Politics live with Andrew Sparrow
86 Tory MPs defy Cameron over immigration: Politics live blog
• Labour and Lib Dems unite to defeat Tory backbenchers over key immigration vote
• David Cameron orders Tory ministers to abstain on amendment it deems unworkable
• Labour accuses Theresa May of losing control of immigration policy.
• Afternoon summary
Andrew Sparrow
@AndrewSparrow
Thu 30 Jan 2014 12.30 EST First published on Thu 30 Jan 2014 03.59 EST
Houses of Parliament, where MPs are today debating the immigration bill. Photograph: Scott Barbour/Getty Images
5.11pm GMT
Afternoon summary
Here's where we stand.
• Ed Miliband has won a key immigration vote in the Commons. In a highly unusual development, Labour, the official opposition, joined forces with one arm of the coalition, the Lib Dems, to vote down a proposal (Dominic Raab's amendment) that was branded illegal and unworkable by the dominant Conservative arm of the coalition. The amendment would have limited the ability of foreign prisoners to avoid deportation by claiming they have a right to a family life under human rights legislation. After Number 10's announcement that Conservative ministers would abstain, it turned into a fight between Labour and the Lib Dems on the one side and Conservative backbenchers (not all of them, but a significant number) on the other. It would be a mistake to read too much into the Labour/Lib Dem partnership, but the vote will be seen as fresh evidence that a realignment of sorts is underway.
• Eighty six Tory MPs voted for the Raab amendment in defiance of the party leadership. Colleagues are currently debating whether this counts as a proper rebellion, because the Number 10 order to abstain only applied to ministers and David Cameron apparently resigned himself to the fact that dozens of his backbenchers would vote with Raab. But, rebellion or not, today has been a wretched day for Cameron, because the events in the Commons illustrated the extent to which he has lost control of his party on this issue. You can argue that it would probably have been worse for Cameron if the Raab amendment had been passed (which is what might have happened if Labour had abstained). At least the government's bill is now not saddled with an amendment deemed unworkable and illegal. But that is a relatively minor consolation. Number 10 claims to be "relaxed" about the vote. They would say that. This sums up the situation rather more accurately.
Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson)
Senior Tory backbench source describes today as "the appearance of chaos...at best"
In total 97 MPs voted for the Raab amendment: 86 Tory MPs, nine Labour MPs and two DUP MPs.
• Labour has accused Theresa May of being "scared of her own backbenchers" and of having lost control of immigration policy. This is what Yvette Cooper said in her speech in the third reading debate.
The home secretary has told the House that she disagreed with [Raab's] amendment. But how on earth then could she simply sit on her hands and not take a view when it came to the vote? How on earth could she tell the prime minister that "I propose that the government does not support this amendment because it would be incompatible with the ECHR and counter-productive" and then, as the home secretary responsible for enforcing law and order in Britain, simply sit there, just scared of her own backbenchers, and fail to vote? There is no precedent for this ... She has lost control of her own policy ... She sat on her hands because she was scared. What kind of home secretary is that? What kind of government is this?
MPs are voting to give the bill a third reading as I write. The government is almost certain to win, and the bill will then go to the Lords.
That's all from me - for now.
But I will be live blogging Question Time tonight. Ken Clarke is on, alongside Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, Lord Oakeshott, the Lib Dem peer, Kate Smurthwaite, the comedian and feminist activist, and Mark Littlewood, director of the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Thanks for the comments.
Yvette Cooper in the third reading debate Photograph: /BBC Parliament
UPDATE at 5.16pm: The bill did get its third reading (no surprise). And the Labour whips have tweeted a list of the 86 Tory MPs who voted with Dominic Raab.
Labour Whips (@labourwhips)
List here of the 86 Tory rebels + 2 tellers, over half of @David_Cameron backbenchers who voted for Raab's Amdt: http://t.co/ljBsA8dpQz
Updated at 5.30pm GMT
MPs are now giving the immigration bill its third reading.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has just delivered a scathing attack on Theresa May.
I will post the quotes shortly.
The government won the final vote by 301 votes to 210 - a majority of 91.
MPs are now voting on a Labour amendment that would stop the bill reducing opportunities to appeal against deportation orders.
This is from the Labour whips
Initial count is that around 85 Tory MPs, over half of all tory backbenchers, rebelled against @David_Cameron on Raab's Amdt.
Dominic Raab has lost.
Labour and the Lib Dems have beaten him by 241 votes to 97 - a majority of 144.
For reference, here is the current state of the parties in the Commons.
Conservatives: 303
Labour: 256
Lib Dems: 56
Here are some more quotes from the debate. I've taken them from the Press Association.
From Dominic Raab, the Conservative MP who has tabled the amendment limited the ability of foreign prisoners to use the right to a family life to avoid deportation
You really do actually have to study the case law of the Immigration Tribunal to appreciate the extent to which these cases walk the moral balance of British justice, endanger the public and frankly, for many people outside of parliament, make human rights dirty words. That is something I deeply regret.
Some argue the rights of the partners and children of serious convicted criminals must be given due weight. But in reality, and this is the crucial point, Article 8 is being expanded to protect the criminals rights and not their families. Far from safe-guarding the vulnerable, it can expose them to undue pressure, if not worse, by dangerous offenders.
In one case, a man jailed twice for raping his partner relied on his relationship with the same woman to avoid deportation successfully. I have to say it worries me that female victims may be coerced in to being reunited with violent criminals, who see them as a sought of legal lifeline to stay in this country.
In another case, a drug-dealer convicted of beating his girlfriend, jailed twice for other brutal, barbaric attacks, successfully cited his young daughter as grounds to evade deportation.
This man never paid maintenance. He has scarcely seen his daughter until lawyers explained it might help his case and despite the mother not wanting her daughter to visit this individual in prison - far from protecting children, Article 8 risks making them pawns, subject to coercion or worse, as part of the criminal's desperate struggle to resist deportation and stay in Britain. Let's be very clear about what the law is rightly or wrongly achieving.
My amendment is different from [the government's proposal] because it is mandatory. Serious offenders cannot use Article 8 as the joker to wheel, pull out, trump deportation.
Unless there is a tangible threat to life or limb, these convicted killers, rapists, drug-dealers and other very serious criminals should be sent home. They should not stay on the streets of Britain.
From Jack Straw, the Labour former home secretary
I hope you will take away what (Mr Raab) is proposing and at least look at it.
As I say, he was a very good lawyer in the Foreign Office when I was Foreign Secretary.
I know he's not in any sense somebody who is foaming at the mouth about the Human Rights Act.
There's been really serious purpose before what he is suggesting and there may be a way through, as it were, to meet halfway between what you are proposing and what he is proposing.
From Sarah Teather, the Lib Dem former minister
Making people stateless is simply wrong. I accept what the Home Secretary said, that apparently it's only going to apply to a limited number of people, but the fact that it applies to a limited number of people doesn't make it any less wrong.
It seems to me that we are going to find ourselves listed with a list of states who are frankly a roll call of dishonour, when I want to see us leading international policy on this area rather than trailing it.
But I have to say that I am frankly aghast that my own party has been willing to sign up to this and I would strongly encourage my colleagues if a vote is called to go into the No lobby against this clause.
It is very difficult for any Liberal Democrat, it seems to me, to support this, particularly as the safeguards that you have indicated are nowhere near the face of this Bill.
MPs are now voting on the Raab amendment.
The government has won that vote by 297 to 34 - a majority of 263.
MPs are now voting on the government amendment making it easier for the government to deprive foreign-born nationals of their citizenship, and another government amendment linked to it.
MPs voting on the immigration bill Photograph: /BBC Parliament
Theresa May, the home secretary, is winding up the debate.
She says she will not accept the Labour amendments tabled to her clause about citizenship powers.
On Dominic Raab's amendment, she says she supports the intention behind it. But it is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It weakens the bill in at least two areas, because it does not apply to people sentenced to less than a year in jail, and because the child exemption clause could apply to children who are not family members.
Conservative ministers will be abstaining on this vote, she says.
She says she is concerned it could lead to few deportations because the language relating to children could lead to legal disputes.
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, says the bill has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with trying to "out-Ukip Ukip".
Julian Huppert, the Lib Dem MP, says he will be voting against Theresa May's plan to make it easier for the government to deprive foreign-born nationals of their citizenship.
Keith Vaz, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, says he will be voting for Dominic Raab's amendment.
(That's the first Labour rebellion.)
The home affairs committee is often hearing evidence about how difficult it is to deport criminals, he says. If this amendment helps, that would be welcome.
On Theresa May's plan to make it easier to remove citizenship from foreign-born nationals, he says he has sympathy with Sarah Teather's views on this. May was unable to explain how stateless people would be removed. He says he felt that May herself has reservations about this when she was explaining it.
Keith Vaz Photograph: /BBC Parliament
John McDonnell, the Labour MP, says he has 1,000 detainees in his constituency in a detention centre. He deals with detainees every day. He is "seething with anger" about the lack of time set aside for debating this bill, he says. The bill will restrict the ability of detainees to get bail. People end up not knowing when they will get released. This leads to serious mental health problems, and hunger strikes, he says.
Robert Buckland, a Conservative, says that the Raab amendment is unnecessary and that it could make deportations harder.
Frank Dobson, the Labour former health secretary, is speaking now.
He says Theresa May's plan to extend her powers to take away citizenship from foreign-born terror suspects has to be weighed against the public good. And he says he has never heard anyone explain what good this achieves.
But there are disadvantages, he says. Not so much to the person, but to society at large.
He talks about a constituent who went to Somalia, was arrested, told the Americans he was a British citizen, but was subsequently told he was no longer a British citizen. That person ended up before a New York court. If he had done something that serious, he could have been charged in the UK, he says.
He says there is big Somali population in his constituency. Some as testosterone-fuelled men very angry about British foreign policy. But there is a much bigger group taking on the extremist. The moderates tell the extremists that they are British citizens. But, since this case, the extremists have been able to say that's not true; the home secretary can take our citizenship away.
What benefits flow to Britain from taking away citizenship, he asks. It is a policy that can do "great damage".
Frank Dobson Photograph: /BBC Parliament
Labour to vote against the Raab amendment - Analysis
What does this mean? Here are three quick observations.
1. Ed Miliband has let David Cameron off the hook. Labour's decision means that the Raab amendment, which the government believes to be unlawful and unworkable, now faces defeat when MPs vote at 4pm.
2. Labour and the Lib Dems have now converged on a new issue. There is already quite a long list of topics where Labour and Lib Dem policy overlaps, and now a fresh item can be added to the list. That doesn't mean we should start planning for a Labour-Lib Dem coalition yet, but very slowly a realignment is taking place.
3. Tory backbenchers have one more reason to hate their Lib Dem coalition colleagues. That's because the Lib Dems will be voting with Labour to block what is essentially backbench Conservative policy.
Here's more from Labour on its decision to vote against Dominic Raab.
We will come forward with proposals [as the bill progresses] to facilitate and not hinder foreign prisoner removals. [This is] weak and chaotic [leadership] from the prime minister and the home secretary on this so-called flagship bill.
Labour has just announced it will vote against the Raab amendment.
• Labour has announced that it will vote against Dominic Raab's amendment. A party spokesman said it would do so because Theresa May herself said it would illegal and counter-productive, in that it will make deporting foreign prisoners harder.
Brooks Newmark, a Conservative, intervenes on a point of order. He says he is listed on the order paper as a supporter of Dominic Raab's amendment. That's a mistake, he says.
Turning to the new amendment making it easier for the government to strip foreign-born terror suspects of their citizenship, Jacob Rees-Mogg says he has concerns about this.
He believes there should not be two classes of citizenship. Once someone has a passport, they should not be in a different category from other passport-holders.
And he says he is wary of giving ministers arbitrary powers.
He won't vote against the amendment, though, he says.
Labour's Jeremy Corbyn intervenes. If ministers have the power to remove someone's citizenship, there is a danger that that power could be abused in the future, he says.
Rees-Mogg says that, rarely, or perhaps for the first time, he agrees with Corbyn.
Rees-Mogg says that he strongly believes that people who got their citizenship more recently than he did do not have lesser rights.
Jacob Rees-Mogg Photograph: /BBC Parliament
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative MP, is speaking now.
No one in the Commons would want to deport people at risk of life or limb, he says.
But MPs do want to stop deportations being blocked on "spurious" grounds.
Peter Wishart, the SNP MP, is speaking now. He says the bill is flawed, because it is designed to counter the threat from Ukip, but trying to "out-Ukip Ukip" is impossible, he says. It is a "nasty, pernicious" bill.
Sarah Teather ends her speech by saying that she is "aghast" that her own party is supporting the new amendment to the bill making it easier for the government to deprive a foreign-born terror suspect of citizenship.
Sarah Teather, the Lib Dem former minister, is speaking now.
She says there are aspects of the bill that run contrary to what the government achieved in terms of ending child detention.
The bill's view of public interest seems to ignore the interests of children, she says.
At Coffee House James Forsyth has posted his take on David Cameron's immigration climbdown. "The danger is that this concession encourages Tory MPs to back amendments in the hope of changing the government's mind," he says.
Jack Straw says that Raab was a lawyer in the Foreign Office when he was foreign secretary.
Raab is not someone who is "foaming at the mouth", he says. The concerns he is raising are legitimate ones.
He says he thinks it may be possible for the government to reach some compromise with Raab on this issue.
Jack Straw, the Labour former home secretary and justice secretary, is speaking now.
He tells MPs about a case in his constituency involving Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who killed a girl in a hit-and-run accident and who subsequently avoided deportation (his asylum application had failed) on the grounds that he had a family in the UK.
Straw says this case caused his much distress. He says that, knowing a lot about the case, and probably more than the tribunals did, it is his view that Ibrahim was deliberately entering a relationship to avoid deportation.
Straw says he has a great deal of respect for Dominic Raab. He has spoken to him at length, he says.
But he says he would be very concerned about the idea of voting for something incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
Jack Straw Photograph: /BBC Parliament
Here's the key quote from Theresa May's speech on the Raab amendment. (See 12.49pm.)
I think we are all agreed across this House we want to enhance the ability of this country to be able to deport foreign criminals from the United Kingdom where it is appropriate to do so.
What we are doing is making sure we absolutely clarify what the qualified interpretation of Article 8 should be in relation to the ability of the Government to remove people from the United Kingdom. I believe that is an important change, it is a change the public would wish us to be putting through.
Mr Raab has put a particular amendment down that would make some changes to this particular Bill. I have to say there are aspects of your amendment I think would not strengthen our ability to deport foreign criminals but could weaken our ability.
But there are other aspects of the language you use that might indeed strengthen what we would be putting (forward).
I have received advice this is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. But I think there are other aspects of this I have concerns with.
Raab says today MPs have an opportunity to do something about human rights reform.
His amendments are practical and common sense ones, he says.
Here's Left Foot Forward on Dominic Raab's case.
Left Foot Forward (@LeftFootFwd)
Dominic Raab claims 89% of successful human rights challenges are based on Article 8. Real figure is 57%: http://t.co/GXv19JzsdI
Theresa May, the home secretary, intervenes.
She said she had received legal advice. She did not say where it came from, she says. But she is claer that the advice is that Raab's amendment is incompatible with the ECHR.
The government approach would allow a balancing of different priorities, she says. Raab's would not. That is one of the problems with it, she says.
Raab says that, even though the government says its bill will limit the ability of foreign prisoners to avoid deportation on human rights grounds, he thinks that in practice nothing will change.
His amendment is better because it is more succinct, he says.
Michael Ellis, a Conservative, says he is concerned by what Theresa May said about the Raab amendment making it harder for foreign prisoners to be deported. (See 12.49pm.)
Raab says that his amendment would make deportation mandatory.
Sarah Teather, the Lib Dem former minister, asks if his amendment would prevent people avoiding deportation under other aspects of the European convention on human rights, such as right to religious freedom.
Raab says that in practice people do not use rights like that one to avoid deportation.
His plan would allow deportations to be blocked under articles two and three of the ECHR (the rights to life, and not to be tortured respectively).
In practice, most deportations now are blocked under articles two or three, or article eight (the right to a family life).
(Raab's amendment would stop people using article eight to avoid deportation except where deportation would cause "manifest and overwhelming harm" to children.)
Dominic Raab Photograph: /BBC Parliament
Dominic Raab, the Conservative backbencher, is speaking now.
He says he assumes Labour will abstain on his amendment. He welcomes that.
Lunchtime summary
• Number 10 has announced that Conservatives ministers will be told to abstain in a crunch vote this afternoon on the immigration bill. They will not try to block an amendment tabled by the Conservative backbencher Dominic Raab designed to stop foreign criminals avoiding deportation by claiming their right to a family life under human rights laws. It would stop them using article eight of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees a right to family life, to fight deportation. David Cameron has taken the decision even though ministers believe the Raab amendment is unworkable; indeed, in the Commons Theresa May, the home secertary, said that it would make it harder for some criminals to be deported. She also said that it was incompatible with the ECHR. Ministers hope that they can resolve this by rewriting the amendment in the Lords.
• Labour has refused to say how it will vote on the Raab amendment. Lib Dem MPs are planning to vote against but, if Labour abstain, the Raab amendment is likely to be passed. Labour sources say that, since the government position on the amendment has changed repeatedly, it is not surprising that Labour has not yet said what it will do. In the Commons just now Labour's David Hanson said the government was "in chaos".
• May has defended her plans to extend her powers to deprive foreign-born terror suspects of British citizenship. In a long speech at the start of the immigration debate, which saw her accused of time-wasting (ministers want to avoid further Tory rebellions) she insisted that all she was doing was doing was restoring the position that applied before Labour changed the law in 2006.
Labour's David Hanson, a shadow Home Office minister, is speaking now.
He says Theresa May's opening speech took up an hour and a half of the limited time set aside for debate.
Peter Bone, a Conservative, intervenes. He says it is unusual for a home secretary to be filibustering her own bill.
12.58pm GMT
Here is some more Twitter comment on the Number 10 decision to abstain on the Raab amendment.
(In the Commons just now Theresa May refused to confirm that Conservative ministers would abstain. But Number 10 has just confirmed this to me.)
From the Sun's Tom Newton Dunn
Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn)
....Tory abstention on Raab is an extraordinary moment. It's @David_Cameron conceding he can no longer control the House of Commons.
From ConservativeHome's Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace (@wallaceme)
Extraordinary mess of a position on the Raab amendment - Government's view is now a Schrodinger's cat, both supportive and not
From the Mail's Tim Shipman
Tim Shipman (Mail) (@ShippersUnbound)
No 10 says Raab amendment is 'not technically compliant with EU law' but can be sorted in the Lords
From Sky's Joey Jones
Joey Jones (@joeyjonessky)
Immigration row is no one-day wonder now. Hard to believe govt will find new formulation for Lords amendment to satisfy Raab + co.
Updated at 12.59pm GMT
Back in the Commons, Theresa May is now speaking about Dominic Raab's amendment.
All MPs would agree on the need to enhance the government's ability to deport foreign criminals, she says.
The government has not been happy with the way judges have been intepreting article eight of the ECHR (the one guaranteeing a right to family life).
The bill will amend the law in this respect, she says.
Raab's amendment would change the way this would operate.
There are aspects of this that could "weaken our ability to deport foreign criminals". But other aspects of it might strengthen government's ability to deport foreign criminals.
The Lib Dem Julian Huppert asks if she has had advice on whether it is compatible with the ECHR.
May says she has had advice saying it is incompatible with the ECHR.
She thinks it would hinder the government's ability to deport foreign criminals because it would lead to legal wrangling.
The Raab amendment would distinguishes between those sentenced for more than one year in jail and those sentenced for more than four years. It includes a test of "manifest and overwhelming harm" to children. It is not clear what this means, she says.
Labour's David Hanson asks what the government's position on the amendment is.
May says she wants to hear what Raab has to say.
The amendment would make it harder for some people to be deported, she says.
More cases would go to the European court. It would become the first decision maker in some cases, she says.
Here is some Twitter comment on the Number 10 decision.
From the Mirror's Jason Beattie
Jason Beattie (@JBeattieMirror)
The excellent @JGForsyth says Government to abstain on Raab amendment. Extraordinary cave in suggests Cameron has lost control of his party
From the Telegraph's James Kirkup
James Kirkup (@jameskirkup)
So that's a Conservative Party split *and* and a Coalition split over Raab/Immigration Bill. Can we shout "Bingo" now?
This represents a significant climbdown.
If the government thinks an amendment is unworkable, you would expect it to tell its frontbenchers to vote against it.
• David Cameron backs down in face of looming rebellion over the immigration bill. According to reports, Tory ministers will abstain on the Dominic Raab amendment that ministers have been dismissing as unworkable. Labour MPs are also expected to abstain on it, although party sources have not confirmed that this morning. The Lib Dems are due to vote against. (See 12.31pm.)
The Spectator's James Forsyth says the government will abstain on the Raab amendment.
James Forsyth (@JGForsyth)
BREAKING: Government abstaining on Raab amendment
But Lib Dems voting against Raab amendment
Cameron and Tory payroll abstaining on Raab amendment as sympathetic to its aims but think that it doesn't work legally
Bill Cash, a Conservative, asks if there is a danger the Conservatives could be regarded as the "nasty party" if they put this into effect.
(May famously warned about the Conservatives being seen as the "nasty party" when she was party chairman.)
No, says May.
Dominic Raab, the Conservative, intervenes.
He says he "broadly supports" this measure.
But could it be applied to someone abroad? And how would an appeal handle sensitive intelligence evidence?
May says this new procedure could apply to someone abroad.
Mark Pritchard, a Conservative, asks about Abu Hamza. He had Egyptian citizenship, but this was withdrawn. How many prisoners would this new power apply to?
May says she is not necessarily talking about prisoners. The number of people covered would be very small.
Since 2006 - she say she was wrong earlier when she said the date was 2003 - only 27 people have been deprived of citizenship on the grounds of their citizenship being not conducive to the public good.
And 13 people have lost their citizenship because they applied fraudulently, she says.
She says people would not necessarily have to be convicted to lose citizenship.
Mike Thornton, a Lib Dem MP, says the new power could be abused in the future by a different home secretary. Someone could be stripped off their citizenship, and left in the UK unable to work.
May says that she is only proposing to remove citizenship in exceptional circumstances.
This is the position the UK had prior to 2003 when the law was changed.
All the government is doing is returning the government's position to what it was under the UN convention, she says.
Labour's Jeremy Corbyn says anyone who becomes stateless would become destitute, because they would be ineligible for benefits.
May says she has not been able to use this power yet.
A stateless person would not have a passport, and would not have full access to services, she says.
Keith Vaz, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, says she accepts that May only wants to use this power sparingly.
But how would May then get rid of someone rendered stateless. What happens if they have no documents?
May says this would be done where an individual would have the ability to apply for citizenship of another country.
Labour's Frank Dobson says when he first became an MP, anyone born in Britain automatically became a British citizen. That law was changed by the Thatcher government.
Will this law apply to the children of naturalised citizens?
May says it would only apply to naturalised citizens. And it would only apply to people who pose a serious threat.
Alok Sharma, a Conservative, says he is a naturalised British citizen. This law applies to him. And he supports it wholeheartedly. He suggests it should go further, and apply to all British citizens.
Theresa May says Sharma makes an important point.
Sarah Teather, the Lib Dem former minister, says May seems to be asking for "a blank cheque to remove people's rights".
May says she does not accept that description.
She would only be able to use this power in specific and limited circumstances.
In doing this, she would be going back to the UN convention process, she says.
Labour's David Hanson asks why this amendment has only been tabled at the last minute.
May says she will address this.
She says she has introduced this amendment in response to a specific case.
The current law allows her to remove citizenship if it would be conducive to the public good. But she cannot do this if it would leave someone stateless.
This issue was recently considered by the supreme court, in the Al-Jedda case.
In December 2007 Hilal Al-Jedda was deprived of citizenship. The supreme court rejected the Home Office's claim that Al-Jedda could resume his Iraqi citizenship.
After that, she asked if British law went further than the UN convention in terms of limiting the government's power to make someone stateless.
She says she has discussed this at length with people in government. She discussed this with members of the Lib Dem parliamentary party in December.
Britain has signed the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, she says.
Theresa May Photograph: /BBC Parliament
Labour's Keith Vaz asks if the new measure would give Theresa May the power to leave someone stateless.
May says this would extend the home secretary's power. She will explain how.
At last. Theresa May is now on New Clause 18 - the one that would give the government the power to deprive foreign-born terror suspects of their citizenship.
This is not a matter she takes lightly, she says.
But it is an idea with a long history. During World War One legislation was passed allowing the government to take citizenship away from a naturalised citizen if they were accused of treasonable activities.
So this is not a new power, she says.
At the moment she can remove citizenship in two circumstances: if it was obtained by deception; or if removing citizenship would be conducive to the public good.
11.57am GMT
May has still not got on to the issues in the Raab amendment (deporting foreign criminals) or in the Mills amendment (Bulgaria and Romania). She is going on about visa fees at the moment.
Labour's Chris Bryant thinks she's time wasting.
Chris Bryant (@ChrisBryantMP)
Is Theresa May intending to speak till the guillotine at 4 so Raab and Mills amendments don't even get moved?
There is more about the Raab amendment here.
Theresa May now turns to New Clause 12 - the one that would allow the government to deprive foreign-born terror suspects of their citizenship.
And then she says she made a mistake - New Clause 12 actually relates to something else, she says.
(May is normally quite an assured Commons performer. But today she sounds rather unsure of herself, and she's talking much faster than usual, as if she's a bit nervous.)
Theresa May is rattling through the government amendments now, summarising them all very briefing.
She still has not addressed the issues raised either by Dominic Raab's amendment, or Nigel Mills' one. (See 8.59am.)
Labour say that Mark Harper, the immigration minister, was originally meant to be opening the debate. They claim that the fact that he was substituted by Theresa May at the last minute is a sign of "chaos".
More from the lobby briefing.
No 10 say there are 'workability' issues with the Raab amendment. But, absurdly, they won't say if they'll vote against it...
Downing Street's approach to Raab amendment seems to be to close eyes, stick fingers in ears and hope that it goes away...
Here's some news from the Number 10 lobby briefing.
steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes)
No.10 spokesman refuses to say how Govt will vote if the Raab Amendment goes before MPs this afternoon in the Immigration Debate
MPs debate the immigration bill
The debate is starting now.
Theresa May, the home secretary, is opening.
She admits that a lot of government amendments have been tabled.
Many of them are minor and technical, she says.
She focuses on New Clause 11 - a new government amendment that will make it easier for the government to tackle the problem of sham marriages.
On the Today programme this morning the former Conservative leader Michael Howard made an appeal to Conservative MPs for unity.
I think, as I say, it's very important that we present the Conservative party as a united party in the run up to the election. Tomorrow in the House of Lords Labour and Liberal Democrat peers are going to make yet another attempt to stop the country having a say about our whole relationship with Europe after the next election. Lets make sure that we give the people a say, let's make sure that we have a government after the election that can act in the best interests of the country and let's present ourselves as a unified party of the electorate.
Howard also said that Dominic Raab's amendment would bring the government into conflict with the European convention on human rights. He also said the bill would already make it easier for foreign criminals to be deported.
The immigration debate will start within the next half an hour.
At the moment Andrew Lansley, the leader of the Commons, is taking business questions.
Angela Eagle, his Labour shadow, used it to raise the bill.
angela smith mp (@angelasmithmp)
Is the Govt running scared of its own backbenchers? @angelaeagle asks in Bus Qns #immigrationbill
Angela Eagle (@angelaeagle)
Leader of House unconvincingly claims everything is fine with the chaos that is the Immigration Bill & that there is no extra time available
And Labour's Chris Bryant told Lansley just now that he had been "stitched up" by the Speaker in the light of the way the amendments have been grouped.
Here is a briefing paper from the Commons library explaining what the immigration bill sets out to achieve (pdf).
The Telegraph's James Kirkup thinks Number 10 could offer Dominic Raab a deal to head of the looming rebellion.
Signs are that No 10 is open to a deal over Raab, though there is angry muttering that LDs are blocking.
And Norman Smith has the latest numbers.
norman smith (@BBCNormanS)
107 MPs have now signed Raab rebel motion on Immigration Bill #tinhatson
Labour's Chris Bryant has tweeted the list showing how the amendments have been grouped.
The Speaker selection. NC15 is Raab amendment. NC1 is Mills. pic.twitter.com/mRF6Vwzjd0
I gather the Speaker has placed the Raab amendment on immigration in the first group of amendments, so there will be a vote.
Here's what the Press Association has filed about the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, accepting the Dominic Raab amendment.
Ministers are set for a showdown with Tory rebels over the immigration bill after it was confirmed a crucial amendment backed by restive backbenchers will be debated in the Commons.The amendment, supported by dozens of Tory MPs, would give ministers rather than judges the final say over whether deportation would breach the human rights of foreign criminals.Commons Speaker John Bercow selected the amendment tabled by Esher and Walton MP Dominic Raab in the first group for debate, meaning there will be time for a vote. Home Secretary Theresa May tried to appease potential rebels last night by unveiling proposals that would mean terror suspects can be stripped of British citizenship even if it leaves them stateless. Raab raised concerns that the government was attempting to swamp his "commonsense" proposal by tabling a slew of its own amendments to the bill.
Nick Clegg's LBC phone-in - Summary
Here are the main points from Nick Clegg's Call Clegg phone-in.
• Clegg said he would not support legislation to ban smoking in cars containing children. Of course smoking with children in the car was a "stupid thing to do", he said. But he went on:
I'm a quite old-fashioned liberal. I think you should not legislate unless you think it is going to make a difference. And I don't see how this is going to be enforced.
• He defended the plans announced by Theresa May, the home secretary, to give the government powers to strip foreign-born terror suspects of their British citizenship.
Theresa May has announced - I know it's controversial, but I think it's justifiable - that in a very, very small number of cases people who have taken up British citizenship, aren't born as British citizens but have taken up British citizenship, that pose a real, real threat to the security of this country, that citizenship can be revoked.
• He said that Maajid Nawaz would not be dropped as the Lib Dems' parliamentary candidate in Hampstead and Kilburn for tweeting a cartoon of Muhammad and Jesus.
He's not going to be dropped as a Liberal Democrat candidate. He has the right, as any Muslim, non-Muslim, anyone of any faith and none in this country has, to say things even if that causes offence to other people.
Clegg said that he deplored the threats to Nawaz. Free speech had to be protected, he said. But he also said that he would not have tweeted the cartoon himself, that Nawaz had caused "real offence" and that it was best to be sensitive when discussing matters of faith.
I'd be the first to say that when you're dealing with issues of religion and deeply held faith you've got to express yourself moderately and sensitively and with respect one to the other. The corollary of freedom of speech is also the freedom to deploy that freedom of speech in a sensitive, moderate way.
•Clegg mocked Ukip, saying that it was now a party with no policies. "Your own leader says that your party is populate with Walter Mittys and that your last manifesto was drivel," he told a caller who supports Ukip.
• He criticised Lib Dems in Weymouth for not telling the party's HQ about a councillor accused of the rape of a child. The delay meant the councillor was not suspended from the party until this week. That was a "very serious mistake", Clegg said.
Clearly when a local party is aware of allegations of that gravity, of that seriousness, and choose not to pass it up the food chain, something has gone wrong. And I am not happy at all, to put it mildly, that a local party, and I don't care who's in it, or where they are, if you are confronted with those kind of allegations about a Liberal Democrat member, you tell somebody else so that action can be taken.
I've taken some of the quotes from PoliticsHome.
Nick Clegg Photograph: TOBY MELVILLE/REUTERS
Updated at 10.16am GMT
9.52am GMT
It looks like we will get a crunch vote in the immigration debate.
PoliticsHome (@politicshome)
Dominic Raab's amendment to the Immigration Bill has been selected by Speaker and will be voted on
Q: Will you support the Lib Dem candidate Maajid Nawaz?
Clegg says that we cannot accept the threats that have been made to Nawaz.
But people also have a responsibility to discuss religious issues with sensitivity. That is why Nawaz was right to express regret.
But the threats against him are unacceptable.
Q: Will you drop him as a candidate?
No, says Clegg.
Q: Would you have tweeted that cartoon?
No, says Clegg. But he has tweeted it. We live in a free society.
Nick Ferrari ends the programme by announcing that LBC is going national on digital radio from February.
Q: What will you do about the terror suspect "BM" who has been subject to a Tpim?
Clegg says there was a problem with control orders. People kept absconding. And they kept getting challenged in the courts.
Instead the government introduced Tpims. They are more secure, he says.
Q: How are they more secure? Two people subject to them are on the run?
Clegg says, under Labour's approach, the government kept getting tripped up in court.
Under the immigration bill, the way the courts interpret article eight of the European convention on human rights.
And today Theresa May has announced plans that would allow terror suspects to have their citizenship revoked. Clegg says he knows this is controversial. But he thinks it is right.
Q: Do you support a ban on smoking in cars with children?
Clegg says he thinks that is not something you should do. Of course it is wrong.
But the question is, would a law make any difference? He's an old-fashioned liberal. He thinks that a law like this would be impossible to enforce.
We also know what it is bad for children to spend six hours a day in front of the TV. But do we sent police into people's homes? And we know that they eat too much junk food. But the same argument applies.
Clegg says adults should be expected to behave responsibly. He says he believes in liberty. But he believes in responsibility too.
Q: Where do you smoke?
Clegg says he does not know if his children even know if he smokes.
Q: How many other Lib Dem scandal stories are that we do not know about?
Clegg says of course he is not covering up cases like this.
With Mike Hancock, as soon as the allegations were presented "to me", he acted.
Q: Why has the government got rid of the National Rivers Authority?
Clegg says he does not know about this. But the government has tried to rationalise the number of quangos that exist.
Q: Some Lib Dems have accused Ukip of being a nasty party because of the extreme views of some members. But over the last six months there have been seven cases of serious allegations about members of the Lib Dems. Aren't they the real nasty party?
Clegg asks if the caller is a Ukip member. The caller says he is. Clegg says Nigel Farage himself has said that some Ukip members have been Walter Mitty types and that its manifesto at the last election was drivel.
As for the Lib Dems, he mentions a councillor in Weymouth accused of serious wrong-doing. In some cases Clegg has admitted the party should have acted earlier. But in other cases it has acted promptly.
Parties are about people. But they are also about values. Ukip does not have any policies now, because it has ripped up it manifesto. Clegg says the Lib Dems have different values. They do not believe in pulling up the drawbridge.
Farage himself said the party was full of fantasists, Clegg says.
Q: Why did you not act more quickly about the councillor in Weymouth?
Clegg says the local party did not notify HQ. As soon as party HQ found out, the man was suspended. The case is now going to court, he says. He says he was "not happy at all" about not being notified of this case earlier.
Nick Clegg hosts his Call Clegg phone-in
Nick Clegg is hosting his LBC phone-in.
Q: Why are we taking Syrian regugees now? And why just refugees from Syria? And how will you decide how to select people?
Clegg says it is not an either/or issue. The government can help people abroad, and help people at home too.
Q: But why is Britain focusing on Syria, and not, for example, the Democratic Republic of Congo?
Clegg says just because Britain cannot help everywhere, that does not mean it should not help in places where it can.
Q: But how can you afford to do this, but not afford £4m to dredge the rivers in Somerset?
Clegg says the Somerset issue is not a matter of money. It was about whether the authorities thought dredging was a good idea.
Q: How many Syrian refugees will come?
Clegg says he thinks it will be several hundred.
At last, it's here. David Cameron has been delaying the next stage of the debate on the immigration bill for weeks, because he knew that the report stage debate would see dozens of Tory MPs trying to vote against the government and in favour of a much tougher stance on immigration.
At around 11.30am the report stage debate will finally get going. But it has to wrap up by 4pm, the government itself has tabled dozens of its own amendments (in addition to the ones tabled by rebel backbenchers) and, at this stage, it is not clear how many votes we will actually get.
Here is a quick summary of the key developments.
• Theresa May, the home secretary, has tabled a last-minute amendment that would allow British citizens who are terror suspects to be stripped of their citizenship.
• Almost 100 Conservative MPs are backing an amendment tabled by the Conservative backbencher Dominic Raab which would stop foreign criminals being about to use their right to a family life under the European convention on human rights to avoid deportation. As the Guardian has reported, some senior former Labour ministers, including David Blunkett, are also in favour. But there is no guarantee that the Raab amendment will get put to a vote.
• Dozens of Conservative MPs are also backing an amendment tabled by the Conservative backbencher Nigel Mills which would reintroduce the transitional controls on immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania that were lifted on 1 January. Mills defended his plans in this Telegraph article. Again, MPs may not get a chance to vote on this.
• Stephen Phillips, another Conservative backbencher, has tabled amendments that would oblige the Home Office to report on whether allowing immigrants from any new countries joining the EU to come to the UK would lead to excessive immigration. The Home Office seems to be backing this as a compromise. As Isabel Hardman writes at Coffee House, this is one of several strategies the government has been using to try to avert the looming rebellion.
I will be following the debate in detail.
Here's the agenda for the day.
9am: Nick Clegg hosts his LBC Call Clegg phone-in.
Around 11.30am: MPs start debating the immigration bill. The report stage debate will run until 4pm, and the third reading debate until 5pm.
3pm: David Cameron gives evidence to the joint committee on national security strategy.
I plan to be focusing in particular today on the immigration debate. But, as usual, I will also be flagging up any breaking political news, posting summaries at lunchtime and in the afternoon with a round-up of all the day's developments, and highlighting the most interesting political articles on the web.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.
Updated at 9.05am GMT
Tory immigration rebels deal blow to David Cameron's authority
Attempt to curb ability of foreign criminals to resist deportation defeated, as government is forced to rely on Labour support
All at sea over immigration: David Cameron can't steer this Tory ship
Theresa May snookered in the crucible
Tory rebel MPs refuse to abstain on foreign criminal deportation vote
Cameron's Tories are even more rebellious than Major's. Whatever happened to loyalty?