deporting asylum—seekers to rewind and in the end, not as tight as expected. and in the end, not as tight as “meted-— and in the end, not as tight as exected. , , ., expected. the ayes to the right, 313. the noes _ expected. the ayes to the right, 313. the noes to _ expected. the ayes to the right, 313. the noes to the _ expected. the ayes to the right, 313. the noes to the left, - expected. the ayes to the right, 313. the noes to the left, 269. | expected. the ayes to the right, i 313. the noes to the left, 269. the eyes— 313. the noes to the left, 269. the eyes have — 313. the noes to the left, 269. the eyes have it. — 313. the noes to the left, 269. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. unlock! — let's speak to former conservative ministerjustine greening. before the break, we listen to damien green from the one nation weighing of the conservative party towards the centre. it is clear when you listen to him that there isn't actually a majority in the bulk of the party for the ultra hardline approach that that was in the french want to take, principally because if they were to block the right to go to the courts in all circumstances, they would be in breach of the european convention.- they would be in breach of the european convention. that's right. i think it is worth — european convention. that's right. i think it is worth saying _ european convention. that's right. i think it is worth saying that - european convention. that's right. i think it is worth saying that there i think it is worth saying that there are around 100 moderate one nation conservative mps and really, the decision they took yesterday to get behind this they'll mention that it was always going to get through, but as damien green was setting out, actually, for many of them, they voted for this through rated teeth already. so if they have listen to mark france while talking about assurances on amendments, it is that tension in a way that is hard to see a way through after christmas, but the party will have to reach a decision collectively on which way it wants to go on immigration. it's put it at the top of the political agenda and it will need to find a route through.— agenda and it will need to find a route through. chameleon on your exertise route through. chameleon on your expertise as _ route through. chameleon on your expertise as a _ route through. chameleon on your expertise as a parliamentarian - route through. chameleon on your expertise as a parliamentarian to l expertise as a parliamentarian to guide us through what happens next? because of course, it is the court role of parliament to scrutinise legislation. a lot of this will be donein legislation. a lot of this will be done in committee. i understand that when this bill goes to committee, it won't be scrutinised in the same way that it would be in a committee where you would call for evidence. what happens now is mps will have the chance to go through this line by line, it is possible that it will be a committee of the whole house of commons, and that is a bit like editing a book in a way, they will check which sentences they don't like and which classes in this bill that they do. at that stage can mps can put down amendments, and it is the amendments that i think will be very controversial and difficult because they will be hard for the conservative party to reach a consensus on. at the same time, this bill will have to go through the house of lords, and of course they've already been very clear that it doesn't like the bill, so there are a number of parliamentary challenges i think for the government to get there in the conservative party if it wants to be able to get flights off of to rwanda and get this legislation passed. justine is on the panel with us tomorrow, and we will get plenty more reaction from you. thank you for your time this evening. to talk more about the legal side of this bill, i am joined by dr chelvan, a human rights lawyer who is head of immigration and public law at 33 bedford row... justine set out what will happen next. if you were called to give evidence, and i don't think many people will be, what would you say to the government? it’s people will be, what would you say to the government?— to the government? it's a lovely line from the _ to the government? it's a lovely line from the drama _ to the government? it's a lovely line from the drama series - to the government? it's a lovely line from the drama series the l line from the drama series the gilded cage where one of the characters says facts can get in the way of belief. that is what we are hearing in this wonderful pantomime where parliament is saying that rwanda is safe, but the uk supreme court on the 15th of november made it quite clear on looking at the evidence that the rwanda is not a safe country in relation to determination refugee claims. so far we have had no evidence in relation to the fact of dealing with those concerns not of the supreme court of the united nations high commissioner for refugees in one of the big messages from the supreme court is that you cannot trust rwanda because in previous agreements, the israel rwanda plan and even though 2022 april memorandum of understanding with the uk, the 19th of april 2022, rwanda sent refugees back to syria via turkey step up at the solution to that as i understand it is to send people with asylum—seekers so they would be officers of the court or home office personnel in the court monitoring this. would that not to solve that problem? there are several layers to the situation why rwanda is not fit for purpose regarding refugee determination. a reform complaint in relation to refugees being sent back to their countries, where they will fear persecution and clearly the treaty tries to address that the only country they can return to is the uk, but it is also the issue of the human rights record of the rwanda government regarding refugees. one example was in may of 2018, shooting in congolese refugees demonstrating regarding a 25% cap on food rations, 12 of them were shot and murdered and 60 adware detained and arrested. we know it is a one—party state, 99% of the vote in the 2017 election. it is a one—party state. anyone who views any political opinions against the state has a real risk of torture. and many have all the other evidence. ., ., ., evidence. you will have heard the ministers who _ evidence. you will have heard the ministers who came _ evidence. you will have heard the ministers who came on _ evidence. you will have heard the ministers who came on tonight i evidence. you will have heard the ministers who came on tonight to j ministers who came on tonight to say, look, there are plenty of migrants mixed in amongst asylum—seekers who game the system and it is people in your profession, lawyers, who have helped them gain the system and the idea of this bill is to make sure this doesn't happen so we have a proper working asylum policy. so we have a proper working asylum oli . ., , . ., policy. complete fiction. the statistics show _ policy. complete fiction. the statistics show itself. - policy. complete fiction. the statistics show itself. so - policy. complete fiction. the | statistics show itself. so even policy. complete fiction. the - statistics show itself. so even the refugee council of 2023 looked at the profile of the individuals who came via small boats and said for 80-90% came via small boats and said for 80—90% would be refugees. we know that the second—highest group within the small boats criteria are afghan refugees. and you have covered yourself the last few days the public disgrace in relation to that that those who helped our services in afghanistan are at a real risk of being booted out of pakistan and going back into afghanistan. so the point being here is that this new set of legislation, this new term, the illegal migrants in relation to those who come to the uk to claim asylum is a new phrase on the introduced by section a0 of the nationality because we as a nation have always accepted that if somebody comes to our borders and claims asylum on arrival, we should be able to examine their claim. fine be able to examine their claim. one last question- _ be able to examine their claim. one last question. one of the profound concerns that lawyers and academics who are critical of this bill have is that under the law, they are trying and certainly francoise and his group would be trying to tighten it further. they are trying to stop all challenges within the courts. what does the constitutional problem with that? tom what does the constitutional problem with that? ., , , , , what does the constitutional problem with that? ., ,, , , ., with that? two issues. first about the privacy _ with that? two issues. first about the privacy international - with that? two issues. first about the privacy international case, - with that? two issues. first aboutj the privacy international case, the high court has a supervisory jurisdiction, so they cannot to knock out the jurisdiction of the courts relation to that review and that's why you look at the government's on position on this published two days ago and makes it quite clear, cites that case. they have to have one avenue of review, but important committee issue of the irreversible harm narrow channel does not address the issues in relation to a real risk of human degradation treatment, which is covered by the performa policy that this will not address, so there will be a clash between the uk government and the european court of human rights because applications will have to be dealt with, even the fact that they are saying there is an automatic lack of acceptance of measures, we will see a clear battle for the board of human rights and knowing that the uk cannot withdraw the european convention without affecting this agreement, that's not going to happen, so what i see happening is that this is pure political fiction. happening is that this is pure politicalfiction. if it happening is that this is pure political fiction. if it passes the house of lords, and i know there is going to be a clear battle in the house of lords, i don't see removals happening before a general election because there will be issues in relation to real risk. and there is no evidence that rwanda will abide by those assurances.— by those assurances. doctor, thorough _ by those assurances. doctor, thorough as _ by those assurances. doctor, thorough as ever, _ by those assurances. doctor, thorough as ever, thank - by those assurances. doctor, thorough as ever, thank you | by those assurances. doctor, - thorough as ever, thank you very much for bringing us up to speed. you can see there is a better real brewing. it will get into plenty of that in the next hour with our panel. let's talk about what is happening in dubai. this was supposed to be the final day of the cop28 climate summit in dubai — it's now gone half past midnight in the uae — and the delegates are strill trying to hammer out a new final agreement. an earlier draught was criticised as grossly insufficent and incoherent. because what it left out words — namely any language referring to the "phasing out" fossil fuels. lots of countries unhappy with that — the united states, europe and climate—vulnerable countries. instead, the text lists various measures that countries could not should follow, to get to net zero by, or around, 2050. there's been some fierce lobbying by those oil state that belong to opec. the us climate negotiator john kerry said... "i don't think anybody here wants to be associated with the failure to live up to this responsibility. "not a lot of people in public life are asked to make life and death choices, historically. this is a war for survival." this is a think tank that helps them meet economic development hand—in—hand with the climate change obligations. thank you very much indeed for being with us. can i start by asking you where they are at at this juncture? what do we know coming from dubai tonight? at at thisjuncture? what do we know coming from dubai tonight?— coming from dubai tonight? i don't know more — coming from dubai tonight? i don't know more than _ coming from dubai tonight? i don't know more than you. _ coming from dubai tonight? i don't know more than you. i _ coming from dubai tonight? i don't know more than you. i was - coming from dubai tonight? i don't know more than you. i was in - coming from dubai tonight? i don't| know more than you. i was in dubai until yesterday, know more than you. i was in dubai untilyesterday, but know more than you. i was in dubai until yesterday, but that you get to a stage here you leave it to the diplomats and journalists, the diplomats and journalists, the diplomats to try and produce an answer and the journalists to try to understand it. clearly there is a big debate going on about 20 language will be used in relation to fossil fuels. language will be used in relation to fossilfuels. the point of language will be used in relation to fossil fuels. the point of view of my commission which we expressed in a report immediately before is that we have to be clear that the vast majority of the route to getting to next year in nations and the leading global warming is going to have to be achieved by actually reducing the consumption and production of fossil fuels. that has to be 85% of the answer and only something like 15% can be saying i'm going to keep on using fossilfuels, but can be saying i'm going to keep on using fossil fuels, but i'm can be saying i'm going to keep on using fossilfuels, but i'm going to apply carbon capture and storage are angling to remove co2 from the atmosphere. the crucial issue which is going on is how posts will be kept to a clear recognition of that very significant reduction in fossil fuel use, which is required, to give you an idea of our own scenarios, we believe that by 2050, if we are limiting global warming to 1.5 celsius, we should have produced the consumption and production of gas globally by 70%, coal by 85%, oil by around 90%. globally by 70%, coal by 85%, oil by around 9096-— globally by 70%, coal by 85%, oil by around 90%. , ., . , around 90%. given how important this is, and i around 90%. given how important this is. and i read — around 90%. given how important this is, and i read the _ around 90%. given how important this is, and i read the commons _ around 90%. given how important this is, and i read the commons from - around 90%. given how important this is, and i read the commons from john j is, and i read the commons from john kerry in the introduction, does it surprise you that are acclimated to minister, graham stewart, flew home for a boat and left the negotiation? i'm sure he has an effective deputy who can represent him. i don't think it is a very good look across the world, but i'm much more worried about the look of the british government for things like allowing the cumbrian call mind to go ahead, iam sure the cumbrian call mind to go ahead, i am sure the government and graham himself will be a bit embarrassed by that but i don't think it's that but i don't think its fundamental. that but i don't think it's fundamental.— that but i don't think it's fundamental. ~ , ., that but i don't think it's fundamental. ~ ., fundamental. when you look at the sectrum fundamental. when you look at the spectrum of — fundamental. when you look at the spectrum of these _ fundamental. when you look at the spectrum of these gone _ fundamental. when you look at the spectrum of these gone by - fundamental. when you look at the spectrum of these gone by and - fundamental. when you look at the i spectrum of these gone by and he can look at the success of paris to the failure of copenhagen, i suppose the next few hours will tell us where dubai fits in that spectrum. is there a point, some have argued, that when you can't get the tough language that you need and in particular the implementation of what is in the draught that it is better to just walk away. that what is in the draught that it is better to just walk away. better to 'ust walk away. that may better to 'ust walk away. that may be true. better to just walk away. that may be true- what _ better to just walk away. that may be true. what an _ better to just walk away. that may be true. what an extraordinary - better to just walk away. that may l be true. what an extraordinary thing these cop are. this required for this final language unanimity. so 190 countries have got to agree that something and anyone of them can veto it. and this is a world where several of these countries are at war with another or in an economic wear or huge geopolitical tension. at one level it is surprising that we get anything done at all. the other thing, we get anything done at all. the otherthing, paris we get anything done at all. the other thing, paris was a huge step forward because paris agreed a set of objectives. it left to the future the hard issues of how are we going to actually do it? i think the good news is that this cop has kept us to the crucial debate, and a crucial debate is between those people who say," i think quite strongly that we can go on producing fossil fuels at a high level and do lots of stories, broadly speaking that is what they say commandos who i think realistic and my commission is part of this and my commission is part of this and so is the international energy agency saying, look, the only way we will limit global warming is to dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels and dramatically reduce it by 2050 with significant reduction even by 2030. i know this seems a bit odd to say, it is great that this debate has now begun and that this debate has now begun and that we actually now have language, even at this very tentative, there is language which i think will certainly survive, even if it is only an option that one has to reduce the consumption and production of fossil fuels. it may seem odd to say this, but that wasn't even recognised a few years ago. wasn't even recognised a few years auo. ~ ., wasn't even recognised a few years ato, . ., , ., wasn't even recognised a few years auo.~ ., i. ., wasn't even recognised a few years auo. ., ., ,. , ago. what you are describing here is the win ale ago. what you are describing here is the wiggle room _ ago. what you are describing here is the wiggle room that _ ago. what you are describing here is the wiggle room that many - ago. what you are describing here is the wiggle room that many of - ago. what you are describing here is the wiggle room that many of these | the wiggle room that many of these countries have had for so many years. that is shrinking in the face of the science, which is pretty clear to all of us.— of the science, which is pretty clear to all of us. the science and the economics. _ clear to all of us. the science and the economics. do _ clear to all of us. the science and the economics. do we _ clear to all of us. the science and the economics. do we need, - clear to all of us. the science and l the economics. do we need, then, clear to all of us. the science and - the economics. do we need, then, in the economics. do we need, then, in the way that — the economics. do we need, then, in the way that we _ the economics. do we need, then, in the way that we run _ the economics. do we need, then, in the way that we run these _ the economics. do we need, then, in the way that we run these cop - the way that we run these cop summits, do we need to majority voting rather than consensus? do we need to stop petrol states running cops in the way that the sun has? i think it would be better to have some sort of large majority voting, but that is not the system. you know, we don't live in a world where the world governments. we live in a world with independent governments. so you have to get an agreement of the existing system to chan