Last week was difficult, as I voted against the Government a number of times, initially in favour of amendments to the Safety of Rwanda Bill, and then - when all the amendments were rejected - against the Third Reading of the Bill itself. I was among around 60 Conservative colleagues on the amendments vote, but only 11 of us concluded that the unamended Bill should not proceed.
Our view was, and is, that the Government still has time to bring forward a new Bill that will effectively deter the illegal channel crossings. Passing a better Bill might involve a small rebellion on the other side of our Party, and a major row with the House of Lords. But I think the trouble would be worth the prize of actually ‘stopping the boats’. I spoke briefly in the Third Reading debate, conceding that the Government was going to win the vote but explaining why I intended to vote No - you can watch my speech, and read a longer statement about my decision, here.
I recognise that many constituents object deeply to the Rwanda policy on principle, and others - especially Conservatives - object to their MP rebelling against the Government, especially in an election year. Let me address each in turn.
I understand why people find the idea of sending migrants to Rwanda uncomfortable. But if you object to deporting stateless migrants - or those whose country will not take them back, or if it would be unsafe to send them back - to a safe third country, what is your policy for deterring illegal immigration? If you don’t believe in deporting people who arrive on our shores and claim asylum, how many do you think the UK should admit? Unless you answer ‘there should be no limit’, what do we do with the next person to arrive after the limit has been reached? If we admit them, there is no limit. If we don’t admit them, where do you send them if they can’t or shouldn’t be sent back to their home country?
The logic of the Rwanda policy is, I believe, unarguable and indeed the model is being explored by an increasing number of European countries who recognise that our deal with that country could well be a big part of the answer to the continent’s migration crisis.
To those who think I should not break my Party whip: this is of course the default setting for an MP. Good government, and effective opposition for that matter, depends on party discipline. But we are not sent to Parliament simply to nod through every Bill the Government proposes. Sometimes you have to decide to disagree and use your vote in what you think is the national interest. It does one’s career some harm - I am seeing the Chief Whip tomorrow at his request, and I expect to be told this quite clearly.
Friday was a welcome break from all this trauma, with an all-day jobs fair at Melksham which I co-hosted with neighbouring MP Michelle Donelan. I was hugely encouraged to see hundreds of young people thronging the stalls, manned by dozens of local and national businesses offering jobs and apprenticeships. It was reassuring to hear from these employers that while the labour market remains tight, they continue to fill the roles they advertise (except one nursery chain, who plainly told me the childcare funding system is making it impossible for nurseries to hire the staff they need). Wadworth were there in force, and I’m glad to say all their pubs are more-or-less fully staffed.
Before the light went I made it to Potterne Wick, near Devizes, for a meeting with a gang of villagers up in arms about a planning application for a solar array which will fill seven fields of prime farmland across this beautiful and pristine valley. I cannot interfere in individual planning applications but I share their deep dismay that this one might be granted; I earnestly hope it is not; and I am determined to quiz ministers on the overall policy framework. The Prime Minister recently said that solar panels should not be installed on greenfield sites. I agree, and this should be the policy.
