Matt Warman is a former Minister of State at the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and is MP for Boston and Skegness.
Sir Keir Starmer is hoping for a quiet week. The Labour leader would like to spend every remaining minute of 2023 leaving Conservatives to cement in the minds of voters the idea that we would rather argue amongst ourselves than highlight his obvious failings. He doesn’t deserve such good fortune.
There is no doubt that migration, legal and illegal, is an issue of huge importance to voters and to all their representatives. I’ve not spoken to a single Conservative MP in Parliament who doesn’t agree that we need, urgently, a solution to the issue that deters people from coming, breaks the model of the evil people smugglers – and above all works.
Crucial perhaps above all to any legislation working is that it stays within the bounds of international law. That’s not because anyone should be sentimental about international law – it’s because it is the foundation that allows us to do the deals with, say, Albania that have seen 90 per cent reductions in asylum claims or with France or others. These deals are themselves crucial to making a meaningful difference on this vital issue. If Britain passes legislation that jeopardises those deals by breaking international law, all these endeavours will have been for nothing.
For now, the Government has sought to walk a tightrope between something that international partners would live with and yet also goes further than any previous immigration legislation. The reality is that it puts everybody in an uncomfortable position.
Some in the One Nation group of Conservatives think they should lay amendments to the bill to clarify important aspects, while others on the right of the party think they must go further in the opposite direction if they are to make the bill really effective. Both groups, for me, are acting with integrity; there is room for all of them in the Conservative Party, today and tomorrow. With One Nationers consulting a wide range of lawyers, including Lord Garnier, and others forming a dedicated ‘Star Chamber’, compromise may yet turn out to be where Downing Street started, but for now it can’t be guaranteed.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has been unequivocal that changing this bill is beyond the pale. It is, he says, both the maximum of what is legally and the minimum of what is politically possible. Accepting amendments risks turning supporters into rebels – but there is also a possibility of threading the needle.
Many of the 106 members of the One Nation Caucus do worry that declaring Rwanda a safe country in law is a push too far; balancing it with the fact that individuals can make their unique case isn’t a weakness, it’s a sensible counterpoint that maintains compatibility with international law.
It acknowledges that if Rwanda is good enough for the UNHCR, it should be good enough for the House of Commons. Likewise, though, it means someone with a specific case has the chance to make it in front of Britain’s independent judiciary. It is in many ways the definition of the pragmatism for which the Conservative Party is rightly famous and for which the the British public has voted time and time again. A theological approach to purity isn’t always what wins votes across the country – or works.
What is more likely to win votes is a reasonable sense that looking solely at Rwanda alone is not enough to address the crucial issue of migration. Britain needs to build on the successes of Robert Jenrick’s tenfold increase in processing asylum applications and on the move away from using hotels as accommodation. And above even immigration, when it coms to the election, it’s the economy, stupid. We risk losing sight of the fundamental economic incompetence at the heart of Labour’s so-called proposals for a country that needs competent economic management now more than ever.
So the question for the Conservative Party is a simple one: do we make the perfect the enemy of the good? Does the parliamentary party push the Prime Minister off a tight rope that acknowledges migration should transcend the concerns of left and right, and see both sides compromise. To put it another way, party moderates have gone further than many of us ever thought we would.
Resolving these issues quickly is essential for any hope of moving forward on this issue and discussing the economy, the cost of living and delivering on the Prime Minister’s stated ambition to cut taxes – it’s another example of where Conservatives agree and should unite against Labour. Because whether it’s Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to borrow £28bn or the total lack of a plan for immigration, there are plenty of reasons why the idea that a Labour government is a good idea can be knocked down.
This week’s vote on the Rwanda Bill is not procedurally the moment where amendments will be laid, but it is where all sides have a chance to set out their stalls and for the government to provide vital reassurances. Within any big group of MPs, there is still likely to be a range of views. The next steps, however, shouldn’t be to push for a further compromise that might break a delicate balance – it should be to turn all fire on the Labour Party.
Matt Warman is a former Minister of State at the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and is MP for Boston and Skegness.
Sir Keir Starmer is hoping for a quiet week. The Labour leader would like to spend every remaining minute of 2023 leaving Conservatives to cement in the minds of voters the idea that we would rather argue amongst ourselves than highlight his obvious failings. He doesn’t deserve such good fortune.
There is no doubt that migration, legal and illegal, is an issue of huge importance to voters and to all their representatives. I’ve not spoken to a single Conservative MP in Parliament who doesn’t agree that we need, urgently, a solution to the issue that deters people from coming, breaks the model of the evil people smugglers – and above all works.
Crucial perhaps above all to any legislation working is that it stays within the bounds of international law. That’s not because anyone should be sentimental about international law – it’s because it is the foundation that allows us to do the deals with, say, Albania that have seen 90 per cent reductions in asylum claims or with France or others. These deals are themselves crucial to making a meaningful difference on this vital issue. If Britain passes legislation that jeopardises those deals by breaking international law, all these endeavours will have been for nothing.
For now, the Government has sought to walk a tightrope between something that international partners would live with and yet also goes further than any previous immigration legislation. The reality is that it puts everybody in an uncomfortable position.
Some in the One Nation group of Conservatives think they should lay amendments to the bill to clarify important aspects, while others on the right of the party think they must go further in the opposite direction if they are to make the bill really effective. Both groups, for me, are acting with integrity; there is room for all of them in the Conservative Party, today and tomorrow. With One Nationers consulting a wide range of lawyers, including Lord Garnier, and others forming a dedicated ‘Star Chamber’, compromise may yet turn out to be where Downing Street started, but for now it can’t be guaranteed.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has been unequivocal that changing this bill is beyond the pale. It is, he says, both the maximum of what is legally and the minimum of what is politically possible. Accepting amendments risks turning supporters into rebels – but there is also a possibility of threading the needle.
Many of the 106 members of the One Nation Caucus do worry that declaring Rwanda a safe country in law is a push too far; balancing it with the fact that individuals can make their unique case isn’t a weakness, it’s a sensible counterpoint that maintains compatibility with international law.
It acknowledges that if Rwanda is good enough for the UNHCR, it should be good enough for the House of Commons. Likewise, though, it means someone with a specific case has the chance to make it in front of Britain’s independent judiciary. It is in many ways the definition of the pragmatism for which the Conservative Party is rightly famous and for which the the British public has voted time and time again. A theological approach to purity isn’t always what wins votes across the country – or works.
What is more likely to win votes is a reasonable sense that looking solely at Rwanda alone is not enough to address the crucial issue of migration. Britain needs to build on the successes of Robert Jenrick’s tenfold increase in processing asylum applications and on the move away from using hotels as accommodation. And above even immigration, when it coms to the election, it’s the economy, stupid. We risk losing sight of the fundamental economic incompetence at the heart of Labour’s so-called proposals for a country that needs competent economic management now more than ever.
So the question for the Conservative Party is a simple one: do we make the perfect the enemy of the good? Does the parliamentary party push the Prime Minister off a tight rope that acknowledges migration should transcend the concerns of left and right, and see both sides compromise. To put it another way, party moderates have gone further than many of us ever thought we would.
Resolving these issues quickly is essential for any hope of moving forward on this issue and discussing the economy, the cost of living and delivering on the Prime Minister’s stated ambition to cut taxes – it’s another example of where Conservatives agree and should unite against Labour. Because whether it’s Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to borrow £28bn or the total lack of a plan for immigration, there are plenty of reasons why the idea that a Labour government is a good idea can be knocked down.
This week’s vote on the Rwanda Bill is not procedurally the moment where amendments will be laid, but it is where all sides have a chance to set out their stalls and for the government to provide vital reassurances. Within any big group of MPs, there is still likely to be a range of views. The next steps, however, shouldn’t be to push for a further compromise that might break a delicate balance – it should be to turn all fire on the Labour Party.