Moderate Conservatives accused the home secretary of “ill thought out policies that divide” after she confirmed the controversial move.
Advertisement
Braverman accused rough sleepers who use tents for shelter of “living on the streets as a lifestyle choice”.
She said: “Unless we step in now to stop this, British cities will go the way of places in the US like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where weak policies have led to an explosion of crime, drug taking, and squalor.”
But the Tory Reform Group – which includes senior party figures such as Damian Green, Ken Clarke, John Major and Robert Buckland – condemned the home secretary’s remarks.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter) they said: “The UK’s streets are not being taken over by tents. We are not San Francisco.
Advertisement
“If this is a sign to come of the King’s Speech, it is a missed opportunity for the government to focus on those issues that really matter to voters – not ill thought out policies which divide.”
The UK’s streets are not being taken over by tents. We are not San Francisco.
If this is a sign to come of the King’s Speech, it is a missed opportunity for the Government to focus on those issues that really matter to voters.
Braverman has also come under fire from opposition politicians, with Manchester mayor Andy Burnham describing her plans as “frankly abhorrent”.
Lib Dem Alistair Carmichael said: “It is a new low for Braverman to criminalise homeless charities for simply trying to keep vulnerable people warm and dry in winter.
“The British public raise millions of pounds for homeless people at this time of year, and the government’s response is to criminalise those charities trying to help.
Advertisement
“This policy will do nothing to stop rough sleeping and will leave vulnerable people to face the harsh weather conditions without any shelter whatsoever.”
On Sky News this morning, deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden defended Braverman by claiming her comments – in a series of four posts on X – had been taken out of context.
He said: “If you look at what she said, she did talk about addressing push factors as well.
“And if we get to a position where those factors are removed, I do think the tents and other things that that we see on our streets are not acceptable if we’ve got somewhere else for these people to go.”
Suella Braverman has been savaged after she announced plans to stop charities giving tents to rough sleepers.
The home secretary claimed that many people using tents for shelter are doing so “as a lifestyle choice”.
Advertisement
She said failing to take action would lead to “an explosion of crime, drug taking, and squalor”.
But her plans have sparked a furious political backlash, with Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Manchester, describing them as “frankly abhorrent”.
Under the policy, which could be included in next week’s King’s Speech setting out the government’s plans for the year ahead, charities could be fined for giving tents to rough sleepers.
Braverman said: “The British people are compassionate. We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice.
“Unless we step in now to stop this, British cities will go the way of places in the US like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where weak policies have led to an explosion of crime, drug taking, and squalor.
Advertisement
“Nobody in Britain should be living in a tent on our streets. There are options for people who don’t want to be sleeping rough, and the Government is working with local authorities to strengthen wraparound support including treatment for those with drug and alcohol addiction.
“What I want to stop, and what the law abiding majority wants us to stop, is those who cause nuisance and distress to other people by pitching tents in public spaces, aggressively begging, stealing, taking drugs, littering, and blighting our communities.”
Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson, said: “This is grim politics from a desperate Conservative government which knows it’s day are numbered.
“It is a new low for Braverman to criminalise homeless charities for simply trying to keep vulnerable people warm and dry in winter.
“The British public raise millions of pounds for homeless people at this time of year, and the government’s response is to criminalise those charities trying to help.
“This policy will do nothing to stop rough sleeping and will leave vulnerable people to face the harsh weather conditions without any shelter whatsoever.”
Reacting to her comments on X (formerly Twitter), Burnham said: “It is frankly abhorrent for the home secretary to be proposing banning tents for rough sleepers in the King’s Speech. I hope all decent people will unite in opposition to this obscene proposal.”
In these circumstances, it is frankly abhorrent for the Home Secretary to be proposing banning tents for rough sleepers in the King’s Speech.
I hope all decent people will unite in opposition to this obscene proposal.🙏🏻
Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: “Rough sleeping is not a ‘lifestyle choice’.
“A toxic mix of rising rents and failure to end no-fault evictions is hitting vulnerable people. After years of delay the Tories are failing on their promises. Now after 13 years, they’re blaming homeless people rather than themselves.”
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said: “How low can this morally bankrupt government go? We need to boot them out of office.”
A pro-Palestine march planned for Remembrance Day is “inappropriate”, security minister Tom Tugendhat has said.
He has written to London mayor Sadiq Khan, Westminster Council and the Metropolitan Police setting out his concerns about the event, which is due to take place on Saturday, November 11.
Advertisement
That is also Armistice Day, which marks the end of fighting in the First World War. A two-minute silence will be held at 11am.
Speaking on BBC Breakfast this morning, Tugendhat said that the planned march was “a matter of great concern to me”.
He said: “I know that many of my fellow veterans will be looking forward to that day, not a day of joy but a day of grief. It’s a day when many of us remember those who aren’t standing with us, who aren’t there to lay a wreath, who aren’t there with their friends to have a beer afterwards and talk about the old days.
“It’s a moment when we remember those we lost and I think for the whole country, the Cenotaph is sacred ground and the idea that on a day like Remembrance Day you’d have a protest going past it, I don’t think that’s acceptable.”
Advertisement
However, organisers of the march have insisted they will not go past the Cenotaph, where politicians and veterans will lay poppy wreaths for Remembrance Sunday the following day.
Tugendhat said that in his letters, he had asked Sadiq Khan, Westminster Council and the Met to “look very carefully at the powers that they have and to consider what options they have available” with regard to the November 11 march.
He added: “Personally, I don’t think this is an appropriate time for a protest.”
HuffPost UK understands that only home secretary Suella Braverman has the power to ban the march.
Asked if the protest should be banned, Tugendhat said: “I think protest is incredibly important in a free society.
“I’m just saying the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday is a particularly sensitive time and a sensitive place and it’s a moment when the country comes together, and so I think there are moments where and places where that’s not appropriate.”
Advertisement
Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA) is planning to bus protestors from Leicester to London to take part in the march calling for a ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas.
FOA spokesman Ismail Patel said: “We definitely will not be at the Cenotaph. We understand the sensitivity of the date.”
A Met Police spokesperson said the organisers of the November 11 march were considering different locations in London.
He said: “They have indicated they are planning a march on the Saturday, but that they are considering different locations given the sensitives around this date,” the spokesperson said.”
Appearing on ITV’s this morning, the prime minister was asked by presenter Dermot O’Leary for his thoughts on Braverman’s rhetoric.
In particular, he expressed concern about her use of the word “hurricane”.
“Are you not embarrassed and ashamed when you hear words like that? Because I’m meeting you for the first time and you seem like a decent guy” O’Leary asked.
The prime minister responded: “I think that this debate gets charged a lot where people focus on one thing. So, if you just take a step back, what do I think we all agree on? We all agree that Britain is incredibly welcoming place. We haven’t failed in any way.”
O’Leary said: “Are you not mortified? That’s evil. It’s not a good word.“
Sunak replied: “They are being exploited by criminal gangs. And that’s why I’ve said it’s got to be … the British people who decide who comes to our country and not criminal gangs. They are exploiting vulnerable people.”
Advertisement
O’Leary did not let Sunak off the hook, adding, “It’s this weaponising of the word that worries me. It’s demonising the people that come here in the first place.
“It’s an issue, of course it is. It’s the incendiary use of that word, that I think most people find unhelpful and harmful because it’s not the people who are coming here’s fault.”
Failing to answer the question, Sunak replied, “I think your viewers probably feel that there is an enormous sense of frustration that there are tens of thousands of people who have come here illegally over the past few years, and that’s not right.
“And I think most people in their local community may now have a hotel that’s been put over to house illegal migrants that’s costing taxpayers.”
On Friday morning, it was reported that the daytime star was “under police guard at her home” after “sinister” messages were found on a man’s phone reportedly threatening to “seriously harm” the daytime TV presenter.
Sunak said he was “so sorry to hear about everything that is going on with Holly”.
“I wanted to send my best to her and her family and to all of you,” the PM added.
A row has erupted over the Metropolitan police after some officers turned in their firearm permits, meaning soldiers will now be drafted in to fill in the gaps.
The move – carried out by more than 100 of the 2,500 armed officers in the force – came after an officer was recently charged with the murder of Chris Kaba, an unarmed 24-year-old who died last September.
Advertisement
The debate has now escalated to include home secretary Suella Braverman, too.
Here’s what you need to know.
Why have officers handed in their firearm permits?
Later reports revealed Kaba was driving an Audi which did not belong to him, and which had been connected to a gun incident the day before.
The police officer involved was suspended from duty, charged with murder and granted bail last week. Their details have been kept anonymous.
A plea and trial preparation hearing is listed for December 1, with a possible trial date to take place next September.
Advertisement
Some officers in the Met are now worried about how the charging of their colleague might impact them which is why they’ve decided to hand in their gun permits, according to the country’s largest police force.
The Met said: “A number of officers have taken the decision to step back from armed duties while they consider their position.”
In an update on Monday, it added that some officers returned to duties in the last 24 hours.
We are aware of media reporting suggesting that all Met firearms officers have stepped back from armed duties.
This is not correct. There are armed Met officers, including counterterrorism officers, on duty across London.
For context, the London Assembly said that in April, there were 2,595 authorised firearm officers in the Met, down from 2,841 in 2018.
Home Office stats say between March 2022 and March 2023, the Met Police took part in 18,257 firearm operations – that’s a third of all firearm operations recorded in the UK.
Advertisement
However, only 10 of these incidents included an officer opening fire at a person.
What has this got to do with the Army?
The Ministry of Defence received a Military Aid to the Civil Authorities request from the Home Office to send in Army personnel to fill in the gaps.
This is not unprecedented – soldiers stepped in to help with civil missions at the height of the Covid pandemic, and during paramedics’ strikes last year.
The Home Office asked the MoD to provide “routine counter-terrorism contingency support to the Metropolitan Police, should it be needed”.
The Met explained: “To ensure that we can continue to keep the public safe and respond to any eventualities, from Saturday evening Met firearms officers will be supported by a limited number of armed officers from other UK forces.”
What has Suella Braverman said?
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has spoken up in support of the police officers.
Lucy North – PA Images via Getty Images
Advertisement
Home secretary Suella Braverman spoke out about the case on Sunday, saying there would be a review into armed policing, and that the officers have her “full backing”.
“They mustn’t fear ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties,” she claimed. “Officers risking their lives to keep us safe have my full backing and I will do everything in my power to support them. I will do everything in my power to support them.”
However, this statement, issued on X (formerly Twitter) has been controversial, because this is a comment on an active murder trial.
Doughty Street Chambers’ barrister, Adam Wagner, reposted her comment and said: “I think this series of tweets is inappropriate in the context of a live criminal case where an officer has been charged.
“It gives the clear impression, given the image in the linked article, that the Home Secretary is expressing an opinion on the Chris Kaba case.”
Advertisement
The i’s Ian Dunt told Sky News that he was “startled” by Braverman’s intervention, too.
He said journalists are told to be really careful when there’s live court proceedings, never mind cabinet ministers.
He claimed: “That’s a completely unjustifiable intervention by the home secretary and something we should be a little more alarmed about.”
#KayBurley – Suella Braverman tweeted about police officers laying down their guns
Ian Dunt(The i) – I’m startled about what Braverman wrote.. journalists are told to be really careful when there’s live court proceedings… that’s a completely unjustifiable intervention by her pic.twitter.com/83TVwjrL7e
Braverman’s review has been welcomed by Met chief commissioner Sir Mark Rowley.
He said while it was correct they were held to the “highest standards”, the current system undermines his officers, as they end up being investigated for “safely pursuing suspects” and they therefore needed more legal protection.
He said he would make “no comment” on any ongoing legal matter but said these issues “go back further” than the Kaba case.
Advertisement
He said: “Officers need sufficient legal protection to enable them to do their job and keep the public safe, and the confidence that it will be applied consistently and without fear or favour.”
However, he acknowledged that when officers act improperly, the system “needs to move swiftly” rather than “tying itself in knots pursuing good officers through multiple legal processes”.
Rowley has promised repeatedly to reform the force since getting into the role, and has vowed to robustly remove rogue officers in the Met.
It comes after years of scrutiny towards the force. A review released only in March this year called for immediate change or for the force to be broken up, claiming it was institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic.
Government plans to put electronic tags on immigrants to prevent them from absconding have been slammed as “just another gimmick” by Labour.
Home secretary Suella Braverman this morning refused to rule out the move, which was reported by The Times and the Daily Telegraph.
Advertisement
Asked about the plan on Sky News, Braverman said the government “needed to exercise a level of control” of migrants.
She added: “We are exploring all options to ensure that we have that level of control over people so that they can flow through our system swiftly to enable us to thereafter remove them from the United Kingdom.”
But shadow employment minister Justin Madders accused the Home Office of planning to treat asylum seekers like “criminals”.
He said: “The only people you tag are criminals, so my understanding is that people who are coming into this country seeking asylum are not criminals, they’re usually people fleeing persecution.
Advertisement
“If there’s a problem absconding this is the first I’ve heard about it and clearly the solution to that is to get on and process the asylum applications a lot quicker than is happening and this is just another gimmick that is not dealing with the root of the problem at all.”
‘The only people you tag are criminals, people that come into this country seeking asylum are not criminals.’
Justin Madders MP tells Sky News that asylum seekers are fleeing persecution and shouldn’t be treated as criminals.https://t.co/PAiZ4D1jU3
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, told The Times: “It’s treating people as objects rather than vulnerable men, women and children in search of safety, who should be treated with compassion and humanity.”
The plan was even called into question by right-wing Tory MP John Redwood.
He told Times Radio: “I would need to be persuaded about the role of the electronic tag.
“I’m grateful for the clarification that it’s only going to apply to those who have been found to be illegal migrants. I think the bigger problem is to work out how many people in the system are illegal migrants and therefore need a safe place to return them to, and how many are asylum seekers.”
Suella Braverman has had a bad weekend – but the next few days are set to be even worse.
The home secretary has been keeping a low profile today after the Sunday Times revealed she had asked civil servants to help her avoid a fine for speeding last summer.
Braverman wanted to arrange a private speeding awareness course but, after that proved impossible, she accepted the fine as well as three penalty points on her licence.
Advertisement
Awkwardly, the first Rishi Sunak knew about it was when the story was about to be published.
HuffPost UK understands that although the speeding offence took place when she was still attorney general, Braverman didn’t accept the fine until after Sunak had re-appointed her to the role of home secretary in October.
The PM’s frustration was obvious this morning, when the controversy dominated his press conference marking the end of the G7 summit in Japan.
Asked by the BBC’s Chris Mason if he retained “full confidence” in his cabinet colleague, a grim-faced Sunak replied: ”Well Chris I don’t know the full details about what has happened, nor have I spoken to the home secretary. I think you can see first hand what I’ve been doing over the last day or so.
“But I understand that she’s expressed regret for speeding, accepted the penalty and paid the fine.”
When he returns from the G7 on Monday, the PM will hold talks with Sir Laurie Magnus, his independent ethics adviser, about the Braverman controversy.
Advertisement
Both Labour and the Lib Dems say Sunak must order Sir Laurie to conduct a full inquiry to uncover all the facts.
More immediately, Braverman will have to face the music in the House of Commons at Home Office questions on Monday afternoon.
But that is not the only ordeal the embattled home secretary faces in the coming days.
On Thursday, official figures will confirm that net migration is approaching one million – well above the “tens of thousands” Braverman has said she wants to get it down to.
She – and Sunak – will come under severe pressure from Tory MPs to set out exactly how they plan to reverse the current immigration trend.
Despite the latest controversy surrounding Braverman – she had to quit as home secretary under Liz Truss after breaking security rules, only to be given her job back by Sunak just days later – her position remains safe for now.
Advertisement
One senior Tory source said: “If she was sacked, she would just team up with the other disaffected people and cause the prime minister more trouble. Sometimes it’s best to keep them inside the tent.”
Nevertheless, the week ahead will be the toughest of Braverman’s career. How she handles it will tell us a lot about what kind of future she has in British politics.
Conservatives brought a jumble of ideas to a three-day gathering in London – with one MP warning of the perils of “Marxism, narcissism and paganism” during a bizarre few hours.
As Labour leader Keir Starmer mocked the Tories for “holding a series of mad hatters’ tea parties” in the aftermath of their local elections drubbing, the National Conservatism conference opened in London – with high-profile Conservative Party figures in attendance.
Advertisement
The meeting brought together right-wing politicians, journalists and thinkers to discuss the potential of “national conservatism” to provide a path towards renewal for the party.
The conference is a project of the Edmund Burke Foundation, a “public affairs institute” based in Washington DC which has held conferences across Europe and America since 2019 to promote the ideas of national conservatism.
“The unexamined drive towards multiculturalism” is a “recipe for communal disaster”.
Home secretary Suella Braverman was arguably the “star” turn. Despite being in charge of the UK’s immigration policy, she took a number of swings at the UK’s immigration policy.
Advertisement
She deployed her own background as the daughter of migrants to argue it’s “not racist for anyone, ethnic minority or otherwise, to want to control our borders”.
The cabinet minister also argued that “you cannot have immigration without integration” and “the unexamined drive towards multiculturalism” is a “recipe for communal disaster”.
Braverman said that people who come to the UK “must not commit crimes”, “need to learn English and understand British social norms” and “cannot simply turn up and say: ‘I live here now, you have to look after me’”.
Young radicalised by “Marxism, narcissism and paganism”
Tory backbencher Danny Kruger blamed the country’s problems on the “new religion” of “progressive liberalism” – which is a mix of “Marxism, narcissism and paganism” and is causing a “radicalisation of a generation”. He even hit out at the “dystopian fantasy of John Lennon”.
Tory MP Danny Kruger tells NatCon that Western civilisation is threatened by a “new religion”, a mix of “Marxism, narcissism and paganism”, conforming to the “dystopian fantasy of John Lennon”
Multiple speakers decried the impact of “wokeism” on British society, particularly Katharine Birbalsingh, who was once dubbed “Britain’s strictest headteacher”.
She urged conservative parents to take their children out of schools that were “too woke”, and criticised private schools for being even more “woke” than their state-funded counterparts.
In a speech that included lines from the film Gladiator, Birbalsingh bemoaned children “leading” schools, attacked private schools for being more “woke” than state providers, and claimed children at some schools are allowed to wear ears and tails because they “identify as cats”.
Katharine Birbalsingh tells NatCon that Whitney Houston was right to sing the children are our future — but wrong about them leading the way
“The celebration of ‘me’ in 1986 was the precursor to the ‘me, me, me’ culture in 2023”
“Woke” teaching is “destroying our children’s souls”
Tory MP Miriam Cates identified falling birth rates as the “overarching threat” to UK and western society.
Advertisement
She also said society had ceased to value children and parenthood properly: “You cannot be socially liberal and economically conservative. If you think that government and society should have nothing to say about the conditions that promote strong families, don’t be surprised if you end up with a high-tax, high-spend economy, with a nation of broken people dependent on the state.”
The Conservative MP faced criticism for hitting out at “cultural Marxism”. John Mann, the government’s antisemitism tsar, said the term has its origins in a “conspiracy theory with anti-Semitism at its core”.
The Metropolitan Police Service has faced criticism after more than 50 people were arrested for alleged affray, public nuisance and breach-of-the-peace offences.
The arrests were described by human rights organisations as a “dangerous precedent” for a democratic nation.
In a statement following his release, Smith said: “Yesterday, as we prepared for a peaceful and lawful protest, a number of Republic’s team were arrested and detained for the rest of the day.
“These arrests are a direct attack on our democracy and the fundamental rights of every person in the country.
A policeman is seen carrying a banner taken away from protesters during an Anti-monarchist protest during King Charles III’s Coronation.
SOPA Images via Getty Images
Advertisement
“Each and every police officer involved on the ground should hang their heads in shame. They showed no judgement, no common sense and no basic decency.
“This was a heavy handed action which had the appearance of a pre-determined arrest that would have occurred regardless of the evidence or our actions.
“The right to protest peacefully in the UK no longer exists. Instead we have a freedom to protest that is contingent on political decisions made by ministers and senior police officers.”
Smith said the arrests had “destroyed” whatever trust might have existed between peaceful protesters and the Met Police.
He questioned what was the point in the protesters being “open and candid with the police, working with their liaison officers and meeting senior commanders” if this is what happens.
Advertisement
A protester holds a placard which states ‘This country is ours’ during the demonstration.
SOPA Images via Getty Images
The campaigner insisted they would not be deterred from further protest, adding: “We will continue to protest with one simple message: Charles is not our king, it is time to abolish the monarchy.”
However, culture secretary Lucy Frazer insisted the police got the “balance right” and denied that officers had gone too far.
She told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge: “I think, overall, they managed to get that balance right.”
Home secretary Suella Braverman also praised the police for their actions, tweeting: “I’m incredibly grateful to the police for all their hard work at today’s coronation celebration to ensure it was safe and passed without incident.”
Met Police commander Karen Findlay acknowledged concerns about the arrest of protesters but defended Scotland Yard’s actions, saying: “Our duty is to do so in a proportionate manner”.
Advertisement
Protestors from the group Republic gather in their hundreds in Trafalgar square to say ‘Not My King’ in central London.
Andrew Aitchison via Getty Images
She said: “We absolutely understand public concern following the arrests we made [on Saturday morning].
“Protest is lawful and it can be disruptive. We have policed numerous protests without intervention in the build-up to the coronation, and during it.
“Our duty is to do so in a proportionate manner in line with relevant legislation. We also have a duty to intervene when protest becomes criminal and may cause serious disruption.
“This depends on the context. The coronation is a once in a generation event and that is a key consideration in our assessment.
Advertisement
“A protest involving large numbers has gone ahead today with police knowledge and no intervention.”
The Met said it received information that protesters were “determined to disrupt” the coronation – including defacing public monuments with paint, breaching barriers and disrupting official movements.
They confirmed 52 people were arrested for affray, public order offences, breach of the peace and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance around the coronation.
Under the controversial new Public Order Act, protesters who have an object with the intention of using it to “lock on” are liable to a fine, with those who block roads facing 12 months in prison.
Suella Braverman has been accused of striking up a “xenophobic and racist fire” after saying people arriving in the UK in small boats have values which are “at odds with our country”.
The home secretary was facing a backlash to her remarks as government’s controversial immigration legislation cleared the Commons.
Advertisement
She also failed to offer statistical evidence to back her claim that migrants crossing the English Channel are linked to “heightened levels of criminality”.
Braverman said: “I think that the people coming here illegally do possess values which are at odds with our country.”
“The people coming here illegally do possess values which are at odds with our country.”@NickFerrariLBC asks Home Secretary Suella Braverman if she shares Robert Jenrick’s view that uncontrolled migration could ‘cannibalise British compassion’. pic.twitter.com/hmIbfFiaGV
Asked later whether she had figures to support the crime statement, she said it was based on information she had gathered from police chiefs.
Advertisement
At an event later in Westminster, she added: “Not in all cases, but it is becoming a notable feature of everyday crime-fighting in England and Wales.
“Many people are coming here illegally and they’re getting very quickly involved in the drugs trade, in other forms of exploitation.”
Asked whether that claim was based on empirical evidence, she said: “I consider police chiefs experts in their field and authoritative sources of information.”
Even an outspoken right-wing Tory MP criticised the comments on values.
Conservative MP for Stoke-on-Trent North Jonathan Gullis told LBC they were not “appropriate” or “reasonable”.
He said: “I don’t feel comfortable with the mentioning of the values. I don’t think that was appropriate, nor was it right.”
Advertisement
Labour condemned Braverman’s comments about migrants’ values, with a spokesman calling it the “sort of invective” that signals that the policies being promoted “have failed”.
Campaigners accused her of “pouring petrol on a xenophobic and racist fire they (the government) themselves have lit”.
Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director, said: “Suella Braverman’s dog-whistle remarks about the ‘values’ of migrants being ‘at odds’ with British ‘norms’ are appallingly divisive and shamelessly intended to stoke fear and hatred of people seeking refuge in this country.
“No-one should suffer such blatant exposure to prejudice and hostility, especially not in the form of highly insensitive remarks from the Home Secretary.
“The government’s draconian asylum legislation is already set to tear apart legal protections in this country for refugees, victims of human trafficking and many other people, while Suella Braverman continues pouring petrol on a xenophobic and racist fire they themselves have lit.”
Advertisement
It came as senior backbench Tories, including former prime minister Theresa May and ex-party leader Iain Duncan Smith, voiced concerns inpParliament about the impact the government’s flagship immigration reforms could have on modern slavery protections.
But the bill cleared the House of Commons without any drama in the votes after MPs gave it a third reading by 289 votes to 230, majority 59.
The illegal migration bill will change the law so people who arrive in the UK illegally will be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country such as Rwanda.
Critics of the Bill have dismissed the proposed legislation as unworkable, while right-wing Tory MPs believe it does not go far enough.
Other Tories want greater protections for minors and victims of human trafficking.
