Rwanda plan ruled unlawful by Supreme Court – as Rishi Sunak says he could change law to push ahead

Published

1 year ago

November 15, 2023

admin

The government’s Rwanda plan, devised to tackle illegal migration, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, ending over 18 months of legal battles in the UK.

Lord Reed announced the “unanimous” judgment from the court’s justices on Wednesday, saying those sent to the country would be at “real risk” of being returned home, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not – breaching international law.

Politics live: PM ‘prepared to change law’ – and will hold news conference today

While charities celebrated the decision as “a victory for humanity”, Rishi Sunak said the judgment was “not the outcome we wanted”.

But he appeared to double down on the policy, telling the Commons he was “prepared to change laws and revisit… international relationships” if they were “frustrating” his plans.

The new Home Secretary James Cleverly announced the government planned to change its agreement with Rwanda into a treaty, with extra clauses to stop asylum seekers from being returned home, in the hope of settling the court’s concerns.

However, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused the government of “more of the magical thinking”.

Mr Sunak will hold a press conference at 4.45pm where he is sure to face questions on both the ruling and his future plans, as well as brewing anger on his backbenches over the impact of international human rights laws on his policies.

The Rwanda scheme, which would see those arriving in the UK illegally – including via small boats – deported to the east African nation, was first put forward by Boris Johnson in April 2022.

Successive prime ministers all claimed the policy would act as a deterrent to those seeking to cross the Channel, as well as help to break up people-smuggling gangs.

But critics consistently called the proposal “inhumane”, and the plan was dubbed a “gimmick” by political opponents.

An injunction from the European Court of Human Rights stopped the first flight to Rwanda from taking off in June last year and the scheme has been embroiled in litigation ever since, meaning no asylum seekers have yet been deported to the country.

Explainer: Everything you need to know about the Rwanda plan

Delivering the Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday, Lord Reed said there were “serious and systematic defects in Rwanda’s procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims”, including a “lack of legal representation” and risks that judges and lawyers “will not act independently of the government”.

The justice also said there was a “surprisingly high rate of rejection of asylum claims from certain countries in known conflict zones”, including Syria and Yemen, which many people coming to the UK may originate from.

He pointed to an “apparent inadequacy of the Rwandan government’s understanding of the requirements of the Refugee Convention”, specifically that under the United Nations agreement, asylum seekers had to be protected from “refoulement” – being sent back to their country of origin – and there was evidence the country had failed to comply with this when it signed a similar deal with Israel.

And while he accepted the deal had been “entered into… in good faith”, the evidence showed “there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will therefore be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin”.

Lord Reed said changes to eliminate that risk “may be delivered in the future”, and he underlined that the Supreme Court’s decision was a “legal question” based on international law – including the European Convention on Human Rights and various UN treaties – with the court “not concerned with the political debate” about the scheme.

After the ruling, Mr Sunak pointed to what he saw as the positives – namely that the court “confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful”.

Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, he sought to reassure his own MPs that he remained committed to the Rwanda plan, telling them: “The government has already been working in advance on a new treaty with Rwanda which we will finalise in light of today’s judgment to address the challenges that were raised.

“But let me say this again, if it becomes clear that our domestic legal frameworks or international conventions are still frustrating plans at that point, I am prepared to change laws and revisit those international relationships.

“The British people expect us to do whatever it takes to stop the boats and that is precisely what this government will deliver.

But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer pointed to the prime minister’s pledge in January that he would “stop the boats” by the end of the year, adding: “He has wasted all of his time on a gimmick and now he is absolutely nowhere.

“[He needs to] level with the British public and finally admit he’s failed to deliver on his promise.”

The ruling is now likely to reignite a row in the Conservatives over the UK’s future as a signatory of international human rights agreements – something the now ex-home secretary Suella Braverman has railed against.

MPs on the right of the party have been calling on the UK to exit or attempt to work around the European Human Rights Convention (EHRC), arguing the final say on government policy should be made in the British parliament rather than abroad.

One faction, called the New Conservatives, have been meeting this morning to discuss their next steps, and the party’s deputy chairman, Lee Anderson, said ministers should “ignore the law” and start sending asylum seekers to Rwanda anyway.

In her blistering letter to Mr Sunak after she was sacked earlier this week, Ms Braverman pre-emptively pinned the blame on the prime minister for the immigration policy she was charged with implementing falling in the courts, accusing him of not having a “plan B” to push forward.

Tweeting after the ruling, the former minister called for “emergency legislation” to “block” legal challenges, saying it would “give parliament a clear choice – control illegal migration or explain to the British people why they should accept ever greater numbers of illegal arrivals settling here”.

However, many in the party believe it is right to remain part of the agreements that protect human rights, standing alongside international allies.

Meanwhile, refugee charities celebrated the ruling, with the CEO of the Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, calling it “a victory for the rights of men, women and children who simply want to be safe”.

The chief executive of ActionAid UK also said the court’s decision came as a “huge sigh of relief”, as well as a vindication of “British values of compassion and dignity”.

And CEO of charity Choose Love, Josie Naughton, added: “Today’s decision is a moment of moral accountability.

“It shows the government cannot shirk its international obligations. Britain has a duty and legal responsibility to offer protection to refugees.”

Politics

JD Vance denies insulting British troops over ‘random country’ jibe

Published

1 hour ago

March 4, 2025

admin

JD Vance denies insulting British troops over 'random country' jibe

JD Vance has hit back at criticism after saying a potential peacekeeping force in Ukraine would be “20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

The US vice president was accused of “disrespecting” British forces who served alongside the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a former veterans minister branding him a “clown” who needs to “check his privilege”.

Politics latest: Trump stopping aid to Ukraine is ‘profoundly worrying’

Although the UK and France are the only countries to have pledged troops to a potential peacekeeping force, Mr Vance said the suggestion he was referring to those two allies is “absurdly dishonest”.

“I don’t even mention the UK or France in the clip, both of whom have fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond,” he said in a post on X.

“There are many countries who are volunteering (privately or publicly) support who have neither the battlefield experience nor the military equipment to do anything meaningful.”

Mr Vance made the initial comments to Fox News on Tuesday, saying the only security guarantee Donald Trump will provide for Ukraine is a minerals deal.

He said: “The president knows that if you want real US security guarantees, if you want to actually ensure that Vladimir Putin does not invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine.

“That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”

Several British politicians interpreted this as a dig at the UK and France, who have led the idea of a “coalition of the willing” to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.

James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, accused Mr Vance of “ignoring the service and sacrifice” of personnel from the two countries that fought in Afghanistan after 9/11.

He said that is the only time NATO’s Article 5 has been invoked, which holds that members of the alliance will come to the defence of an ally under attack.

He added: “Britain and France came to their aid deploying 1,000s of personnel to Afghanistan, including numerous parliamentary colleagues, past & present. It’s deeply disrespectful to ignore such service & sacrifice.”

Former Tory veterans minister Johnny Mercer called Mr Vance a “clown” who “needs to check his privilege”.

Helen Maguire, the Lib Dem’s defence spokesperson who also served in the army before her career in politics, accused Mr Trump’s deputy of “erasing the hundreds of British troops who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan from history”.

She said: “Six of my own regiment, the Royal Military Police, didn’t return home from Iraq. This is a sinister attempt to deny that reality. Vance has demeaned his office.”

Speaking after Mr Vance clarified his remarks, a Downing Street spokesperson said the US vice president was “talking about other countries” when asked if he should apologise.

They added Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer “is full of admiration for British troops who fought alongside the US and others in wars and their courage and bravery”.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch told GB News “a lot of people are getting carried away”.

“They’re saying loads of things and getting quite animated, let’s keep cool heads,” she said.

“I believe President Trump and JD Vance want peace, they’re looking after their national interest, we need to do so as well.”

It is not the first time Mr Vance has riled the UK, after previously attacking it over free speech and saying the UK is “Islamist under Labour”.

A history of JD Vance riling the UK

JD Vance seems to save some of his most incendiary comments about other countries for the UK.

Donald Trump’s vice president has regularly caused outrage among MPs, most recently with what many saw as a perceived dig at British troops.

During last year’s presidential election campaign, Mr Vance suggested Labour’s victory here made Britain the “first truly Islamist country” with nuclear weapons.

Recalling a conversation about who might be “the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon”, he said rather than it being somewhere like Iran, he settled on the UK “since Labour just took over”.

Mr Vance also used a landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference to criticise the UK and Europe over free speech, saying there had been a “backslide away from conscience rights” that had put “basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs”.

He doubled down on those remarks during Sir Keir Starmer’s meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, claiming the government’s stance is something that affects US tech companies and, therefore, American citizens.

Sir Keir interjected, saying “we’ve had free speech for a very long time, it will last a long time, and we are very proud of that”.

The row comes after the Trump administration paused military aid to Ukraine following an extraordinary showdown between the US President and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The falling out has thrown into jeopardy the prospect of a minerals deal, which would give the US access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare earth minerals.

Mr Trump has suggested this would deter Russia from invading Ukraine again if a peace deal is struck – but Sir Keir said yesterday that it would not be enough on its own.

The prime minister told MPs on Monday that Britain must “lead from the front” on supporting Ukraine and Europe must “do the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent”.

However, he said “to succeed, this effort must also have strong US backing”.

Politics

Everything you need to know about Sir Keir Starmer’s four-point peace plan for Ukraine

Published

1 hour ago

March 4, 2025

admin

Everything you need to know about Sir Keir Starmer's four-point peace plan for Ukraine

Sir Keir Starmer has declared that a “coalition of the willing” will come together and draw up a peace plan to end the war in Ukraine.

The prime minister said this will be presented to US President Donald Trump for his support, after he clashed publicly with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House last week.

Sir Keir unveiled his four-point plan for peace in the Commons on Monday, the day after European leaders – plus Canada and Turkey – hurriedly gathered in London for talks on the Ukraine war.

Politics latest: JD Vance hits back at claims he disrespected British troops

He said this so-called “coalition of the willing” would enforce any peace deal in the war-torn country, and announced a plan for Kyiv to use £1.6bn of UK export finance to buy 5,000 more air defence missiles.

Washington has since paused military aid to Kyiv, with no indication of how long this could last.

Here, Sky News explains everything you need to know about Europe’s plan for peace.

What is Sir Keir Starmer’s four-point plan?

The prime minister has warned there are more tough choices to come on the war in Ukraine, insisting the UK must “lead from the front” when it comes to securing peace in Europe.

He did just that over the weekend, when 19 leaders gathered at Lancaster House to discuss building a lasting peace.

Led by the UK and France, the initiative could see troops from a number of European and NATO countries deployed to Ukraine as peacekeepers in order to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from rearming and attacking again in the future.

At its heart is a four-point plan, which was agreed by attendees of the security summit:

1. Any lasting peace must guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security

2. Military aid to Ukraine must remain, while increasing the economic pressure on Russia

3. If a peace deal is reached, Ukraine’s defences must continue to be boosted

4. European leaders will join forces in a “coalition of the willing” to devise a peace plan for Ukraine. This will be presented to the US

What is the ‘coalition of the willing’?

The final point of Sir Keir’s plan points to a “coalition of the willing”, which will come together to devise a peace plan for Ukraine.

This could see troops from a number of European and NATO countries deployed to Ukraine as peacekeepers in order to deter Putin from invading in the future.

Sir Keir said Europe “must do the heavy lifting” on defence and indicated several countries had expressed interest in being part of the coalition.

This approach would allow NATO members to act in a group but not under the NATO umbrella, avoiding vetoes from member states who do not approve or do not wish to be involved.

It is not yet entirely clear who the “coalition of the willing” are, though the UK and France are likely involved. It is also likely the Baltic states – Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – will sign up to the initiative.