the rest of the day across central and southern england are elsewhere, from the west it was starting to brighten up for northern ireland, wales, england and scotland. but with that cold wind, the cold weather is brief because there is a warm front out to the north and west that will be pushing southwards and eastwards on wednesday night, bringing some transient snow across the high ground of the highlands, the high ground of the highlands, the pennines and the southern uplands, then continuing to move southwards and eastwards but weakening as it goes, improving from the west as we head through thursday, the air turning milder. we keep the milder airfor thursday, the air turning milder. we keep the milder air for the thursday, the air turning milder. we keep the milder airfor the rest thursday, the air turning milder. we keep the milder air for the rest of the week. thanks, elizabeth. and that's bbc news at ten. newsnight is just getting under way on bbc two with victoria. on bbc one, it's time to join our colleagues for the news where you are, goodnight. thanks, sophie. on bbc london, can the pm ever get planes in the air to kigali? and what chance he can keep his

fractured party in one piece? the ayes have it for the emergency rwanda bill, but many of the don't knows warn they'll become nos next time if the pm doesn't toughen it up. so what might the new year bring for rishi sunak, and does tonight's vote actually mean he's in with a chance of getting rwanda flights off the ground? we'll speak to two tory mps on different wings of the party with different views on how this bill should progress. can the legislation go any further, as some conservatives are now demanding, and what would it mean under international law? former supreme courtjustice lord sumption is here. and keir starmer has been trying to say his party has fundamentally changed four years on from

a brutal election defeat in 2019. what's their plan to stop the small boats? also tonight: an investigation from barking and dagenham, a labour council hailed for its record on regeneration, but now accused of overcharging tenants in affordable housing and ignoring safety concerns. i feel hopeless. i feel like we have been used. ultimately invisible to the council. ifeel like been used. ultimately invisible to the council. i feel like they have no regard for where we live. and we'll look through the front pages with the whitehall editor of the financial times. good evening. it's been a tense few days for the prime minister, but tonight's victory on his safety of rwanda bill brought some respite for rishi sunak. a majority of 44 mps passed the legislation through its second reading in the house, giving the prime minister some breathing space as the parliamentary christmas break looms. for all the talk of this vote being on a knife edge and tory rebels looking to give downing street a bloody nose —

just 2a tories actively chose to abstain on the bill — not a single one voting against the government. some of the mps within the wing of the party most likely to rebel did actively vote with the government tonight, but the pm remains on a warning that mps could vote it down next time if they don't get what they want. those on the left of the party, of course, have warned an inch further to the right and they'll withdraw their support. so has rishi sunak�*s canjust been kicked down the road, then? and can he ever do enough to get all of his party on—side on this, his flagship policy? nick's here. so, where does rishi sunak stand tonight? it was a tense start to the day for the prime minister, but relief tonight after that comfortable win, though of course there were those abstentions from the right of the conservative party. after the vote, i spoke to mps from across the party. from loyalist, very clear message to the right.

roll in behind the prime minister and focus on the general election. from the right, this battle is not over. they said they had assurances from the prime minister that he is prepared to tighten up this bill when it goes to the committee stage, and they say if that does not happen, they reserve the right to vote it down when it has its final vote it down when it has its final vote in the commons before it goes to the house of lords. what might happen? as ever, it is down to numbers. i estimate there were 21 active abstentions by conservative mps, which means they sat on the government benches as the vote went on to ostentatiously say, we are not voting. if you turn those 2a votes into nos, that would not quite overturn the prime minister's majority, but it would get close. the abstention say, no, we had 38 abstentions, and if you turn those into a no vote, that would come to be overturned rishi sunak�*s majority. but turning an abstention into a vote against is a very big step, and is not a given. so we have a confident prime minister tonight,

but still a long way to go. back from the brink, if in fa ct fact there was ever a brink. a comfortable win for rishi sunak keeps alive a main election offering, a law designed to guarantee resettlement flights to rwanda. the ayes to the right, 313. the ayes to the right, 313. the noes to the left, 269. cheering not even close. the prime minister won his first ever parliamentary vote on the bill by 313—269. ever parliamentary vote on the bill by 313-269. not ever parliamentary vote on the bill by 313—269. not one conservative mp voted against the bill. around 2a actively abstained. all mps will now have a chance to table amendments, as the committee stage takes place on the floor of the house. labour is unlikely to support any tory amendments, so a potential moment ofjeopardy with the third reading, the last vote before it goes to the lords.

relief in downing street tonight after rishi sunak won, and won comfortably. all a different atmosphere at the beginning of the day, when the prime minister hosted conservative mps on the right in downing street. he then came here for further meetings. downing street. he then came here forfurther meetings. butjust downing street. he then came here for further meetings. butjust after 5pm, you could see they were smiling, and knew by then they would be ok. one whip said to me, i have written quite a few checks for quite a few bypasses. i think the government is pleased to have won this vote by such a solid majority. clearly, there was fevered speculation the government might not do so well, but 44 is a very respectable result, and this piece of legislation is the most apprehensive and radical piece of immigration legislation this parliament has ever passed. a key figure in the tory right, now known as the five families, says the government still needs to move. despite it being a very hard three line whip, — despite it being a very hard three line whip, 38 conservative mps abstained, the vast bulk of whom were _ abstained, the vast bulk of whom were from — abstained, the vast bulk of whom were from what you guys now call the

five families. so we did that on the strict _ five families. so we did that on the strict understanding that we would then table amendments injanuary. the prime — then table amendments injanuary. the prime minister said he would entertain— the prime minister said he would entertain tightening up the bill. we will table _ entertain tightening up the bill. we will table amendments to do exactly that, and _ will table amendments to do exactly that, and we expect those amendments to be respected. if they are not, we reserve _ to be respected. if they are not, we reserve the — to be respected. if they are not, we reserve the right to vote against the biti— reserve the right to vote against the bill at — reserve the right to vote against the bill at third reading. reiief— the bill at third reading. relief amongst loyalists, and a message to the right. the government can't be blackmailed into doing stuff, can it? the government has its legislation, it wants to get it through. i'm sure it will accept help for amendments, but if the amendments are not helpful, they won't get accepted by the government. that's the way it works, and of course, at third reading, they will peak dell be perfectly entitled to vote against the bill at third reading, but then again, they will have to go to their constituents and say, by the way, i voted against a bill that has the intention of trying to restrict illegal immigration into the uk. that is a difficult and nuanced arguments to make with your constituents. there was an impression from some of

the so—called five families groups on the conservative right that there would be a rebellion. what happened? i'm part of if you have those groups. _ i'm part of if you have those groups, and i'm a fan of the conservative party being a big conservative party being a big conservative party, in a compassionate way, and i was part of that. compassionate way, and i was part of that i_ compassionate way, and i was part of that. i supported the government today— that. i supported the government today because we are less than a year from — today because we are less than a year from a — today because we are less than a year from a general election. we can't _ year from a general election. we can't be — year from a general election. we can't be planning massive changes in policy— can't be planning massive changes in policy so _ can't be planning massive changes in policy so close to an election. labour— policy so close to an election. labour was unimpressed. we had total tory chaos for days, a civil war erupting in the conservative party, and it looks like that will carry on into the new year, and it is letting the country down. as well, we have got at the heart of this this failing rwanda plan that means we have now got £400 million of taxpayer money being sent to rwanda with not a single person being sent, and more home secretaries being sent to rwanda. a breather for the secretaries being sent to rwanda. a breatherfor the prime minister for now, but we will see the tory sceptics again in the new year,

facing an emboldened rishi sunak. shortly after that vote this evening i spoke to ben bradley, tory mp for mansfield and part of the �*common sense group�* of conservatives, which is seen as on the right of the party. he voted with the government for the bill. does he now wanted toughened up? i want us to deliver the toughest possible stance that we can, because we've promised for a long time that we're going to deliver not just sending illegal migrants to rwanda to be processed, but stopping the boats. this is a key part of that. it's one part of it. but we've got to work through that process now over the next couple of months to get it as strong as it can be. but today is in principle. do we want to send illegal migrants to be processed in rwanda? yes, we do, because we promised it for a long time. but if it goes any further, then the prime minister risks losing the people on the left of your party, and, he says, risks rwanda pulling out. well, it's a really tight margin for error from that perspective, and i do think the problem here in some ways is not the government, it's

the parliamentary party, in the sense of we have clear disagreements within the party on this and the government's got to try and land something that is both deliverable and we'll get through the commons. so at some point our ideal scenario has to meet with reality and pragmatism and we have to deliver the strongest possible bill that we can. i don't know whether it is today. i'm not a lawyer, but we'll spend the next couple of months examining that and make sure that it is. i mean, you will have heard robertjenrick again today, a man who resigned as immigration minister just a week or so ago saying, look, this billjust isn't going to work. i mean, can you guarantee to your constituents that flights are going to be taking off before the next election with people on board to rwanda? well, at this stage, no. i hope that they will. the prime minister and the legal team in government think that they will, and i have to say that with the appointments since robert's resignation, michael tomlinson, robert courts, people i respect a great deal who are lawyers and probably know more about this than i do. but we'll spend the next couple of months doing that and i will be pushing for the strongest possible version. i'll be testing to make sure

that it is that as far as i can see, and then we hope we can get flights away. so you're saying the fight is not over, is it? i mean, for the prime minister, the battle is not over. it's just been kicked to the start of next year. well, in practical terms, it will come back injanuary. and we'll vote on all this again. hopefully we'll do that in a more informed way, because we'll have spent that time looking through it. and fundamentally, as robert says, he's right to say it's not just about getting a symbolic flight away. it's about providing a genuine deterrent. it doesn't mean we can send thousands of people to rwanda. it means people don't come in the first place. that's the key thing that we're trying to achieve. well, on the numbers, then, when you look at what it is likely to achieve, if indeed it does work, it passes and it works, at most you're going to get 200 to 300 people being sent to rwanda each year when the asylum backlog is 160, 170,000. that's less than half a percent of the backlog. yeah. big deal. well, that's the point, right? this is not the sum total of the government's response to illegal migration. the point of this is not to send everybody who applies to rwanda... and the point that

it's a tiny number. and that's why we need to make sure that people stop coming. because if you start to get into the realms of three or 4000 people are going to come every week forever, it's not manageable, is it? and we all know that that's the point of all of this. so in order to get people to stop thinking that this is a place that they can come and stay, we've passed legislation that says, you can't stay here. we need somewhere to send people. that's what rwanda is about, not about shipping thousands of people to rwanda, but making clear that if you arrive here, you're not going to be able to stay here. and you think sending 200 people a year, if it works, is going to deter people? it's one part of a wider set of measures, right. and we've we've got also... if you've made that massive journey and managed to cross the channel and get to france, rather, you're going to go, well, i might be one of 200 possibly sent to rwanda, so i'm going to risk it? i don't know. i'm not somebody who comes across in a boat, but at the same time, we have to do everything that we can. if there was a dead simple solution, i'd love to say, right, turn the boats around, drag them back to france. but we're not in a position legally to do that. we've got to work in a pragmatic

sense to find the toughest measures we can find that will be delivered through here, and rwanda have said, you know, if you start to break international rules, we won't do this. so there's a very fine line for us to tread, and that's where we need to be. so far, the scheme has cost £290 million. no—one's been sent there. as we all know, the home secretary confirmed another 50 million will be given to rwanda in 2025 and more in 2026. how is that value for money for taxpayers? i don't think any of this is value for money. i'm not here to say the government is doing a brilliantjob on illegal migration. it's a mess. and we need to make sure that although relatively in the rest of the world, you know, we've come down by 30%, much of mainland europe has nearly doubled. in the same time, my constituents don't want to hear, oh, we're not as bad as italy. they want us to deal with it. and clearly it's not value for money. paying £8 million a day is not value for money. that's why we need to deliver as strong a bill as we can in a suite of measures that are as strong as we can, including tackling all this upstream, stop them coming in the first place. so this is just part of it. it's kind of a symbolic argument today about whether to rwanda

or not to rwanda. but there's a big picture here where we just need to be absolutely clear that you cannot come here and stay. why has it been so fractious and so difficult for the prime minister in the last few days? well, we all have different views, right? and the nature of parties of government is that they are broad parties with a broad range of views. i am from a constituency that has, i think, a very, very strong view that this illegal migration situation is not fair or right. i know. but why has it been hard for you, for your boss? well, because equally on the other end of the spectrum, there are people who don't feel the same way, and that's a difficult challenge. we've been in government for 13 years. you've got a parliamentary party that has been built in all different directions in different elections by different leaders. you know, you might argue that it's kind of ungovernable in the sense of different views, and this situation suggests it's certainly not easy to govern. and that's why we've got, as i say, pragmatism has got to meet ideology at some point. what is the strongest that we can deliver versus what is perfect? because perfect is not going to get through here. thank you very much for talking to newsnight. damian green was deputy pm under theresa may and now heads up the one nation conservatives group on the left of the party.

i asked whether there's another battle coming at the next stage of this bill. i think one of the significant things, the most significant thing that's happened today is that the government won quite big. it's been one of those febrile, gossipy, exciting days in westminster, but actually at the end the government held a majority of 44, which is pretty solid. but today was the easy day, really. it was about the principle of the thing. yeah, but the principle thing is important. and just looking at there was a labour amendment first and then the government vote, for the labour amendment, which of course all conservatives would vote against. there were 337 for the government vote, there were 313. so that means 24 of my colleagues decided to abstain. that's not that many. that's fewer than people thought. but how is the prime minister going to bring together, reconcile the two sides of the party? because people on the right and i've spoke to them a little earlier, want this bill to go further. and that would mean you and people in your side of the party wouldn't be able to support it. well, we have said all along and are still saying that if the amendments are introduced and supported

by the government, that would break our international obligations or weaken britain's commitment to the rule of law then yes, we would vote against them. and so, i suspect, would the house of commons more widely. so i don't think the government should go down that track and i don't think they need to go down that track now. i think they can say, we all know, i'm not being foolish about this. there are a difference of view within the conservative party about how best to make this legislation effective. but actually on today's vote, the government has more or less managed the narrow landing strip that it's aiming at. and so it should stick to that landing strip. but you make it sound like it's going to be simple at the third reading. i mean, it's not, is it? well, i think if it goes through its committee stage, i mean, they're always small amendments, but nothing significant with nothing changed. and it's got a majority of 44 today, then i would hope that third reading would go through reasonably easily.

and that's very important because obviously that sends a signal to the house of lords where it goes next. so i think the government ends the day stronger than it looked like at the start. but you've still got people on the right saying this bill needs to be pulled because it's not going to work, because it will allow too many individuals to make appeals against being removed to rwanda. well, in the end, people who say that and i disagree with them — have to convince enough people in the house of commons that they're right. and today's lesson is that they haven't, there aren't that many. so be sceptical about what mark francois of the european research group says when he says they're all on the right vote, sticking together and voting collectively. well, ijust observed tonight's vote and i mean, i don't know how many people were at their meeting, so i can't comment on the numbers. but what i can do is count the people who voted and that, as i say, that looks like there were 24 of them. so not as many as one might have been expecting.

well, i think that's right. i think through the day, people were talking about 50, 60, 70 or something like that. but yeah, people's views change through the process of legislation going through the house. so i'm sure the government won't be in any way complacent or won't think this is a done deal. but i think and i would appeal to my colleagues on the right of the party that it is clearly in the interests of the party as a whole that we show some unity in the early months of next year. how harmful would it be to the government if no flights take off before the next general election? well, it's clearly it's an important commitment and we want to see it. i think actually what people want to see is the boats, the numbers coming across massively reduced. the government has had some success. and it's interesting that all this westminster row we've been having actually disguises to some extent the fact that the numbers coming across are going to be a third down this year from last year. in other circumstances, that would be seen as a triumph. and if we get another third down

next year, that would be great as well because it's a terrible way to get to this country. it's dangerous and all the things we know. so i think that the rwanda scheme, everyone says, well, acts as a deterrent. so that's good. but it's one of a suite of measures the government needs to be taking, including more effective action on the french beaches and so on, which between them can continue to drive down the numbers coming illegally in this way. thank you very much for talking to newsnight. thank you. in the pitch to his own mps to convince them his rwanda plan will get flights off the ground before the next election, rishi sunak has cited the former supreme courtjustice lord sumption as believing the bill will work. well, lord sumptionjoins us now. rishi sunak mentioned you in his press conference and you thought the bill would work. but you also think it will break international law. just explain that? it will work because the english courts will do

what parliament tells them to do. it successfully blocks off delaying litigation except in one area which concerns people who are able to produce convincing evidence that although rwanda may be safe in general, that some particular characteristic that they have that makes it unsafe for them and that is the only window they can get through. it is a relatively narrow window. and what is more any proceedings have to be finished within 30 days and there are restrictions on the right of the courts to make interim injunctions to preserve the position pending the hearing. there are not allowed to do so unless there is serious and irrevocable harm in sending them to rely on the pending the decision. so it is a relatively tight bill. where

is it contrary to international law? i do not think it is against international law to send people to one that because the new treaty essentially stops them from being sent back to their home countries if they fail in their asylum claims or decide not to wait one. but it is contrary to international law to both human rights convention to block people off from access to the courts and not allow them to argue the contrary to what parliament has now declared. 50 the contrary to what parliament has now declared-— the contrary to what parliament has now declared. so when amnesty say this is a sad — now declared. so when amnesty say this is a sad assault _ now declared. so when amnesty say this is a sad assault on _ now declared. so when amnesty say this is a sad assault on the - now declared. so when amnesty say this is a sad assault on the rule - now declared. so when amnesty say this is a sad assault on the rule of i this is a sad assault on the rule of law and the protection of human rights in this country, what do you say? rights in this country, what do you sa ? . , rights in this country, what do you sa ? ., , , rights in this country, what do you sa? .,y rights in this country, what do you sa? .,y ., ., say? clearly it is contrary to human riuhts, say? clearly it is contrary to human rights. the — say? clearly it is contrary to human rights. the act _ say? clearly it is contrary to human rights, the act requires _ say? clearly it is contrary to human rights, the act requires the - say? clearly it is contrary to human rights, the act requires the courts l rights, the act requires the courts to disregard the human rights convention although it is a treaty to which the uk is party and it is clear. what you think of that? i think that one should observe treaties that one is party to. whether one remains party to them is

another question but while we were main party to the human rights convention we must observe it and sooner or later there may be a clash with the strasbourg court of human rights which we will pay no attention to domestic uk legislation.— attention to domestic uk leaislation. ~ . ., ,., legislation. which will anger some conservative _ legislation. which will anger some conservative mps? _ legislation. which will anger some conservative mps? it _ legislation. which will anger some conservative mps? it may - legislation. which will anger some conservative mps? it may well- conservative mps? it may well roduce conservative mps? it may well produce a _ conservative mps? it may well produce a crisis _ conservative mps? it may well produce a crisis in _ conservative mps? it may well produce a crisis in our- conservative mps? it may well| produce a crisis in our relations with the council of europe and the strasbourg court.— strasbourg court. there is talk of amendments _ strasbourg court. there is talk of amendments being _ strasbourg court. there is talk of amendments being made - strasbourg court. there is talk of amendments being made to - strasbourg court. there is talk of amendments being made to the | strasbourg court. there is talk of - amendments being made to the bill, potentially to even further limit individual rights to appeal. what are the implications of that? the government _ are the implications of that? tie: government does not have much room to remove because they risk rwanda walking away and the deal collapsing if they get rid of the one significant loophole which is causing before it so they have to retain that in some shape or form. what i suspect they may do if they want to make concessions to the conservative right is to include a

definition clause which rules out the arguments that migrants might want to make to show that they have personal circumstances that bring them within the exception or that they would suffer irrevocable harm. that is a technique that already has been employed to some extent in the illegal migration act passed injuly and i suspect that they may be tempted to increase those definitions to narrow the position. you do not sit in the house of lords, you know people who do and maybe even some of your best friends sit in the house of lords. that maybe even some of your best friends sit in the house of lords.— sit in the house of lords. that does not rive sit in the house of lords. that does not give me — sit in the house of lords. that does not give me any _ sit in the house of lords. that does not give me any insight _ sit in the house of lords. that does not give me any insight into - sit in the house of lords. that does not give me any insight into what i not give me any insight into what they are likely to do but i guess that they will in likelihood the radical amendments in the house of lords. then it would go back to the house of commons where the government presumably will try to reinstate all the original provisions. it will then go back to the house of lords for a second time and i suspect at that point the

lords will give up the fight but i'm speculating. so lords will give up the fight but i'm speculating-— lords will give up the fight but i'm s-ueculatin. , . ., , speculating. so expect it to become law? i do. thank _ speculating. so expect it to become law? i do. thank you _ speculating. so expect it to become law? i do. thank you very _ speculating. so expect it to become law? i do. thank you very much - speculating. so expect it to become law? i do. thank you very much for| law? i do. thank you very much for talking to us. labour have been looking to exploit tory divisions over tonight's vote as you might expect. in a speech marking four years since the 2019 election keir starmer told an audience in milton keynes that labour would reduce migration without "the psychodrama". speaking to the expectations of more turmoil today — buckinghamshire had not been the original venue for that speech but it was relocated late on to allow the labour leader to get back to london for tonight's votes. and on migration — he too said the small boats had to be stopped. jonathan reynolds is labour's shadow business secretary. good evening. is the labour party going to pledge to the electorate that you. the going to pledge to the electorate that ou. , going to pledge to the electorate that ou. . ., that you. the boats? we want the roblem that you. the boats? we want the problem stopped _ that you. the boats? we want the problem stopped because - that you. the boats? we want the problem stopped because it - that you. the boats? we want the problem stopped because it is - that you. the boats? we want the problem stopped because it is a i problem stopped because it is a serious problem but we want things that will make a difference and not these gimmicks. and rwanda has never been going to work. around 100

people even if it goes ahead. but the cost of this is indefensible and £40 million up until today and the only people sent to rwanda have been three different home secretaries and the progress on the issue. if you take that resource and put it into the criminal activity, stopping that, do a proper return agreement and deal with the actual forces at play. and deal with the actual forces at .la . ,, ., , and deal with the actual forces at play. smashing the gangs, how is that more than _ play. smashing the gangs, how is that more than just _ play. smashing the gangs, how is that more than just a _ play. smashing the gangs, how is that more than just a gimmick? i that more than just a gimmick? because now you have a significant amount of resource being wasted on this policy. so that money has been spent. not all of it, there are extra tranches in money for subsequent years. but it is fair to say that this is what government is spending the money on and this is what we would do. you spending the money on and this is what we would do.— spending the money on and this is what we would do. you want to avoid thousands more _ what we would do. you want to avoid thousands more civil _ what we would do. you want to avoid thousands more civil servants - what we would do. you want to avoid thousands more civil servants to - thousands more civil servants to process claims but the vast majority of those arriving in small boats,

around 75%, had been given leave by the home office to remain here. if you speed up the process due to not then encourage more people to come? i do not think that is the biggest draw but i think the problem we are trying to address is the country spending £8 million on hotel accommodation because if you have not processed those claims you cannot integrate people or return them if they should not be here so instead of spending that money on hotel bills, spend it on people doing the claims. we're just talking about processing claims at the same rate as we did a few years ago. that is at the core the problem. but there is nothing that you've said yet really that tells me that if you win the next election he. these belts. we spoke to kevin saunders the uk former border force chief today and he said british governments have been trying to crack down on people smugglers since tony blair was in power and it is

really difficult. easy to say but difficult to do. {iii really difficult. easy to say but difficult to do.— difficult to do. of course it is difficult to do. of course it is difficult problem _ difficult to do. of course it is difficult problem but - difficult to do. of course it is difficult problem but it - difficult to do. of course it is difficult problem but it has i difficult to do. of course it is i difficult problem but it has got worse in the last year base and has slowly the claims have been processed. there's been huge pressures and costs which is not fair on the people themselves who should be granted asylum. it is not fair to have waiting in hotels until they have a chance to have their claim process. so this is a serious problem. but to have this kind of thing where obviously is not going to work even if the government gets its way and it has always been about a gimmick and the so—called... let a gimmick and the so-called. .. let me ask you — a gimmick and the so—called... let me ask you about your policy. you talk about returns agreements with other countries. ijust talk about returns agreements with other countries. i just wonder talk about returns agreements with other countries. ijust wonder if thatis other countries. ijust wonder if that is naive and other countries will simply say send our citizens back to us, with the map with albania and it appears to have worked, but two of the most frequent

nationalities on small but crossings are from iran and afghanistan. are you going to be reaching agreement with the taliban? i do you going to be reaching agreement with the taliban?— with the taliban? i do accept your oint that with the taliban? i do accept your point that was _ with the taliban? i do accept your point that was set _ with the taliban? i do accept your point that was set in _ with the taliban? i do accept your point that was set in countries - with the taliban? i do accept your point that was set in countries it i point that was set in countries it is harder but you did reference the albanian agreement and that is the kind of practical thing that actually makes a difference. no scheme like rwanda exists around the world as a way of tackling a serious problem. you have to negotiate with the countries and invest in crime and policing to make sure you bring that down and make sure you have a system in your country at processes the claims efficiently and fairly. labour has talked about getting you migration down to 200,000 per year, illegal migration, by the end of its first term in government. is that going to be a cast—iron pledge? i going to be a cast—iron pledge? i would not put a figure on it. going to be a cast-iron pledge? i j would not put a figure on it. your colleaaue would not put a figure on it. your colleague has. _ would not put a figure on it. your colleague has. i— would not put a figure on it. your colleague has. ithink— would not put a figure on it. your colleague has. i think the - would not put a figure on it. your colleague has. i think the level. would not put a figure on it. your| colleague has. i think the level of net immigration _ colleague has. i think the level of net immigration will _ colleague has. i think the level of net immigration will reflect - colleague has. i think the level of net immigration will reflect whatl colleague has. i think the level of. net immigration will reflect what is going on in the economy to some degree. we do think immigration has got to come down and we have

policies around the care sector. that 200,000 figure, was darren jones wrong to put a figure on it? there is no specific target and that, we do think that immigration is too high and must come down and thatis is too high and must come down and that is consistent with recognising the huge benefits that immigrants bring to the country but clearly there are failings in the care sector for instance where we are not training people and not giving them the terms of conditions that they need. importing a workforce should not be the only answer.— not be the only answer. thank you very much- _ very much. now... labour has promised the "biggest boost to affordable housing for a generation" if they get into number10. but in one london borough hailed for its record on regeneration, residents and the local labour mp are angry. barking and dagenham council has been accused of overcharging people living in affordable and social housing thousands of pounds for services that hardly happened and ignoring safety warnings about collapsing balconies.

the borough's council leader has also received tens of thousands of pounds of gifts and hospitality, a lot of it from companies involved in lucrative construction projects. the council has told newsnight it's proud of its record on affordable housing, other companies are responsible for building defects and all gifts are registered in the proper way. here'sjoe with his exclusive report. it's been hailed as one of the best boroughs in london for regeneration over the past five years. over the past five years, around a fifth of all the capital's affordable housing has been built in barking. when i became leader of the council, we got straight to work together. we've built over 2,000 council—built homes. and the council's labour leader is standing to be barking mp on his record of housebuilding. vote darren rodwell for barking. darren rodwell is the housing spokesman for the local government association.

but not all residents at one of the borough's biggest new estates, weavers quarter, are impressed by his record. so this garden area is being charged at about £15,000 a year. just this one? just, just this one on its own. £15,000 _ matt lismore bought his two—bed shared ownership flat here four years ago. the service charges have been rising ever since. £15,000 a year. essentially, that covers 20 grass cuts a season, which you can see, this grass simply isn't in any condition to need that. keeping the plants alive, keeping all these areas free from debris, keeping the patio stones clean. and you can see that it simply isn't being done. this, to me, feels like an egregious overestimation. it seems like a fictitious charge. a lot of the plants here are dead. there isn't much grass. but the council says three staff work two days a week maintaining the gardens across the estate's nine blocks. barking and dagenham council is the freeholder for them all and has installed itself as the contractor for gardening,

but also for rather expensive cleaning. the council says it calculates the cost of caretaking — cleaning the corridors and stairwells of the nine blocks — by taking the total budget of the council's public realm department, including more than £4 million in salaries, a vehicle fleet costing over £200,000, unspecified overheads of £834,000 and £468,000 in bin rental. it then divides the total cost, 6.1 million, by the number of employees, 89, and charges the weavers quarter residents for three of those employees, supposedly meaning three full time cleaners at a cost of almost £70,000 per cleaner. and the residents in this affordable and social housing development are picking up the bill. so when we moved in, in 2019, the cost for our service charge was 1,700 a year.

we're now expecting that to exceed 3,900 from may next year. despite there being no material change to what's provided and a very poor output, really, in general. what do you think is behind all of this? the fees that we're being charged don't seem to be based on any accurate invoicing or logical reasoning. it seems to be a mechanism to help fund other council activities and other things that are being funded in the borough. we're footing the bill for that essentially here through inflated service charges. added to the financial concerns are safety ones. the council and their contractors were first warned about dangerous balconies two years ago. last month, another partially collapsed — the fifth. the council say two other companies are responsible for raising concerns about defects and fixing them. labour say if they get into government, they'll deliver the biggest boost to affordable housing for a generation. yet their record in this

borough is patchy at best. firstly, building leasehold developments when that's something the party supposedly want to get rid of, and then angering residents with big charges for bad service. the local mp may be labour, but she's not happy. we first warned about the lack of safety, the safety of the balconies, over two years ago, and it is really a scandal that it took another collapse of some fascia from the balconies which could have fallen on somebody. margaret hodge believes the residents of weavers quarter are due a partial refund. repairs not done, -a ments for uaardenin never getting cut. car parking charges, and they're never able to use the car parks because the gates are broken. the list goes on and on and on. and it's a sort of david and goliath

battle with the strong, well—resourced, not very caring council and residents and leaseholders who aren't well off. leaseholders in barking are not people with tons of money to play around with. they're often people who are forced into shared ownership or some form of buying because there is no other way they can get a roof over their head. are we the best? the man picked to succeed margaret hodge as the local labour mp is the council's leader, darren rodwell. he is a rising star, but with a reputation for gaffes. after saying this at a black history month event. he later apologised for what he called the stupid and embarrassing remarks and the offence caused.

councillor rodwell attracted criticism for hanging a "darren rodwell for barking" banner on some gravestones. he said at the time he wasn't being disrespectful. the council leader also threatened to evict housing tenants who don't report knife crime. he later said his comments had been sensationalised "to make me sound like i was some sort of mussolini." i'm proud of our record, but i know i can do so much more as your voice in parliament. and in the last five years, he's received more than £20,000 in gifts and hospitality, including £12,448.50 in west ham tickets and hospitality from a single construction firm after they secured permission to build some film studios in the area. the council says all councillors register their interests in the proper way. darren rodwell did not respond to requests for an interview with newsnight, but in a statement, barking and dagenham council said it's proud of its record on affordable housing.

regarding cleaning and gardening charges, the council said: after being accused of not taking warnings about balcony safety seriously, they said the council has: and they pointed to two companies, one of which the council said had already accepted responsibility for putting right defects, and the other, which retains the legal responsibility for managing concerns about the building quality, including latent defects. all this has driven the chair of the residents association to move on and move out. it's made me now question whether i want to live here any more. and i've actually taken the personal step of putting my flat on the market because i can't live here any more. i feel hopeless. i feel like we've been used. ultimately invisible to the council, who have no regard for how we feel about where we live.

as labour try to build their reputation for good governing, their record on housing, at least in this borough, seems to be on shaky ground. joe's here, and joe, do you think anything will change as a result of this investigation? matt has had enough. he is obviously hoping to get out. we hope so. there is no sign so far that the council or any of its property companies will refund those service charges. they may be worried about the expense to themselves or about the expense to themselves or about setting a precedent. but i understand residents are planning to make an application or something called the first—tier tribunal, basically a court that settles these kind of disputes. you need to show that your service charges are manifestly excessive, and then if the court agrees with you, those service charges can be reduced and backdated too. but of course, even though the application fee is quite small, if you are taking legal advice, that comes with a cost, especially when we are talking about

social housing, affordable housing. not everyone has the money to do that. thank you very much. let's take a look at the front pages now, and lucy fisher's here alongside me, the whitehall editor of the financial times. welcome to you. thanks for giving up your evening to be with us. your paper tomorrow: your evening to be with us. your papertomorrow: mr your evening to be with us. your paper tomorrow: mr knight heads of right—wing revolt to win the vote on rwanda migration bill. the daily telegraph: mr sunak sees off the tory rwanda rebels. the guardian, sue nike avoids major rebellion over rwanda bill for now. and the daily mail, sunak sees off the tory rwanda rebels for now. the eye, sunak sets up showdown with rebels. and a reference to the fact he had breakfast sandwiches with other rebels this morning. so very similar headlines. they think they will still be trouble down the track for rishi sunak? yes, i think broadly positive set of

headlines for sunak tonight, showing headlines for sunak tonight, showing he had seen down the rebels, headed off the revolt, but yes, that note off the revolt, but yes, that note of warning for now, this emergency legislation will be back in the in mid—january. we know that breakfast meeting today with 15 odd of the would—be potential rebels on the tory right or fell to a certain promise, as they saw it, from rishi sunak, to tighten the legislation. unclear at the moment whether that means concrete amendments. certainly, those mps on the right who have agreed not to vote against it but i'm staying tonight believe it but i'm staying tonight believe it does mean that. on the other hand, the other end of the spectrum of the party, you have the one nation centrist conservatives warning that is completely unacceptable to them, so very difficult to see how much room for manoeuvre in the prime minister has. what could it mean for rishi sunak�*s premiership as we move into 2024? i think he has got to do some creative thinking over the next few weeks. it's really difficult to see

an easy way