implementation was begun, so the implementation was begun, so this must_ the implementation was begun, so this must take account of this change. — this must take account of this change, we have to keep up with the times_ change, we have to keep up with the times and _ change, we have to keep up with the times and mass immigration is one of the main _ times and mass immigration is one of the main issues before all nations. what _ the main issues before all nations. what is _ the main issues before all nations. what is more important, passing a bill that— what is more important, passing a bill that works and is consistent with the — bill that works and is consistent with the democratic will of the people — with the democratic will of the people and the national interests, our constitutional arrangements and parliamentary sovereignty? 0r supporting the uncertainties and vagaries— supporting the uncertainties and vagaries of international law. far from _ vagaries of international law. far from diminishing our international reputation, we now have the opportunity to enhance it by demonstrating that we can deal with illegal— demonstrating that we can deal with illegal migration by making this bill illegal migration by making this bitt work— illegal migration by making this bill work through our own parliamentary sovereignty and we can brin- parliamentary sovereignty and we can bring an_ parliamentary sovereignty and we can bring an end to the deaths in the english _ bring an end to the deaths in the english channel and it is also suggested that it is improper and contrary— suggested that it is improper and contrary to the ministerial code to

bring _ contrary to the ministerial code to bring in _ contrary to the ministerial code to bring in a — contrary to the ministerial code to bring in a bill which is inconsistent with international law and this— inconsistent with international law and this seems to permeate the establishments of the country but this is— establishments of the country but this is nonsense on stilts because any member of parliament as well as ministers, _ any member of parliament as well as ministers, any backbencher, can propose — ministers, any backbencher, can propose legislation and private members bills are enacted frequently as i members bills are enacted frequently as i have _ members bills are enacted frequently as i have to— members bills are enacted frequently as i have to say, even with my international development act of 2014 _ international development act of 2014 the — international development act of 2014. the acceptance by the noble lord, _ 2014. the acceptance by the noble lord. lord — 2014. the acceptance by the noble lord, lord cameron of chipping norton. — lord, lord cameron of chipping norton, when he was prime minister, despite _ norton, when he was prime minister, despite resistance from the legal establishment at the time that we could _ establishment at the time that we could refuse prisoner voting as insisted — could refuse prisoner voting as insisted by the chair of the court, is well— insisted by the chair of the court, is well known and remembered in the former— is well known and remembered in the former lord _ is well known and remembered in the former lord chancellor, the right honourable lord clarke of nottingham kin-s honourable lord clarke of nottingham kings council, said that when we refuse _ kings council, said that when we refuse to —

kings council, said that when we refuse to accept the international obligation, underthe refuse to accept the international obligation, under the european court of human _ obligation, under the european court of human rights, to allow prisoners to vote _ of human rights, to allow prisoners to vote in _ of human rights, to allow prisoners to vote in elections, he said that _ to vote in elections, he said that... sorry, i must not laugh. prisoher— that... sorry, i must not laugh. prisoner voting was a particular political— prisoner voting was a particular political issue and as well as illegal— political issue and as well as illegal migration. you house of lords _ illegal migration. you house of lords report makes much of the mihisteriat_ lords report makes much of the ministerial code and quoting it says. — ministerial code and quoting it says, while parliament is ultimately responsible for the fall of any legislation passed, the introduction of government legislation is an executive action for which ministers collectively are accountable. they then go _ collectively are accountable. they then go to — collectively are accountable. they then go to reaffirm about the constitution or desirability of parliament legislating in violation of international obligations, but they ignore the principles of

parliamentary sovereignty where acts of parliament are used and are clear and unambiguous and the ministerial code is— and unambiguous and the ministerial code is a _ and unambiguous and the ministerial code is a convention, not legislation. the words in the code some _ legislation. the words in the code some terr— legislation. the words in the code some ten years ago did once upon a time state _ some ten years ago did once upon a time state that the ministerial code included _ time state that the ministerial code included the words, an overarching duty on— included the words, an overarching duty on ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty _ law including international law and treaty obligations. but these were expressty — treaty obligations. but these were expressly removed from the code in 2015 by— expressly removed from the code in 2015 by the — expressly removed from the code in 2015 by the then prime minister and the curreht— 2015 by the then prime minister and the current 2022 ministerial code under— the current 2022 ministerial code under the — the current 2022 ministerial code under the present prime minister simply— under the present prime minister simply refers to the law and this is no accident — simply refers to the law and this is no accident. the government has declined — no accident. the government has declined the invitation to bring back— declined the invitation to bring back international treaty obligations and i would say... the

house _ obligations and i would say... the house of— obligations and i would say... the house of lords committee also suggests— house of lords committee also suggests in reference upon a court of appeat— suggests in reference upon a court of appeal case of the scent of human rights _ of appeal case of the scent of human rights against the prime minister in 2018 and _ rights against the prime minister in 2018 and a — rights against the prime minister in 2018 and a statement five years ago by the _ 2018 and a statement five years ago by the noble lord, lord foulkes, that the — by the noble lord, lord foulkes, that the ministerial code still requires _ that the ministerial code still requires compliance with international law obligations but i have to _ international law obligations but i have to say the court of appeal sadly— have to say the court of appeal sadty for— have to say the court of appeal sadly for them did not deal with the issue _ sadly for them did not deal with the issue of— sadly for them did not deal with the issue of parliamentary sovereignty which _ issue of parliamentary sovereignty which will — issue of parliamentary sovereignty which will be combined with the use of words _ which will be combined with the use of words clearly unambiguous and in any case _ of words clearly unambiguous and in any case did — of words clearly unambiguous and in any case did not concern an act of parliament — any case did not concern an act of parliament. failure to pass a bill to deal— parliament. failure to pass a bill to deal with illegal migration has led to— to deal with illegal migration has led to vast public expenditure, bittiohs — led to vast public expenditure, billions on services including health— billions on services including health care, education, social care, housing, _ health care, education, social care, housing, infrastructure, planning, 'ust housing, infrastructure, planning,

just to _ housing, infrastructure, planning, just to name a few, not to mention m“lions— just to name a few, not to mention millions and — just to name a few, not to mention millions and millions on hotel bitts — millions and millions on hotel bitts this— millions and millions on hotel bills. this is why people are so cross— bills. this is why people are so cross as — bills. this is why people are so cross as well as the fact of illegal migration— cross as well as the fact of illegal migration and there is no reason at all why— migration and there is no reason at all why this — migration and there is no reason at all why this bill should not express international law for and within the reasons— international law for and within the reasons i_ international law for and within the reasons i have given added as an affront _ reasons i have given added as an affront to— reasons i have given added as an affront to parliament and to the courts _ affront to parliament and to the courts to — affront to parliament and to the courts to suggest otherwise and i therefore — courts to suggest otherwise and i therefore ask that my member be voted _ therefore ask that my member be voted to— therefore ask that my member be voted to be passed by the house and i voted to be passed by the house and i urge _ voted to be passed by the house and i urge the _ voted to be passed by the house and i urge the government to note the sheer— i urge the government to note the sheer anger and frustration demonstrated in opinion polls of public— demonstrated in opinion polls of public concern that we get the bill i’ilht public concern that we get the bill right and — public concern that we get the bill right and make it work. if not, anger— right and make it work. if not, anger witt— right and make it work. if not, anger will continue up to and including _ anger will continue up to and including the general election. would — including the general election. woutd it— including the general election. would it not be wise for the government to reflect on the position— government to reflect on the position and that it would be better to come _ position and that it would be better to come forward with their own amendments and use our majority in line with _ amendments and use our majority in line with our —

amendments and use our majority in line with our manifesto granted to us by— line with our manifesto granted to us by the — line with our manifesto granted to us by the general election in 2019 and in _ us by the general election in 2019 and in the — us by the general election in 2019 and in the national interests and for the _ and in the national interests and for the sake of all conservative members— for the sake of all conservative members of parliament who seek to serve _ members of parliament who seek to serve again? and who risk this if we do not _ serve again? and who risk this if we do not do _ serve again? and who risk this if we do not do so — serve again? and who risk this if we do not do 50-— serve again? and who risk this if we do not do so— serve again? and who risk this if we | do not do so-_ i do not do so. dame diana johnson. i want to raise — do not do so. dame diana johnson. i want to raise my _ do not do so. dame diana johnson. i want to raise my concerns _ do not do so. dame diana johnson. i want to raise my concerns about - want to raise my concerns about using a committee of the whole house for this part of the scrutiny of the bill and we had this with the illegal migration act and what happened was in that case there were hundreds of amendments and the ministerjust got to speak at the end for a very short period of time and i think when we are debating and scrutinising bills like this we need to do so line by line and we need to debate and hear the argument from the minister and the argument from the minister and the argument from the proposers of amendments and i just think that this process that we are going through does not allow

parliament to conduct that effective scrutiny that we all want to see when passing laws in this place. turning to the bill before us, when the home affairs select committee published a report on channel crossing 18 months ago, we were clear about the potential problems posed by the rwanda scheme and as i have highlighted on several occasions in this chamber, we said the small boat crossings is an issue on which no magical single solution is possible and on which detailed evidence driven are properly costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change. we warned the government that it risked undermining its own ambitions and the uk's international standing if it could not demonstrate that the scheme was compatible with international law and conventions and that aspects of it carried a significant reputational risk to the

uk. contained in the amendments today that we are debating, are provisions that are not only incompatible with the uk's obligations under international law but two basic principles of liberty and freedom under common law and the implications of these amendments are therefore profound and affect every single one of us. and despite what the former immigration minister said, i do take in all sincerity what the rwandan government's view is on the importance of upholding international legal obligations and we can conclude that some of the amendments tabled today would prove fatal to the implementation of the bill and indeed yesterday the un refugee agency declared that the rwanda treaty and this unamended bill is not compatible with

international refugee law. i want to table amendments two, three, six, ten, 57, and then focus my comments on amendments 5—22. turning to amendments 2—3, they would prevent any claim based on risk derived from international circumstances being considered until the person in question had arrived in rwanda and this would effectively exclude the very narrow possibility for suspense of claims that the bill currently allows and could result in the person of being exposed to the risk on which they claim is based including claims based on fear of persecution and torture before it is even considered. the european convention on human rights requires independent scrutiny of any claim that there exists substantial grounds for treatment contrary to article three and it also requires that the person should have access

to a remedy with automatic effects of these amendments would therefore be consistent with that requirement of the echr and moving on to amendments and, that would extend the provision to apply to all of the bill and to the illegal migration act and it would effectively prevent act and it would effectively prevent a claimant relying on any pre—existing legal protection to prevent or delay their removal to rwanda and this would expressly allow for removal to rwanda despite that removal otherwise breaching domestic law and despite that removal being in breach of international law, including fundamental human rights from which of course we know no exception or derogations are committed, such as the prohibition on torture, and needless to say, this amendment is not compatible with uk's obligation under international law and risks

undermining our international standing. amendments 56 and 57 would provide the court and tribunal is would not be permitted to take a claim under the grounds that rwanda is not a safe country where the claimant has engaged in activity or made serious allegations that have brought into question the safety of rwanda and colluded and conspired with others who have done the same and very worryingly, the amendment appears to exclude people who have made serious allegations about the safety of rwanda from asylum and human rights protection and this would be inconsistent with rights to asylum and humanitarian protection under international law and could also be consistent with freedom of expression is as guaranteed under article ten of the echr. amendments of 19-22 article ten of the echr. amendments of 19—22 now, which i think have profound implications for all of us and those amendments would prevent any individual set for move to

rwanda arguing they could not be sent there on the basis of their own circumstances, and in the inevitable absence of absolute certainty that no risk to any individual could arise in rwanda, this would mean that they claims based on a real risk of persecution and human rights violations would not be heard and that those people whose claims are on herd would be removed to face the persecution and human rights violations in rwanda on which their claims are based and this is clearly inconsistent with the refugee convention and the echr and the other international legal obligations cited by the supreme court in its recentjudgment. amendment 22 would also prevent the courts from reviewing asylum... studio: we will leave dame diana johnson that. we have been following the debate on the rwanda plan in the house of commons. the prime minister

rishi sunak under pressure from right—wing tories to toughen up the legislation. earlierwe right—wing tories to toughen up the legislation. earlier we heard from robertjenrick saying that the government's emergency rwanda bill did not go far enough and earlier he said that the test is that we can create the kind of sustainable deterrent that we set out to achieve, the kind of deterrent that protects notjust achieve, the kind of deterrent that protects not just this achieve, the kind of deterrent that protects notjust this country achieve, the kind of deterrent that protects not just this country for generations to come from the scourge of illegal migration but, he said, the whole continent of europe. the debate continues this afternoon and into the evening and you can continue to watch it on the iplayer and on bbc parliament and there are updates on the website. you are watching bbc news.

live from london. this is bbc news. the united states says it's seized iranian weapons, which were destined for houthis in yemen, it comes as another cargo ship has reportedly been hit. iraq recalls its ambassador from tehran after an iranian missile attack on the city of erbil. donald trump wins the iowa caucus by a landslide, cementing his place as the front of the republican presidential race. what a turn out, what a crowd and i really think this is time now for everybody, our country to come together. we want to come together. here in the uk... prime minister rishi sunak faces

a rebellion from some mps over his rwanda immigration deal. and the emmy goes to...succession. succession wins big at this year's emmy awards, along with beef and the bear. the united states says it's seized advanced iranian weapons that were being transported to houthi rebels in yemen. the operation took place five days ago. the materialfound onboard a dhow sailboat, included components for ballistic and cruise missiles, among them, warheads and guidance systems. parts for air defence equipment were also seized. the us military said initial analysis indicated the houthis had been using the same kinds of weapons in attacks against commercial shipping in the red sea. it added the seizure showed how iran continued

to violate un resolutions, and sow instability throughout the region.