opposition party amendment being voted on first, that is why the green benches have attempted and the voting for that has started. a bit of a delay before we get the result emma ten minutes or so then we get a result for that, and then the ten minutes or so after that, we come onto the mean vote. so, lots at state for the immigration policy, the asylum policy, and also the standing of the prime minister stop and ribbing here from sirjohn curtis, political analyst and a professor but we bring him back in now. just for viewers joining us on the way around the world and here in the way around the world and here in the uk, outline what is going on and why it's significant. this the uk, outline what is going on and why it's significant.— why it's significant. this is the second reading _ why it's significant. this is the second reading of _ why it's significant. this is the second reading of what - why it's significant. this is the second reading of what the i second reading of what the government has said is emergency legislation, and it's legislation thatis legislation, and it's legislation that is effectively designed to overcome a ruling by the uk supreme court, the highest court in the uk, which ruled that the government policy of sending some asylum—seekers who cross the english channel by boat, to try and send them to rwanda for their claims for asylum to be adjudicated there, and if they were to be successful to remain there. the government has done a few things in the wake of that ruling. one is to turn the understanding with the rwanda to turnit understanding with the rwanda to turn it into a treaty, a treaty which says that even if people claim for asylum is rejected by the rwanda government, they would not be sent back to their home country, a crucial issue for the court. secondly, it is introducing this legislation which is for the most part designed it to make it difficult for the uk supreme court orany difficult for the uk supreme court or any other court to rule the general policy of sending people to rwanda illegal, or it does still allow for the possibility that individual asylum—seekers may be able to take it to court a claim, if they feel they themselves will be particularly badly hurt by being sent to rwanda.— particularly badly hurt by being sent to rwanda. , ., , . , sent to rwanda. john, 'ust a 'ump in their mic that's * sent to rwanda. john, just a 'ump in their mic that's exactly h sent to rwanda. john, just a 'ump in their mic that's exactly the h sent to rwanda. john, just a jump in their mic that's exactly the point - their mic that's exactly the point that has angered so many on the right of the conservative party. we heard from one speaking on behalf of five or so groupings there on the right of the party, basically saying that we cannot support the bill tonight, effectively, because it would lead to, in their view, too many legal challenges. that would lead to, in their view, too many legal challenges.- many legal challenges. that is effectively _ many legal challenges. that is effectively what _ many legal challenges. that is effectively what the _ many legal challenges. that is effectively what the argument | many legal challenges. that is i effectively what the argument is about. those on the right wing of the conservative party are arguing the conservative party are arguing the fact that there's still some possibility of a legal challenge by individuals, it means there is still a risk the governments attempt to send people to rwanda, which is basically been stymied now for a year, would continue to be stymied and no one gets sends to rwanda before the general election. on the other side, those in the liberal side of the conservative party think that the attempt to try and overturn the judgment of the uk supreme court perhaps goes as far as we dare go, because it essentially says parliament is declaring that rwanda is a safe place to send people even though the uk supreme court adjudicated otherwise. they're basically saying, we are not willing to go any further. it's one reason where's saying this all looks rather familiar to what happened to theresa may government in 2019 as she was trying to get her brexit deal through the house of commons, those on the right to the parties said what she was proposing was too weak and not enough regarding your opinion in a northern island, whereas others were saying this is going too far. so the problem for the conservative party is it is now reminding people of the divisions that the party had before boris johnson became prime minister and apparently now for years on, we have another prime minister who like theresa may, had never been elected by the party to be their leader, a leader who is now struggling to keep the divisions inside the conservative party from causing substantial difficulty. that conservative party from causing substantial difficulty.— substantial difficulty. that is fascinating, _ substantial difficulty. that is fascinating, john, _ substantial difficulty. that is fascinating, john, thank - substantial difficulty. that is fascinating, john, thank you | substantial difficulty. that is i fascinating, john, thank you for laying out the politics of it. stick around, we would be back with you in around, we would be back with you in a moment because we saw the chamber there filling up, we expect in a few minutes' time to get the result of that first vote of the evening. as try and work out what the actual substance of all this is. live now to immigration lawyer, harjap singh bhangal. thank you for coming on the programme. talk us through some of the legal concerns there, and starting with what mark francois was just talking about in that statement saying his group couldn't support this bill. then we heard from another representative of a slightly different group but on that same wing of the party, saying the bill would be defective because too many legal challenges could be opened up. what does that mean? that legal challenges could be opened up. what does that mean?— what does that mean? that means, effectively. — what does that mean? that means, effectively. that _ what does that mean? that means, effectively, that individuals - what does that mean? that means, effectively, that individuals can - effectively, that individuals can appeal to the courts, however the government can simply ultimately ignore the advice and judgment of any european court and press ahead anyway. the delay that would happen during that appeal still might be there and the government has narrowed on specifics and where someone can appeal in very few circumstances, extreme circumstances, extreme circumstances, so it's not perhaps as widespread as the right wing groups are making out but there's definitely provision there, and you can't take that right away. fin definitely provision there, and you can't take that right away.- can't take that right away. on the fli of can't take that right away. on the flip of that. _ can't take that right away. on the flip of that, many _ can't take that right away. on the flip of that, many one _ can't take that right away. on the flip of that, many one nation - flip of that, many one nation tories as they are known on the left of the conservative party, are worried this will go too far as it is and will put the comfort —— country in jeopardy of overstepping its legal rights. it's a fine balance, clearly, what's yourjudgment on where it is? clearly, what's your 'udgment on where it uh clearly, what's your 'udgment on where it is? ,, . , �*, ., where it is? essentially, there's an arc ument where it is? essentially, there's an argument for— where it is? essentially, there's an argument for that _ where it is? essentially, there's an argument for that as _ where it is? essentially, there's an argument for that as well. - where it is? essentially, there's an argument for that as well. what i where it is? essentially, there's an l argument for that as well. what they are seen is that the parliaments, or government, can rewrite facts. the uk supreme court found as a matter of fact that rwanda is on save and the government is trying to legislate that it is safe. that is almost like saying if someone has found the earth is round and the government was a" we would say to his flat so everyone has to say that", it does not change facts, so there's an argument for that that is in the balance. something to look on concerning the because if the government is overlords and courts, which are there to keep them in check and make sure governments don't break their own laws and go against the public which was elected for, it's concerning and could set a precedent. so, it's interesting to see and there is a issue with rishi sunak�*sjob see and there is a issue with rishi sunak�*s job writing on this as well, so all a matter if rishi sunak loses, will there be an election? if he loses will there be time to rework this and get it through, and if it does get through it with a flight take off before the election anyway? is it worth it to send 300 people back at the cost of almost £300 million, and a quarter of a quarter of £1 billion which could be spent elsewhere.— spent elsewhere. more on the olitical spent elsewhere. more on the political questions, _ spent elsewhere. more on the political questions, let's - spent elsewhere. more on the political questions, let's try i spent elsewhere. more on the i political questions, let's try and become those. joining me now is political commentatorjo phillips. great to see you, just so you know, on the screen and since time is a pretty full looking chamber, so me have tojump in if we get pretty full looking chamber, so me have to jump in if we get results of the first vote of the evening, but what is your reaction to what we have seen so far? i what is your reaction to what we have seen so far?— have seen so far? i think it's utterly ridiculous, _ have seen so far? i think it's utterly ridiculous, we - have seen so far? i think it's utterly ridiculous, we have l have seen so far? i think it's . utterly ridiculous, we have seen have seen so far? i think it's - utterly ridiculous, we have seen so much time, so much money and energy, so many people being corralled into debates in this law, which as your previous guests pointed out the absurdity of it, theyjust want to say rwanda is safe even though the supreme court decided it isn't. there are more important things that are pressing people. it seems to me that half the time and energy and money spent on things looking like health and education and transport, the quality of water and housing, the quality of water and housing, the shortage of staff in social and domestic care, all of those things, or dealing with the backlog. that issue of peeple _ or dealing with the backlog. that issue of people coming over in small boats got lots of media admission, associated last year, and conservatives feel it's important for voters. conservatives feel it's important for voters-_ conservatives feel it's important forvoters. ., ,, for voters. it's an important issue, and i live in _ for voters. it's an important issue, and i live in canada _ for voters. it's an important issue, and i live in canada and _ for voters. it's an important issue, and i live in canada and i'm - for voters. it's an important issue, and i live in canada and i'm not. and i live in canada and i'm not firewood from dover, it's an important issue, but it's not the only issue and i think that while people are genuinely about people who are seeming to be jumping the queue are not playing by the rules, i don't think most people. jae” i don't think most people. joe i would interrupt _ i don't think most people. joe i would interrupt there. - i don't think most people. joe i would interrupt there. notice l i don't think most people. joe i | would interrupt there. notice to i don't think most people. joe i - would interrupt there. notice to the left, 337. the ice to write 269, then no or to the left _ the ice to write 269, then no or to the left 337, — the ice to write 269, then no or to the left 337, so that no or have it hot the _ the left 337, so that no or have it not the know or have it unlock. the question _ not the know or have it unlock. the question is— not the know or have it unlock. the question is that the bill you know it read _ question is that the bill you know it read a — question is that the bill you know it read a second time, as many of that opinion — it read a second time, as many of that opinion say yes or. on the contrary— that opinion say yes or. on the contrary it _ that opinion say yes or. on the contrary it no. division. clear the lobby _ contrary it no. division. clear the lobb . , , ., , , lobby. ok, limited bring up to speed with what just _ lobby. ok, limited bring up to speed with whatjust happened, _ lobby. ok, limited bring up to speed with whatjust happened, the first i with whatjust happened, the first thing they were voting on was a lady —— labour party opposition amendment and that failed, so the government one that, and now the boat is on the second reading of the bill itself, so this is the substantive vote effectively, and we will know have ten minutes or so as we see the green bench is empty as they walked through the division lobbies, cast their votes, we don't know which way it will go. let's bring you back in joe, because i rudely interrupted you there. it’s joe, because i rudely interrupted ou there. 3 . you there. it's all right, we need to follow the _ you there. it's all right, we need to follow the action _ you there. it's all right, we need to follow the action in _ you there. it's all right, we need . to follow the action in westminster. we need to all of the action is bringing back lots of memories from the brexit days for people watching it, some familiar faces to. talk us through your opinions on the overall idea of the whole bill, what do you think it means for rishi sunak, depending on what way this vote goes in the next ten minutes or so? he has had in the next ten minutes or so? he: has had a difficult time, i think he has had a difficult time, i think he has inherited, asjohn was seen earlier, a divided party, the tory party has been divided for decades. and there has always been a faction on the right wing of the party that has sought to undermine various leaders, going back to theresa may, before her tojohn major, some of us have been around long enough to remember others. all of those things create an image of a party that doesn't know what it stands for any more. and i think what we've seen is regarding things like without braverman, ramping up the rhetoric and vitriol and turn it into a big issue, which goes back to what i was saying before, yes it is a big issue, but it needs to be dealt with properly, and it's appalling that we are having this debate tonight on the same day that cop 28 is falling apart and we do not have a minister there because he came back to the art of this vote. our standing in the world is dreadful. jo. art of this vote. our standing in the world is dreadful. jo, always treat to the world is dreadful. jo, always great to get _ the world is dreadful. jo, always great to get your _ the world is dreadful. jo, always great to get your analysis - the world is dreadful. jo, always great to get your analysis and i great to get your analysis and opinion, will be back with you about because c0p28 was neatly mentioned there, we got a statement earlier and we are checked in another one. let's go back to vicki young. live now to our deputy political editor , vicky young. we have tenants or so to wait, not long at all before he gets in the results. ~ ., ., ., ., ., results. we had one of vote on it note -- labour— results. we had one of vote on it note -- labour amendment - results. we had one of vote on it - note -- labour amendment opposing note —— labour amendment opposing the entire bill and that was a healthy government majority of 68, and i don't think anyone was expected it to be the same for this next vote which is on the substantial and second reading of the bill as a whole. we would have to see how those numbers pan out. we know a chunk of tory mps says they can't support it and with us abstain, and it depends how many of them there are, whether the number numbers stack up for the government. who knows question mark i saw one cabinet minister earlier today and there concern was the abstentions and they were worried that the prime minister and ministers had done a good job of putting —— persuading mps not to vote against it but abstain, but is if there is a sizeable amount of the net abstain, 58, the bill will lose anyway, so earlier listening to mark francois deciding what they were going to do, he spoke about the fact that that group wants to change the bill of further down the year, but they can only do that if the bill progresses, so we suggest they think they don't have the numbers to defeated at this point because there talk about changes, but it does show it's not overfor changes, but it does show it's not over for the changes, but it does show it's not overfor the prime changes, but it does show it's not over for the prime minister. changes, but it does show it's not overfor the prime minister. he has had extensive come. mark francois talk about the right to oppose the bill at the third reading, but in between now and then you have close neck session of the bill went through each line, changes could be made, if they have the numbers to do so. so this battle it will go on for the prime minister. i so. so this battle it will go on for the prime minister.— the prime minister. i know it's a stranue the prime minister. i know it's a strange moment, _ the prime minister. i know it's a strange moment, but— the prime minister. i know it's a strange moment, but around i the prime minister. i know it's a| strange moment, but around you there, was the kind of mood and feeling there? i there, was the kind of mood and feeling there?— feeling there? i think tory mps, generally. _ feeling there? i think tory mps, generally. are — feeling there? i think tory mps, generally, are perplexed - feeling there? i think tory mps, generally, are perplexed they i generally, are perplexed they arrived in this position, the chart that days of knife edge boats were over, not least because for years to the day the conservatives won a majority of 80, which should be plenty to get through all sorts of legislation that which is the other strange aspect. conservative mps broadly agree on the rwanda project, think it should go ahead, but they are arguing over it's here, and the ones who agree with it most, are the ones who agree with it most, are the ones least happy about it. so the dilemma rishi sunak eyes, he has one group that doesn't think it is gone far enough in terms of allowing some appeals to go ahead, and on the other hand, some of tory mps who are worried it is getting pretty close to breaking international law. so he is trying to navigate a path through all of that and all through all of this is of course, his authority was something he has spent awful lot of time and money into this project, spoken a lot about stopping the boats, if it's —— it's one of his clothing slogans and pledges he gave as my minister, and brought them it's been spoken about so much and gained in so many headlines, and it's attracting all the attention towards something that isn't working. they hope it will work eventually but it is not at the moment, so there are puzzled conservatives wondering how they got to this position but when they would say other aspects of their immigration policy are starting to work. �* , , immigration policy are starting to work. absolutely fascinating, so many glances. _ work. absolutely fascinating, so many glances, and _ work. absolutely fascinati