No 10 says it will produce ‘emergency’ bill to show Rwanda safe country ‘in coming weeks’ – UK politics live

James Cleverly, the home secretary, has hinted the government may tighten the law to stop protesters climbing on war memorials.

He was responding to a question about an incident last night when a pro-Palestinian protester climbed to the top of the large Royal Artillery Memorial at Hyde Park Corner in London.

Cleverly, who served in the Royal Artillery, told LBC:

We’re going to look at this.

I’m not going to let my personal feelings cloud my judgment on this but it is clearly wrong, and the police have said that they recognise it is deeply disrespectful for people to climb on war memorials.

We have made a commitment to review the legislation around public order policing.

If the police – and I’m going to look at this in real detail – if the police need more powers to make sure that really deeply distasteful, provocative things like that do not happen for the public good, because of course this is about making sure it doesn’t stimulate violent action or any kind of violent responses, but if we need to take action specifically to give police more powers, we are looking at doing that.

Johnny Mercer, the veterans minister, issued a statement implying the police should have stopped protesters getting on the monument.

Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, was asked about the incident in a Q&A at the Institute for Government thinktank this morning and he defended the officers involved. He said it was “not illegal to climb on to a statue”, and he said it would have been wrong for the officers to “make up a law” and perform an arrest which would have been illegal. Instead the officers sought to deescalate the situation by asking the protesters to climb down, which they did, Rowley said.

He also said that it was for the government, not him, to decide whether climbing on war memorials should be criminalised.

The chief scientist whose diary entries contained revelations that Boris Johnson described coronavirus as “nature’s way of dealing with old people” is set to appear before the UK’s public inquiry next week, PA Media reports. PA says:

Sir Patrick Vallance is expected to give evidence on Monday followed by England’s former chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty and his former deputy, Sir Jonathan Van-Tam later in the week.

Vallance has objected to the publication of his pandemic-era diary in full, describing the notes as a “brain dump” written “at the end of immensely stressful days to protect his mental health”.

But further extracts could be put before the inquiry as he answers questions from lawyers about his time in office during the government’s response to the virus next week.

His evidence will be followed by Whitty on Tuesday and Van-Tam next Wednesday, according to a timetable published by the inquiry on Thursday.

Dame Angela McLean will also appear next Wednesday, while the business secretary and equalities minister, Kemi-Badenoch; and Dame Jenny Harries, a former deputy chief medical officer for England, are expected next Thursday.

Here is the timetable from the inquiry’s website.

In his interviews this morning James Cleverly, the home secretary, also dismissed the debate within the Conservative party about whether the UK would need to withdraw from the European convention on human rights (ECHR) to implement the Rwanda policy as a distraction.

Speaking on Times Radio, he said the government’s “preferred option” was to remain within the ECHR. He went on:

This is a distracting conversation. I get it is of interest, legitimate interest, but the point I have made is I, the prime minister, the government, will not be distracted from focusing on what we have been told by the supreme court judges needs to be fixed in order to get this out of the way.

Later, on the Today programme, he said:

I don’t believe [withdrawal from the ECHR] will be necessary. I believe that we can act in accordance with international law and we are very determined to do that.

Yesterday, in a statement during his press conference, Rishi Sunak implied that he would be willing, if necessary, to withdraw from the ECHR. He declared:

Let me tell everyone now – I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.

If the Strasbourg court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of parliament, I am prepared to do what necessary to get flights off.

But this may just have been a reference to Sunak’s objection to one aspect of how the European court of human rights operates – its use of interim injunctions, like the one that blocked the government’s first flight to Rwanda. Sunak also said, in response to questions, that he did not think ECHR withdrawal would be necessary.

Yesterday the supreme court said the Rwanda policy was unlawful on the grounds that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers because there is a real risk they will suffer “refoulement” – return to their home country where they were at risk of persecution. In its response, the government said that it was negotiating a treaty with Rwanda to address these concerns, and that it would pass legislation asserting that Rwanda is safe.

Lord Sumption, a former supreme court judge, has dismissed the notion that legislation like this would make any difference. He told the News at 10 last night:

I have never heard of them trying to change the facts, by law. For as long as black isn’t white, the business of passing acts of parliament to say that it is profoundly discreditable.

And in an interview with the Today programme podcast, he said:

I have never heard of a situation in which parliament intervenes to declare the facts – the safety or unsafety of Rwanda – to change the facts from those which have been declared by the courts to be correct.

The courts have perused hundreds of pages of documents to arrive at this conclusion. For parliament simply to say the facts are different would be constitutionally really quite extraordinary.

This morning, in his interview on the Today programme, James Cleverly, the home secretary, said he did not accept Sumption’s argument. When it was put to him that Sumption was a former supreme court justice, Cleverly replied:

Lawyers argue all the time, that’s literally what they do. I have very eminent lawyers who take a different view.

Cleverly also argued that the new treaty with Rwanda would address the concerns raised by the court. He said:

We have been working with the Rwandans to beef up, to strengthen, to professionalise and enhance their professional institutions, we’ve been doing this throughout this last year.

The supreme court is only able to look at the facts as presented to the appeal court, which was 15 months ago, and we have not wasted the intervening months.

We have been working extensively with the Rwandans on this very issue.

So we are confident that the treaty, the legally binding treaty which is binding on both countries, will be robust, will address the issues raised by the supreme court – because we have been working on it for over a year.

The government has already given Rwanda £140m as part of its deportation deal, even though not one asylum seeker has yet been sent to the country. Asked about this on LBC, James Cleverly, the home secretary, said he would not be apologising for spending this money. He claimed the policy was already having a deterrent effect. He said

I’m going to be really clear on this. I make no apology at all for spending money protecting this nation. It is the primary function of government.

We know that even before the first flight has taken off the Rwanda policy is having a deterrent effect.

We interview people that have attempted to come here through illegal migration and we know that people have been dissuaded from coming to the UK because of the fear of Rwanda scheme.

Ministers are “absolutely determined” to get a removal flight to Rwanda off before the next election, and will finish drafting a legally binding treaty with the country “within days”, James Cleverly, the new home secretary, said in interviews this morning. Emily Dugan has the story.

David Cameron, the new foreign secretary, has gone to gone to Kyiv in his first visit in his new role for talks with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Zelenskiy has posted this video on X.

Cameron said:

What I want to say by being here is we will continue to give you the moral support, the diplomatic support, the economic support, but above all the military support that you need, not just this year, and next year, but however long it takes.

Geneva Abdul has more coverage on our Ukraine live blog.

Good morning. Keir Starmer had a difficult night yesterday, after 56 of his MPs, including eight shadow ministers (or ex shadow ministers, as they are now), rebelled in the Gaza ceasefire vote, but Rishi Sunak’s problems over the Rwanda supreme court judgment are undoubtedly a lot more serious.

Partly it’s an electoral problem; on a priority issue, his policy has fallen apart, and it is not clear yet whether the alternative strategy announced yesterday afternoon will enable Rwanda flights to actually happen. But, as or more seriously, it is also a party management issue. The Rwanda decision has emboldened the many Tory MPs who want the UK to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, and Sunak’s response – sounding up for that, but not convincingly – may not be enough to contain them.

All of which helps to explain why what in other circumstances might be a piece of Westminster gossip might be quite important. Tory rightwingers liked having Suella Braverman as home secretary, but now they’ve got James Cleverly. And in the Commons yesterday Yvette Cooper, his Labour shadow, alleged that in private Cleverly had described the Rwanda policy as “batshit”.

Cleverly has been doing an interview round this morning and, while not the main focus, this issue has come up. Although he did not admit using the phrase, anyone watching or listening to his interviews will conclude that he did indeed, at least once in private, describe the centrepiece of the government’s policy for dealing with irregular migration, beloved of rightwingers, as “batshit”.

Asked about the comment on Sky News, he replied: “I don’t recognise that phrase.”

Asked again on BBC Breakfast, he “squirmed” (in the words of the Mirror) and said this was a claim made about him, not by him, and claimed he could not remember using the word.

And when the question got asked again on the Today programme, Cleverly laughed unconvincingly and claimed the interviewer was falling into a trap laid by Labour.

All of which means that Sunak has appointed a new home secretary who – almost certainly, at least once – has expressed views on the Rwanda policy more in line with those of Guardian readers than Daily Mail readers. In the Conservative party, that will have been noted.

I will post more from the Cleverly interviews soon.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Sir Jon Thompson, the HS2 executive chair, gives evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about the Euston station project.

11am: Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, speaks at an Institute for Government event.

11.20am: James Cleverly speaks at the joint annual summit of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and National Police Chiefs’ Council.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2pm: Mark Drakeford, the Welsh first minister, joins Bill Clinton, the former US president, and his wife, Hillary, the former US secretary of state, on a visit to Swansea University.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.