 13, 2023

    To reduce legal migration, you should scrutinise the so-called shortage occupation list.

    When looking at it, I was amazed to find my profession on it based on a ‘going rate’ of £37.6k (with a 20% discount then applied). But, this rate equates to junior positions – seniors like mine command twice this amount. When I reviewed job advertisements on LinkedIn, they were each getting over 100 applicants. So, there is no shortage!

    Most other IT professional positions are also listed, so I am unsure what the Indian government is complaining about. Their firms can already bring people in to undercut the market.

    When Tony Blair opened our borders, firms ditched most of their training budgets and hired new staff to fill senior positions. This change has detrimentally impacted productivity as workers have progressed less in their careers than they previously did. Despite promises, the government still needs to change this model. Much easier to cry staff shortages.

  38. oldwulf
    December 13, 2023

    As a lapsed Conervative member ….. I did not understand why MPs installed Sunak and I do not understand why they have continued to persevere with him.

    Hopefully, all will become clear sooner rather than later.

    1. R.Grange
      December 14, 2023

      Why Sunak? Because they didn’t have anyone else who the public might warm to. He had an acceptable public face thanks to eat-out-to-help-out. He’s a reasonably good speaker, and he isn’t creepy like Gove. It was all down to style and presentation.

      1. oldwulf
        December 14, 2023

        @R Grange

        Sadly, Sunak has shown us that there is more to the job than any “style and presentation”.

  39. Phil Lawrence
    December 13, 2023

    I do not have a problem with legal immigration. It is vital for us as a country to get the best people out there to help with our needs. I guess every MP knows this policy is never going to work until we are free of the ECHR why are we holding on to it? How is it that the French are deporting illegal immigrants ignoring the ECHR?

    1. Hope
      December 14, 2023

      ECHR is an integral part of the EU sell out agreement. If UK leaves ECHR then the EU can cancel deal in 12 days. That would mean no return to EU as UK would inevitably then diverge from EU regs, rules and laws! This is what we voted for!!

  40. Denis Cooper
    December 13, 2023

    This is another sample of what successive governments have inflicted on us:

    “Migrants who crossed Channel in boats claim damages for ‘unlawful’ treatment”

    “Asylum seekers have made High Court claims against the Home Office after complaining about searches and phone seizures on arrival in England”

  41. Denis Cooper
    December 13, 2023

    On Politics Live today, from 15 minutes in here:

    one of the “moderate” Tory MPs of the “One Nation” group, Matt Warman, was interviewed, and in the course of his comments he suggested that an amended Bill could be “illegal”.

    Which immediately took me back nearly ten years to a comment that I posted on this thread:

    pointing out that:

    “… over the past couple of weeks we have seen a very significant development – senior Tory politicians warning that two proposed amendments to a Bill before the Commons would be “illegal”, the Raab amendment because it would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the Strasbourg court and the Mills amendment because it would contravene the EU treaties and laws as interpreted by the Luxembourg court, and we have seen that adjective “illegal” widely repeated in the media, and we have seen senior Labour politicians saying they would vote against the Raab amendment because the government had told them it was “illegal”.”

    In my eyes this man is not a “moderate”, he is an extremist and somebody who should not be in Parliament.

    I’m glad to say that he met some strong opposition from Miriam Capes and the chap from Conservative Home.

  42. Andrea Lee
    December 13, 2023

    please, just get something done.

    1. Mark B
      December 14, 2023

      Impossible. All they are interested in is their careers which, very shortly, will becoming to an end.

    2. Mickey Taking
      December 14, 2023

      kneel by your bed, as a child, hands clasped, eyes closed pray softly.
      And in the morning status quo!

  43. Jaygee
    December 13, 2023

    You supported the bill by NOT voting against it.
    Too late now. Forget about small boats; the big ship has sailed leaving behind YOUR government to cause as much damage as it can.

  44. Alan Paul Joyce
    December 13, 2023

    Dear Mr. Redwood,

    The Home Secretary, Mr. Cleverly says “We are going to move quickly but we are going to make sure we get this right. We want to get flights off next year, ideally in the spring, I think, is a credible timescale.”

    Flights (note the plural use of the word). At the moment Rwanda only has the capacity to take a few hundred migrants. Presumably the unlucky ones will be boarding Cessnas.

  45. Mactheknife
    December 13, 2023

    The only policy that will work is a turn back policy in the channel. Once boats start being turned around and sent back to France the boats would stop almost immediately. It’s worked in other countries in various forms.
    I don’t understand that we have over 100 conservative MP’s led by Damien Green, that put the interests of foreign governments, international agreements and the ECHR above the wishes of the people of the Uk and our sovereignty.
    These people are not globalists they are universalists and secretly working to achieve their political beliefs at the expense of the party, country and taxpaying public. We used to call them traitors.

  46. XY
    December 13, 2023

    “I did not vote against it because I agree with the aim of the policy to stop illegal migration into the UK.”

    Nah. Nice try, but no cigar.

    On that basis you would have voted for May’s Withdrawal Agreement because you agreed with the principle of leaving the EU.

    The fact is that May’s WA didn’t get the job done and neither does Sunak’s immigration Bill.

    Personally, I think you will live to rue the day yourself and the right of the Tory party opted not to defenestrate Sunak.

  47. Mickey Taking
    December 14, 2023

    amazing isn’t it! MPs with a brain abstain letting the ones without decide by voting!
    The country has taken leave of its senses.

  48. glen cullen
    December 14, 2023

    No Tory MPs voted against the bill and just 38 abstained

  49. Lindsay+McDougall
    December 14, 2023

    Whatever the outcome of the Rwanda Bill, we need a thorough review of the way in which the ECHR has operated since WW2.

    Firstly, are the human rights under the ECHR’s jurisdiction clearly defined? As I understand it the answer is “yes”, in a series of Articles.

    Secondly, has there been mission creep? Has the ECHR invented new human rights that are not in the original Articles? Has it interpreted any Article in an unreasonable way, widening its scope? We are within our rights to legislate to cancel all instances of mission creep and restore the status quo ante.

    Thirdly, is there any objection to retaining the original Articles but allowing a British court rather than the ECHR to judge cases?

    It is necessary to undertake this review because the Rwandan Government is demanding that all of the people that we send there have the right to appeal. We should ensure that the grounds for appeal are as narrow as possible.

Comments are closed.