Babak Belurs

Rabu, 06 Desember 2023

Robert Jenrick resigns as immigration minister over Rwanda legislation - BBC

By Becky Morton

Political reporter

Robert Jenrick has resigned as immigration minister, saying the government's emergency Rwanda legislation "does not go far enough".

He said "stronger protections" were needed to end "the merry-go-round of legal challenges which risk paralysing the scheme".

The government said the bill, unveiled earlier, made clear in UK law Rwanda was a safe country for asylum seekers.

But it stops short of what some on the Tory right were demanding.

In his resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, Mr Jenrick said the prime minister had "moved towards my position" on the emergency legislation.

"Nevertheless, I am unable to take the currently proposed legislation through the Commons as I do not believe it provides us with the best possible chance of success."

Mr Jenrick added that the bill was "a triumph of hope over experience".

In response, the prime minister described Mr Jenrick's resignation as "disappointing" and "based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation".

"If we were to oust the courts entirely, we would collapse the entire scheme," Mr Sunak said.

"The Rwandan government have been clear that they would not accept the UK basing this scheme on legislation that could be considered in breach of our international law obligations."

The plans to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda aim to deter people from crossing the English Channel in small boats.

But the scheme has been repeatedly delayed by legal challenges and no asylum seekers have been sent to the east African country from the UK so far.

Mr Jenrick, who had supported Mr Sunak's leadership campaign, said the emergency legislation was the "last opportunity" to prove the government would do "whatever it takes" to stop small boat crossings.

Losing a minister who was once a key ally is a blow for Mr Sunak, in a week when the government had been trying to get on the front foot on migration.

Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: "It is a sign of the total chaos in the Tory party and the complete collapse of Rishi Sunak's leadership that even while he is sitting in the Commons for the announcement of his new Rwanda plan, his own immigration minister is resigning because he doesn't think it will work."

Senior figures are musing privately that they would not be surprised if Mr Sunak ended up facing a confidence vote from his own MPs.

Although it may not come to that, it is a measure of the bleak mood among many Conservatives.

This video can not be played

To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Reports of Mr Jenrick's resignation first started swirling after the government published the draft bill.

The legislation aims to address the concerns of the UK's Supreme Court, which last month ruled plans to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda were unlawful.

The bill - which must be approved by Parliament - orders the courts to ignore key sections of the Human Rights Act in an attempt to sidestep the Supreme Court's existing judgement.

It also orders the courts to ignore other British laws or international rules - such as the international Refugee Convention - that stand in the way of deportations to Rwanda.

However, it does not go as far as some Tory MPs wanted.

Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and her supporters had called for it to override the entire Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Refugee Convention, and all other international law.

The bill allows ministers to ignore any emergency order from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to temporarily halt a flight to Rwanda while an individual case is still being considered.

But it stops short of providing powers to dismiss the whole of the ECHR.

It also allows migrants to legally challenge their removal to Rwanda on specific individual grounds, if they can prove that being put on a plane would leave them at real risk of serious harm.

A source close to Mrs Braverman said the bill was "fatally flawed" and would be "bogged down in the courts for months and months".

However, if the government had agreed to her demands this would have provoked a backlash from centrist Tories.

The One Nation group, which is made up of more than 100 Tory MPs, had warned that overriding the ECHR was a "red line" for a number of Conservatives.

The group cautiously welcomed "the government's decision to continue to meet the UK's international commitments which uphold the rule of law" but added that it would seek legal advice "about concerns and the practicalities of the bill".

The draft legislation concedes that it may not be compatible with the ECHR.

This means government lawyers have told ministers the measures could still be legally challenged.

Who is Robert Jenrick?

The former solicitor became a Conservative MP when he was elected in the 2014 by-election in the Nottinghamshire seat of Newark.

He was promoted into the cabinet as housing secretary in 2019 by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Mr Jenrick, a 41-year-old father-of-three, also briefly served as a junior health minister in Liz Truss's government, despite backing Mr Sunak for the Tory leadership.

As immigration minister he consistently pushed for a harder line on legal and illegal immigration, expressing frustration at the high levels of both.

He was also at the centre of several controversies, including a row over approving planning permission for Tory donor Richard Desmond.

Mr Jenrick was also criticised for ordering a mural of Disney characters at a child asylum centre to be painted over.

To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Reports of Mr Jenrick's resignation started swirling after the government published the draft bill.

The legislation aims to address the concerns of the Supreme Court, which last month ruled plans to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda were unlawful.

The bill, which must be voted on by Parliament, orders the courts to ignore key sections of the Human Rights Act in an attempt to sidestep the Supreme Court's existing judgement.

It also orders the courts to ignore other British laws or international rules - such as the international Refugee Convention - that stand in the way of deportations to Rwanda.

However, it does not go as far as some Tory MPs wanted.

Mr Jenrick had been an ally of Mrs Braverman when she was in government.

But it stops short of providing powers to dismiss the whole of the ECHR.

It also allows migrants to legally challenge their removal to Rwanda on specific individual grounds, if they can prove that being put on a plane would leave them at real risk of serious harm.

A source close to Mrs Braverman said the bill was "fatally flawed" and would be "bogged down in the courts for months and months".

However, if the government had agreed to her demands this would have provoked a backlash from centrist Tories.

The One Nation group, which is made up of more than 100 Tory MPs, had warned that overriding the ECHR was a "red line" for a number of Conservatives.

The group cautiously welcomed "the government's decision to continue to meet the UK's international commitments which uphold the rule of law".

But it added that it would be seeking legal advice "about concerns and the practicalities of the bill".

The draft legislation concedes that it may not be compatible with the ECHR.

This means government lawyers have told ministers the measures could still be legally challenged.

Who is Robert Jenrick?

Mr Jenrick was a solicitor before he became the Conservative MP for Newark in 2014 in a by-election.

Boris Johnson promoted him to the cabinet as housing secretary in 2019.

The 41-year-old father-of-three briefly served as a junior health minister in Liz Truss's government, despite backing Mr Sunak for the Tory leadership.

As Mr Sunak's immigration minister he consistently pushed for a harder line on legal and illegal immigration, expressing frustration at the high levels of both.

He was at the centre of a number of controversies - including a row over approving planning permission for Tory donor Richard Desmond.

He was also criticised for ordering a mural of Disney characters at a child asylum centre to be painted over.

Related Topics

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiL2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jby51ay9uZXdzL3VrLXBvbGl0aWNzLTY3NjQwODMz0gEzaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmJjLmNvLnVrL25ld3MvdWstcG9saXRpY3MtNjc2NDA4MzMuYW1w?oc=5

2023-12-06 21:47:30Z
CBMiL2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jby51ay9uZXdzL3VrLXBvbGl0aWNzLTY3NjQwODMz0gEzaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmJjLmNvLnVrL25ld3MvdWstcG9saXRpY3MtNjc2NDA4MzMuYW1w

Boris Johnson gives evidence to Covid inquiry – UK politics live - The Guardian

Filters BETA

Lady Hallett starts by expressing her “concern” about the reports in the papers about what Boris Johnson will say.

She says what witnesses say in witness statements is supposed to be confidential until those statements are published. She goes on:

I wish to remind all those involved in the inquiry process they must maintain this confidentiality so as to allow the sharing of materials prior to hearings between those most involved in the inquiry process. Failing to respect confidentiality undermines the inquiry’s ability to do its job fairly, effectively and independently.

As we report this morning, there has been plenty of coverage in the papers about what Boris Johnson is likely to say to the Covid inquiry. In fact, there has been more advance leaking than you get with a budget. Some of this seems to be authorised, although probably not all of it. (If the editor wants a story on what Johnson is expected to say, a resourceful journalist will provide one, regardless of whether or not the Johnson camp are cooperating.)

If Johnson is trying to influence Lady Hallett, the inquiry chair, he is bound to fail; you can’t spin a judge. But if his team has been engaged in a pre-briefing operation, as seems likely, their target will be public opinion, not the inquiry team.

Here is a round-up of what the papers have been saying.

On Saturday

The pre-hearing coverage kicked off with this story in the Times, in which Steven Swinford, Chris Smyth and Oliver Wright said Johnson would admit to mistakes. They said:

Boris Johnson will next week admit that he “unquestionably made mistakes” over Covid but insist that the decisions he took ultimately saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

In his evidence to the Covid public inquiry the former prime minister is expected to issue an unreserved apology and say that he and his government were initially far too complacent and vastly underestimated the risks posed by the virus.

He will argue that he had a “basic confidence that things would turn out alright” on the “fallacious logic” that previous health threats such as BSE and Sars had not proven as catastrophic as feared.

However, he is expected to say that, overall, the government succeeded in its central aim of preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed by making the “right decisions at the right times”.

On Sunday

There was plenty more on Sunday, of which the best article was probably Tim Shipman’s in the Sunday Times. He said Johnson would argue that the first lockdown was delayed because scientists argued that “behavioural fatigue” would stop people complying with lockdown measures after a while, which meant they should not start too early. Shipman said:

Johnson has spent, aides say, almost a year preparing for his appearance in front of Baroness Hallett and her panel. He will make the case that many of the explosive WhatsApp exchanges that have left his government looking like it was in the middle of a civil war were simply conversations around the issues, or “dark humour” — but that the key decisions were made in formal meetings based on this official advice. One minister from the Johnson government who has read his written evidence said: “I think he gives a good account of himself, actually.”

In the Sun Sophia Sleigh also said Johnson would seek to deflect blame onto the scientists. She said:

An ally of the ex-PM told The Sun on Sunday: “The only trolley involved were the trolleys full of vaccines Boris helped deliver for the UK. Boris only changed his views when the scientific advice changed. The experts kept changing their tune on issues.”

And Glen Owen in the Mail on Sunday said Johnson wants more focus on whether the Covid virus was invented by the Chinese.

On Monday

On Monday Ben Riley-Smith in the Daily Telegraph said Johnson would deny Dominic Cummings’ claim that in February 2020 he was on holiday at Chevening trying to finish his book about Shakespeare instead of focusing on Covid.

On Tuesday

On Tuesday Steve Swinford and Chris Smyth in the Times said Johnson would suggest that Prof Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, was responsible for the first lockdown being delayed. They said:

Boris Johnson will claim that he delayed implementing the first lockdown on the advice of Sir Chris Whitty amid concerns that people would tire of the restrictions and flout the rules.

The former prime minister’s statement to the Covid inquiry is expected to say that given the “massive disbenefits” of lockdown it was “obviously right” to ensure that it was not implemented too soon.

He will highlight a series of warnings from Whitty, the chief medical officer, about the risks of locking down too early.

In the Telegraph Ben Riley-Smith and Blathnaid Corless said much the same thing, although they also quoted a source saying Johnson would not be “blaming” the scientists. They said:

Asked how the former prime minister would respond to [criticism about the timing of the first lockdown] an ally of Mr Johnson told The Telegraph that he would point to shifting scientific advice.

The source said: “The scientific advice was right up until the last minute that lockdowns were the wrong policy and herd immunity was the right policy. People might get lockdown fatigue so you had to do it at the right time.”

The source added: “We are not seeking to blame the scientists. They were doing a good job. It is more about getting an accurate recall on how little certainty there was around lockdown in February and March 2020. The scientists have to deal with the changing facts.”

In a recent edition of his The Rest is Politics podcast, which he co-hosts with Rory Stewart, Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former communications chief, recalled giving evidence to one of the Iraq inquiries. (I don’t think he was clear whether it was Hutton or Chilcot.) There were going to be protesters outside, and Campbell said he was offered the chance of going in by the back door. He refused, he said, and insisted on going in through the main entrance, ignoring the shouting.

This is what he posted on X this morning about Johnson dodging the protests at the Covid inquiry this morning.

What a coward. When the pandemic came he couldn’t be arsed to get from his bed in Chequers to Cobra meetings. But when there is a risk of being confronted by the consequences of his inactions he sneaks in as early as he can. Contemptible

Asked about Boris Johnson arriving three hours early for the Covid inquiry this morning, Chris Philp, the policing minister, joked “it’s the first time Boris has ever been early for anything”.

A van displaying a protest banner parked outside the Covid inquiry this morning.

Protesters outside the Covid inquiry this morning.

Outside the Covid inquiry representatives of families who lost loved ones during the pandemic are holding a mini press conference ahead of Boris Johnson’s evidence. Aamer Anwar, lead solicitor for the Scottish Covid Bereaved, was the first speaker. He said the evidence presented to the inquiry so far had presented “a deadly culture of impunity, of incompetence, of arrogance and blaming everyone else but themselves”.

UPDATE: Anwar said:

Boris Johnson is expected to issue an apology this morning.

Yet he will claim he saved thousands of lives.

For many of the bereaved that will be a grotesque distortion of the truth.

In Boris Johnson’s words, instead of solving a national crisis, his government presided over a total disgusting orgy of narcissism.

He did let the bodies pile up and the elderly were treated as toxic waste.

As a result, over a quarter of a million people died from Covid. They cannot speak for themselves but their families, the bereaved and all those impacted by Covid deserve the truth today.

Aamer Anwar reading his statement to the media.

Good morning. Boris Johnson has never been known for his punctuality. As a journalist he was famous for submitting his articles well beyond the deadline, and as PM he was not one of those ministers obsessed with starting and finishing meetings on time.

But this morning he arrived three hours early at the Covid inquiry, where he is due to start a two-day evidence session at 10am. Perhaps he’s got some last-minute reading to do. The fact that he managed to get in before relatives of people who died in the pandemic, who have been outside protesting at some hearings, were present may just have been a fortuitous bonus.

Henry Zeffman from the BBC has a picture.

When he left office, Johnson’s supporters used to claim that, on Covid, he got “all the big calls right”. More recently some of the briefing by his allies has settled on the line that he got most of the big calls right. The next two days will help to determine how the inquiry – and history – assesses his performance as a pandemic PM, and the final judgment is likely to be a bit closer to the “he didn’t get everything wrong” category.

As Peter Walker, Pippa Crerar and Ben Quinn report in their preview story, Johnson has been criticised for the extensive briefing about what he is going to say that has already appeared in the papers.

I will be focusing mostly on the Covid inquiry today. But I will break away to cover PMQs at noon, and if there are any other big political stories, they will feature too. We are still waiting for the government to finalise and publish its legislation intended to enable Rwanda deportation flights to go ahead, and that is expected before the end of the week.

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

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMifmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnRoZWd1YXJkaWFuLmNvbS9wb2xpdGljcy9saXZlLzIwMjMvZGVjLzA2L2JvcmlzLWpvaG5zb24tY292aWQtaW5xdWlyeS1wbXFzLWNvbnNlcnZhdGl2ZXMtbGFib3VyLXVrLXBvbGl0aWNzLWxhdGVzdNIBAA?oc=5

2023-12-06 09:16:00Z
CBMifmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnRoZWd1YXJkaWFuLmNvbS9wb2xpdGljcy9saXZlLzIwMjMvZGVjLzA2L2JvcmlzLWpvaG5zb24tY292aWQtaW5xdWlyeS1wbXFzLWNvbnNlcnZhdGl2ZXMtbGFib3VyLXVrLXBvbGl0aWNzLWxhdGVzdNIBAA

Foreign spouses could be told to leave UK under plans to cut legal migration - The Independent

New laws designed to slash the number of migrants by 300,000 a year risk splitting up families already living in the UK.

Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said.

The move is part of plans to cut net migration after it soared to nearly three-quarters of a million in 2022.

Experts, however, warned the planned crackdown was causing distress for many.

Downing Street defended the policy, saying it was right that “if you are bringing someone into the country you are able to support them”.

Under the plans unveiled on Monday those wishing to bring their spouse to the UK will now have to earn £38,700, a significant increase on the current figure of £18,600, and what has been described as a tax on love.

Former Tory minister Gavin Barwell said it was “both morally wrong and unconservative to say that only the wealthiest can fall in love, marry someone and then bring them to the UK”.

As well as applying to those yet to come to the UK, No 10 confirmed the new higher figure risks affecting those already here.

Asked if it would apply to partners when they came to renew their visas, No 10 said the change was “not retrospective, but it would apply to renewals in the future”.

At that point, people would be expected to “meet the visa requirements of the day”.

The prime minister’s official spokesperson added: “People always have a set length of time for their visas and will be aware at the conclusion of that visa time that they don’t have a guarantee that they will obviously remain in the country.”

The income level had not been updated for 10 years, No 10 said.

There are exemptions, but these will be on a case-by-case basis, and it stressed that the amount could be spread across the household.

Madeleine Sumption, the director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said the changes would make the UK an outlier among western nations.

“This is definitely completely different to what any other high-income country does,” she said.

Josephine Whitaker-Yilmaz, from migrant rights organisation Praxis, said she was concerned for families who feel “forced to make horrible decisions” due to the changes.

The changes are due to come into effect in spring and will apply when existing visas for foreign spouses come up for renewal.

The prime minister's spokesperson said on Tuesday: “The family immigration rules contain a provision for exceptional circumstances where there would be unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member if their application were to be refused.”

No examples were given and the spokesperson said applications would be considered on a “case-by-case basis”.

Official figures from April show the median gross annual earnings for full-time employees in the UK was £34,963.

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiZ2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmluZGVwZW5kZW50LmNvLnVrL25ld3MvdWsvcG9saXRpY3MvZm9yZWlnbi1zcG91c2UtdmlzYS11ay1taWdyYXRpb24tY3JhY2tkb3duLWIyNDU5MTY4Lmh0bWzSAQA?oc=5

2023-12-06 05:10:24Z
CBMiZ2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmluZGVwZW5kZW50LmNvLnVrL25ld3MvdWsvcG9saXRpY3MvZm9yZWlnbi1zcG91c2UtdmlzYS11ay1taWdyYXRpb24tY3JhY2tkb3duLWIyNDU5MTY4Lmh0bWzSAQA

Boris Johnson 'trying to rewrite history' before Covid inquiry appearance - The Guardian

Boris Johnson has been accused of trying to rewrite history in advance of his appearance at the Covid inquiry on Wednesday, as unions and relatives of those who died said his team had been briefing favourable stories to newspapers.

The TUC and Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, both core participants for this module of the inquiry, said the briefings had been about trying to salvage his legacy and contained “the usual lies and bluster”.

Johnson’s team have apparently helped to provide newspapers with a string of favourable stories before his appearance.

While briefings are within the rules, this is not the case if they rely on any materials provided to the inquiry, including witness statements. Heather Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, explicitly warned against briefing out details of witness statements in October.

Allies of Johnson insist he has not done this and that apparent direct quotes from his witness statement appearing in one report must have been leaked from another source.

If Lady Hallett sees things a different way, an already uncomfortable 48 hours for Johnson being questioned by Hugo Keith KC, the inquiry counsel, could begin with a direct reprimand.

After the existence of “disgusting and misogynistic” WhatsApp messages involving Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s former chief aide, was revealed in advance by the former chancellor George Osborne on his podcast, Hallett urged all those with access to evidence “to respect the terms on which it has been shared with them”.

It comes amid reports that six months-worth of Johnson’s own WhatsApp messages covering the start of the pandemic and lockdown cannot be retrieved due to “technical issues”.

Nathan Oswin, who leads on the inquiry for the TUC, said: “This inquiry is about learning the lessons of what went wrong so that we can save lives in the future. It shouldn’t be abused by politicians looking to salvage their legacies and rewrite history. Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak must play by the rules and put people above their own political fortunes.”

Matt Fowler, a spokesperson for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, said: “Boris Johnson’s team appear to have been leaking his witness statement left, right and centre ahead of his appearance tomorrow. Unsurprisingly, the claims he’s making are the usual lies and bluster.

“The inquiry has already entirely debunked the claim that ‘he got the big calls right’. In reality, when news of the pandemic first struck, Johnson treated it all like it was a joke, and as cases began to rise he delayed locking down, causing thousands of unnecessary deaths, such as my dad’s. Even worse, when the second wave came around he repeated all of the same mistakes, leading to even more people dying than in the first wave.”

A source close to Johnson insisted that the former PM’s team had not leaked any evidence in advance, adding: “We are as upset about this as they are.”

Bereaved relatives and others are expected to protest outside the inquiry venue in Paddington, west London, as Johnson arrives. He is the only witness this week for the current module, which examines decision-making and government structures during Covid.

Johnson is expected to admit that errors were made but try to argue that there were some successes, for example the speed of the initial vaccine rollout, and efforts to swiftly reopen the economy as the pandemic eased.

He has spent many hours been briefed by his own legal team but, like all witnesses, he will face Keith and barristers for core participants without any support or notes.

As well as a chronology of the decisions made, he is likely to also be asked about the structure and personalities of a Downing Street operation described by some previous witnesses as having a “culture of fear”, “poisonous” and “mad”.

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMihAFodHRwczovL3d3dy50aGVndWFyZGlhbi5jb20vdWstbmV3cy8yMDIzL2RlYy8wNi9ib3Jpcy1qb2huc29uLXRyeWluZy10by1yZXdyaXRlLWhpc3RvcnktYmVmb3JlLWNvdmlkLWlucXVpcnktYXBwZWFyYW5jZS1zYXktYmVyZWF2ZWTSAQA?oc=5

2023-12-06 07:00:00Z
CBMihAFodHRwczovL3d3dy50aGVndWFyZGlhbi5jb20vdWstbmV3cy8yMDIzL2RlYy8wNi9ib3Jpcy1qb2huc29uLXRyeWluZy10by1yZXdyaXRlLWhpc3RvcnktYmVmb3JlLWNvdmlkLWlucXVpcnktYXBwZWFyYW5jZS1zYXktYmVyZWF2ZWTSAQA

UK interior minister signs new Rwanda treaty to resurrect asylum plan - Reuters UK

Summary
Companies

UK attempts to revive deal after court rules plan unlawful
Home Secretary says treaty addresses raised by courts
Government legislation expected to stop legal challenges
Lawyers and charities say plan is likely to fail

KIGALI/LONDON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Britain signed a new treaty with Rwanda on Tuesday which it said would overcome a court decision blocking its plan to deport asylum seekers to the East African country, a ruling that dealt a huge blow to the government's immigration policy.

The Rwanda scheme is at the centre of the government's strategy to stop illegal migration and is being watched closely by other countries considering similar policies.

But last month, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled that the plan would violate international human rights laws enshrined in domestic legislation.

Under the new treaty, signed by British Home Secretary (interior minister) James Cleverly and which replaces a non-binding memorandum of understanding, Britain said Rwanda would not expel asylum seekers to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened - one of the court's major concerns.

There will also be a monitoring committee to enable individuals to lodge confidential complaints directly to them, and a new appeal body made up of judges from around the world.

Cleverly said he expected migrants to be heading to Rwanda in the coming months because the treaty addressed all the issues raised by the Supreme Court

"I really hope that we can now move quickly," Cleverly told reporters in Rwanda's capital Kigali.

However, many lawyers and charities said it was unlikely that deportation flights could start before an election expected next year. The opposition Labour Party, which has a double-digit lead in the polls, plans to ditch the Rwanda policy if it wins.

Under the plan agreed last year, Britain intends to send thousands of asylum seekers who arrived on its shores without permission to Rwanda to deter migrants making the dangerous journey across the Channel from Europe in small boats.

In return, Rwanda has received an initial payment of 140 million pounds ($180 million) with the promise of more money to fund the accommodation and care of any deported individuals.

PRESSURE

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, now in power for just over a year, is under intense pressure from both his own lawmakers and many voters to cut net migration, which hit a record 745,000 last year, with the vast majority coming through legal routes.

"Stop the boats" is one of five goals Sunak set for his government to end the flow of asylum seekers who pay people smugglers for their crossings, often in overcrowded boats that are not seaworthy.

The Supreme Court ruled against the Rwanda plan - first brought in by then prime minister Boris Johnson in April last year - because there was a risk that deported refugees would have their claims wrongly assessed or returned to their country of origin to face persecution.

The new treaty is expected to be followed later this week by the publication of legislation declaring Rwanda a so-called safe country, designed to stop legal challenges against the planned deportation flights.

However, this is likely to trigger a new round of political and legal wrangling. The first flight was scheduled to go last summer but was cancelled at the last moment because of legal challenges.

Sarah Gogan, an immigration lawyer at Harbottle & Lewis, said Rwanda's human rights record meant the government's "highly contentious" policy would be challenged in the courts and parliament.

"You cannot in a matter of weeks or months reform a country and turn it into one with an impartial judiciary and administrative culture," she said. "The treaty appears to be yet more fairytale politics and completely unworkable."

Yvette Cooper, Labour's home affairs spokeswoman, dismissed the government's latest plans as another "gimmick".

Additional reporting by Muvija M, Kylie MacLellan, Sarah Young and Rishabh Jaiswal; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Angus MacSwan

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Acquire Licensing Rights, opens new tab

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiWWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnJldXRlcnMuY29tL3dvcmxkL3Vrcy1jbGV2ZXJseS1zaWduLW5ldy1hc3lsdW0tdHJlYXR5LXdpdGgtcndhbmRhLTIwMjMtMTItMDUv0gEA?oc=5

2023-12-05 23:55:30Z
CBMiWWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnJldXRlcnMuY29tL3dvcmxkL3Vrcy1jbGV2ZXJseS1zaWduLW5ldy1hc3lsdW0tdHJlYXR5LXdpdGgtcndhbmRhLTIwMjMtMTItMDUv0gEA

Selasa, 05 Desember 2023