for getting the rwanda bill through parliament. he told bbc breakfast that as a former member of the right—wing european research group, he is well placed to help allay their concerns. i was deputy chairman, in fact, of the erg for a number of years. so i know the concerns, the strong concerns that there are that marc and other colleagues have. but myjob is to listen respectfully, to understand their concerns, and then to explain how this bill is going to work. because, it will work. what this does is it addresses those very concerns that the supreme court set out last month. it will deem rwanda as safe, notjust because we say so, but on the basis of a legally binding international treaty with our respected international partners in rwanda. that's what the home secretary went across to rwanda to sign last week. the bill was then tabled last week, and that's what we're going to be debating this afternoon. opposition leader keir starmer told the bbc why labour mps will vote against plans to send some migrants to rwanda. what i won't vote for is £290 million spent on a gimmick that is the rwanda scheme that won't work, at the very most will take about 100 people. we've got 160,000 people asylum... waiting for their asylum claims to be processed. so it's a drop in the ocean. it cost a fortune. and as we learnt from the prime minister when he finally admitted it last week, the deal he struck will also involve rwanda sending their refugees across to the united kingdom. it'sa gimmick. it won't work. it is performance art. what i would do is do the more mundane sleeves rolled up practical work to stop this vile trade in the first place. our political correspondent has more. is rishi sunak in danger of losing control of his policy to stop the boats? there's a crucial vote in parliament today on his new plan to send some asylum seekers to rwanda. but mps on the right of his party are worried that this won't stop the courts from getting clogged up with legal challenges. and some have called for his legislation to be scrapped altogether. i don't think that the bill is easily amendable. and really i think that the government needs to review it and maybe consider a completely new piece of legislation because this leaves so many gaps in the legislation. so this morning, the prime minister is trying to butter up some of his critics over breakfast in downing street. it's maybe not what you'd normally talk about over coffee, but he'll try to convince them that legal challenges would be few and far between, and he'll say any delay to his plan would reduce the chances of migrant flights to rwanda before the next general election. a series of former cabinet ministers, including those with legal knowledge, have been taking to the airwaves to call for support. this is a very strong bill. it's a very muscular assertion of parliamentary sovereignty. i don't, myself, i'm surprised that my colleagues feel it's so porous to legal challenge, because it seems to me that it's been drafted very tightly. there's a very narrow window for legal challenge. i think it's about as far as you could go without risking the complete blockage and collapse of the bill. last night, rishi sunak was given a boost when a centrist one nation group of mps said they'd back him in today's commons vote. but they also warned that support could be withdrawn if he makes concessions to his breakfast guests on the right of the party. we've said, you've come within an inch of what we can sort of stomach, but if you go any further, we won't stomach it. so as i say, we will vote for second reading. we think it's clearly important for the stability of the government that we do that, but we're not going to support anything in the future that threatens our international obligations. if rishi sunak wins tonight's vote, mps will then be given a chance to propose changes to his plan. so the debate and the division are likely to continue leaving the prime minister walking a wavering political tightrope. iain watson, bbc news, westminster. joining me now is political commentator claire pearsall, who's a former special adviser to the immigration minister. that was caroline knox in 2018, 19. what do you make of this vote and how tight it will be? i what do you make of this vote and how tight it will be?— how tight it will be? i think it will be incredibly _ how tight it will be? i think it will be incredibly tight - how tight it will be? i think it will be incredibly tight and i l how tight it will be? | think it - will be incredibly tight and i think the prime minister will get it over the prime minister will get it over the line. it was helped enormously last night with the one nation caucus of the centre as part of the conservative party saying they would support it and they will suck up any dissolution they had method and go for it so that it is a positive buzz as we have seen, there is grips on the right, at least anotherfour groups who are really unhappy so i think there will be an awful lot of posturing and i think at the end of the day we will see the bill go through and it is up to the parties and mps to amend the subcommittee before it heads to the house of lords. ~ , ., . . before it heads to the house of lords. ~ ., ., ,, . ., lords. when you are a special adviser to _ lords. when you are a special adviser to the _ lords. when you are a special adviser to the immigration . lords. when you are a special- adviser to the immigration minister adviser to the immigration minister a couple of years ago, how big an issue was this? we a couple of years ago, how big an issue was this?— a couple of years ago, how big an issue was this? we did not have the level of smokable _ issue was this? we did not have the level of smokable crossings - issue was this? we did not have the level of smokable crossings but - issue was this? we did not have the level of smokable crossings but we | level of smokable crossings but we had an awful lot going in the back of lorries imports of illegal immigration has always been issue but we have not seen it on this scale so we did not look at these kind of things. we mentioned about how we process people, what we do with people we cannot return to other countries and the legalities of people claiming asylum but we were in the european union at the time so we had access to all of those systems, all of the databases which sadly now we have lost so life is a lot more difficult now but there are things they can do to stop there are things they can do to stop the trade coming across. they need to think wider than the 26 miles of water between us and france. what to think wider than the 26 miles of water between us and france. what do ou think water between us and france. what do you think about — water between us and france. what do you think about this _ water between us and france. what do you think about this policy, _ water between us and france. what do you think about this policy, as - water between us and france. what do you think about this policy, as at - you think about this policy, as at the right one or all the more things we should be doing? i do the right one or all the more things we should be doing?— we should be doing? i do not think it is the right _ we should be doing? i do not think it is the right policy _ we should be doing? i do not think it is the right policy and _ we should be doing? i do not think it is the right policy and upset - we should be doing? i do not think it is the right policy and upset at l it is the right policy and upset at right back from its inception in april 22. right back from its inception in april22. i right back from its inception in april 22. i think we need to invest in home office staff in this country rather than expecting an african country to take on that burden for us. it's proving to be very expensive, £2110 million to date and not a single person has gone over there so we can best do it ourselves, look at why we are not funding the home office properly and perhaps there is a case for bringing immigration out of the home office and into its own department? this a- ears to and into its own department? this appears to be _ and into its own department? this appears to be a — and into its own department? this appears to be a important policy for the prime minister now, do you think it was wrong of him to put it central to his commitments to the public? to central to his commitments to the ublic? ., , , , central to his commitments to the ublic? , ., public? to put stop the boats front and centre was _ public? to put stop the boats front and centre was always _ public? to put stop the boats front and centre was always going - public? to put stop the boats front and centre was always going to - public? to put stop the boats front and centre was always going to be | and centre was always going to be doomed to failure, it's one of those things you will never achieve, even if you stop the majority of them, there will always be desperate people and traffic is willing to take advantage of that and people will come across the channel in some form. the prime minister has been led to this by previous administrations, left with a policy that perhaps he does not entirely agree with or support but he has to bring that forward and it's a totemic issue unfortunately which is now telling the conservative party into pieces. but now telling the conservative party into pieces-— into pieces. but is it, is it a threat to — into pieces. but is it, is it a threat to his _ into pieces. but is it, is it a threat to his leadership - into pieces. but is it, is it a threat to his leadership atl into pieces. but is it, is it a i threat to his leadership at the moment given that we will face an election at some point in the next year? election at some point in the next ear? , ., , election at some point in the next ear? , . , , election at some point in the next ear? , ., year? this has been enormously damaging. _ year? this has been enormously damaging, there _ year? this has been enormously damaging, there are _ year? this has been enormously damaging, there are at - year? this has been enormously damaging, there are at least - year? this has been enormously| damaging, there are at least five different factions of the conservative party each taking legal advice and putting out press conferences and stating their own opinion, when we should be collectively coming together as a government and producing a policy we can pass and that will be acceptable to the judiciary but also to the country. i think that is sometimes forgotten in all of this, we get so caught up with what is going on in westminster, are we listening to people out in different parts of the uk as to what they want to see? divide parties never win elections and i think the prime minister needs to heed that and get everybody back together on the same page or otherwise next year will be very bad indeed. ., , otherwise next year will be very bad indeed. . , , ., indeed. really interesting to get our indeed. really interesting to get your thoughts- _ indeed. really interesting to get your thoughts. thank _ indeed. really interesting to get your thoughts. thank you. - indeed. really interesting to get your thoughts. thank you. lots l indeed. really interesting to get - your thoughts. thank you. lots going on in downing street. our correspondent is there. this so—called smoked salmon breakfast debate, whatever you want to call it, what is happening? this debate, whatever you want to call it, what is happening?— debate, whatever you want to call it, what is happening? as you were sa in: this it, what is happening? as you were saying this morning _ it, what is happening? as you were saying this morning the _ it, what is happening? as you were saying this morning the prime - saying this morning the prime minister has met with mps here, this is all about a kind of charm offensive to try and ensure that second reading vote which is expected this evening on the rwanda bill goes through. to discuss this i am joined by henry zeffman, our chief political correspondent. lots to go through but he has been coming through and meeting the prime minister? ., , , ., , minister? two sets of people coming into 10 downing _ minister? two sets of people coming into 10 downing street _ minister? two sets of people coming into 10 downing street today - minister? two sets of people coming into 10 downing street today and - into 10 downing street today and they tell — into 10 downing street today and they tell the story of the divisions in the _ they tell the story of the divisions in the party that we are seeing. about _ in the party that we are seeing. about 7:30am a group of 15 or so conservative mps very much from the ti l ht conservative mps very much from the right of— conservative mps very much from the right of the _ conservative mps very much from the right of the party came in for breakfast. that wasn't just a sort of usual— breakfast. that wasn't just a sort of usual run—of—the—mill get to know you chat _ of usual run—of—the—mill get to know you chat about what is on your mind, it was— you chat about what is on your mind, it was a _ you chat about what is on your mind, it was a really— you chat about what is on your mind, it was a really important breakfast which _ it was a really important breakfast which could help determine notjust the fate _ which could help determine notjust the fate of— which could help determine notjust the fate of rishi sunak and his flagship — the fate of rishi sunak and his flagship immigration legislation but ithink— flagship immigration legislation but i think his political future more generally. i think his political future more renerall . �* , i think his political future more renerall . �*, , .,~ ., i think his political future more renerall. �*, , .,~ ., ., generally. let's break that down first, who generally. let's break that down first. who are — generally. let's break that down first, who are the _ generally. let's break that down first, who are the key _ generally. let's break that down first, who are the key mps - generally. let's break that down first, who are the key mps in - generally. let's break that down| first, who are the key mps in the group and where did they fit in terms of the spill, for it, abstain, or against?— terms of the spill, for it, abstain, orauainst? ~ , , ., ., ., or against? those mps belong to a u-rou or against? those mps belong to a group called _ or against? those mps belong to a group called the — or against? those mps belong to a group called the new— or against? those mps belong to a. group called the new conservatives, you can _ group called the new conservatives, you can get — group called the new conservatives, you can get bogged down in the stripe _ you can get bogged down in the stripe on — you can get bogged down in the stripe on the right of the party that tried _ stripe on the right of the party that tried but i think the important point _ that tried but i think the important point is _ that tried but i think the important point is they do not like rishi sunak— point is they do not like rishi sunak very much and they do not like this legislation very much but what they will— this legislation very much but what they will do about it is much less clear~ _ they will do about it is much less clear~ rishi— they will do about it is much less clear. rishi sunak was trying to make _ clear. rishi sunak was trying to make the — clear. rishi sunak was trying to make the argument to them that they have legal— make the argument to them that they have legal opinions which suggest this belt— have legal opinions which suggest this belt might not constrain deportations against rwanda but he was saying i am told that we have other— was saying i am told that we have other legal evidence, a mother conservative lawyers who disagree so he was _ conservative lawyers who disagree so he was trying to make a point that actually— he was trying to make a point that actually they are wrong. the view is that they _ actually they are wrong. the view is that they have been persuaded about all wrong _ that they have been persuaded about all wrong and this bill does what he needs— all wrong and this bill does what he needs to _ all wrong and this bill does what he needs to put what they will do about it, i needs to put what they will do about it. iwas— needs to put what they will do about it. i was one — needs to put what they will do about it, i was one of many people shouting _ it, i was one of many people shouting when they left, they did not offer — shouting when they left, they did not offer clarity, they were silent, this vote — not offer clarity, they were silent, this vote will be at 7pm and i suspect— this vote will be at 7pm and i suspect they believe the government sweating _ suspect they believe the government sweating for some more hours because they hope _ sweating for some more hours because they hope the government will budge. the government is adamant it will not, the government is adamant it will not. is _ the government is adamant it will not. is one — the government is adamant it will not, is one of those classic westminster games of chicken. it is never westminster games of chicken. it 3 never definitely going ahead, that's another question some people had debated. if the prime minister does not think he has the numbers could he delay or postpone? flit not think he has the numbers could he delay or postpone?— not think he has the numbers could he delay or postpone? of course, the government — he delay or postpone? of course, the government is _ he delay or postpone? of course, the government is in _ he delay or postpone? of course, the government is in control _ he delay or postpone? of course, the government is in control of _ he delay or postpone? of course, the government is in control of what - government is in control of what happens — government is in control of what happens in — government is in control of what happens in parliament, the timetable, they can do what they like. politically if he pulls that vote _ like. politically if he pulls that vote it — like. politically if he pulls that vote it as _ like. politically if he pulls that vote it as an abject humiliation for him, _ vote it as an abject humiliation for him. he _ vote it as an abject humiliation for him. he has — vote it as an abject humiliation for him, he has staked his premiership on it, _ him, he has staked his premiership on it. buy— him, he has staked his premiership on it, buy priorities for the year, one of— on it, buy priorities for the year, one of them _ on it, buy priorities for the year, one of them to stop the boats, not to reduce _ one of them to stop the boats, not to reduce crossings by one third which _ to reduce crossings by one third which the — to reduce crossings by one third which the government has done but to stop the _ which the government has done but to stop the boats and he said this legislation is basically the only way he — legislation is basically the only way he can do that. if he pulls the legislation, — way he can do that. if he pulls the legislation, where does that leave the argument and his pitch to the country— the argument and his pitch to the country about why he should remain in office _ country about why he should remain in office for— country about why he should remain in office for another year or so until— in office for another year or so until the — in office for another year or so until the mid—think the general election— until the mid—think the general election will be? it's hard to see him pulling the vote.— election will be? it's hard to see him pulling the vote. henry, for the moment thank— him pulling the vote. henry, for the moment thank you. _ him pull