Rwanda did not receive any funding to sign new asylum treaty, says James Cleverly

Published

2 years ago

December 5, 2023

admin

Rwanda has not received any additional funding for the new treaty it has signed to revive the UK government’s asylum plan, the home secretary has said.

James Cleverly told a press conference in the Rwandan capital of Kigali: “Let me make it clear. The Rwandan government has not asked for and we have not provided any funding linked to the signing of this treaty.”

However, Mr Cleverly added that while Rwanda did not ask for money specifically for the treaty, “dealing with migration” was not a “cost-free option”.

“The financial arrangement which inevitably comes as part of an international agreement reflects the costs that may be imposed on Rwanda through the changes that this partnership has created in their systems: in their legal systems and their institutions,” he said.

“No money was asked for by the Rwandans for this treaty. No money was provided to the Rwandans for this treaty.

“Dealing with migration is important and it is not a cost-free option, but we regard it as the right thing to do.”

Politics latest: ‘Unlikely’ treaty alone will rescue policy

Mr Cleverly was responding to questions about reports Rwanda was in line for an additional £15m to secure the treaty – on top of the £140m that has already been committed to the scheme by the UK government.

Under the Rwanda plan, people who arrive in the UK by unauthorised means would be sent to the African country while their asylum claim is processed.

On arrival, people could be granted refugee status and allowed to stay, or apply for sanctuary in another “safe third country”.

The policy has formed a core part of the government’s strategy to tackle small boat crossings in the Channel in the hope it will act as a deterrent.

However, it has been forced to sign the new treaty today after the Supreme Court ruled that the policy was “unlawful” because there was a chance people sent there could be returned to another country where they were at risk of persecution under a process known as “refoulement”, in what would be a breach of international law.

Rwanda ‘very much committed’ to deal

After signing the new treaty today, Mr Cleverly told the press conference he felt “very strongly” that the deal “addresses all the issues raised by the Supreme Court”.

“We’ve addressed the issues that were raised by their Lordships in this treaty and that will be reflected in domestic legislation soon because we are absolutely committed to breaking the business model of these people smuggling gangs, to create a safe and welcoming environment with our friends and partners here in Rwanda, but also making sure that mass migration is well-managed into the future,” he said.

Rwanda’s foreign affairs minister Vincent Biruta, sitting alongside Mr Cleverly, said he believed his country had been “unfairly treated” by the courts, international organisations and the media.

But he said his country was “very much committed” to the asylum deal and would remain on board with it even in the event of further setbacks and delays.

“This is the reason why we worked with our colleagues from the UK to address the concerns of the UK Supreme Court,” Mr Biruta said.

He added that while some elements could still be adjusted, “we are committed to the partnership and we don’t have a plan to withdraw from this cooperation”.

Number 10 moves to clarify fears over family visa salary cap

Mr Cleverly’s visit to Rwanda came just a day after the government launched separate measures to cut legal migration to the UK after recent statistics showed net migration at a record high of 745,000 in 2022.

In a five-point plan outlined in the Commons yesterday, Mr Cleverly said the government would introduce a ban on care workers bringing their families over to the UK and raise the minimum salary required for a skilled worker visa to £38,700 from next spring.

The minimum threshold for a family visa will also be raised to £38,700 to “ensure people only bring dependants whom they can support financially”. Currently, it stands at the 2012 rate of £18,600.

The increase in salary threshold has sparked concerns that British citizens who are poorer will no longer be able to live with their foreign partners in the UK.

Downing Street sought to assuage the concerns by saying that the minimum income of £38,700 was for a “household as a whole”.

A Number 10 spokesman also said that Britons earning less than £38,700 could still live with their foreign spouses in the UK in “exceptional circumstances”.

“That is just one way that people can demonstrate their ability to support a dependant,” the prime minister’s official spokesman explained. “They can also demonstrate this through their level of savings.”

“If you don’t meet the minimum income requirement, you may also be able to bring a dependant to the UK if you get certain benefits, for example, disability living allowance,” the spokesman added.

Politics

‘We’re a team’: Jess Phillips defends PM’s decision to suspend Labour rebels

Published

2 hours ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Starmer suspends four Labour MPs for breaches of party discipline

A minister has defended Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to discipline rebellious MPs, saying they would have used “stronger” language against those who are “continually causing trouble”.

Home Office minister Jess Phillips told Sky News’ Matt Barbet that Labour MPs were elected “as a team under a banner and under a manifesto” and could “expect” to face disciplinary action if they did not vote with the government.

It comes after the prime minister drew criticism for suspending four Labour MPs who voted against the government on its flagship welfare bill earlier this month, while stripping a further three of their roles as trade envoys.

Politics latest: PM to welcome German chancellor

Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff, Neil Duncan-Jordan and Rachael Maskell all lost the whip, meaning they are no longer part of Labour’s parliamentary party and will sit as independent MPs.

Labour backbenchers lined up to criticise the move last night, arguing it was a “terrible look” that made “a Reform government much more likely”.

But speaking to Sky News, Ms Phillips said: “We were elected as a team under a banner and under a manifesto, and we have to seek to work together, and if you are acting in a manner that is to undermine the ability of the government to deliver those things, I don’t know what you expect.

“Now I speak out against things I do not like, both internally and sometimes externally, all the time.

“There is a manner of doing that, that is the right way to go about it. And sometimes you feel forced to rebel and vote against.”

Referring to a description of the rebels by an unnamed source in The Times, she said: “I didn’t call it persistent knob-headery, but that’s the way that it’s been termed by some.”

She said she would have described it as “something much more sweary” because “we are a team, and we have to act as a team in order to achieve something”.

More than 100 MPs had initially rebelled against the plan to cut personal independent payments (PIP). Ultimately, 47 voted against the bill’s third reading, after it was watered down significantly in the face of defeat.

Three other MPs – who also voted against the government – have had their trade envoy roles removed. They are Rosena Allin Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin.

However, it is understood this was not the only reason behind the decision to reprimand all seven MPs, with sources citing “repeated breaches of party discipline”.

Ms Maskell was one of the lead rebels in the welfare revolt, and has more recently called for a wealth tax to fund the U-turn.

Mr Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire, proposed a series of amendments to the flagship planning and infrastructure bill criticising the government’s approach.

Mr Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, led a rebellion against the cut to the winter fuel payments while Alloa and Grangemouth MP Mr Leishman has been critical of the government’s position on Gaza as well as the closing of an oil refinery in his constituency.

Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, wrote on X on Wednesday that the prime minister’s actions “don’t show strength” and were “damaging Labour’s support and risk rolling out the red carpet for Reform”.

Leeds East MP Richard Burgon added that “challenging policies that harm our communities” would “make a Reform government much more likely”.

Ian Lavery, Labour MP for Blyth and Ashington, warned the suspensions were “a terrible look”.

“Dissatisfaction with the direction the leadership is taking us isn’t confined to the fringes,” he wrote.

Politics

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer’s MP suspensions

Published

4 hours ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer's MP suspensions

I’m going to level with you – I am very, very confused.

In fact, I’ve got five reasons why I’m very confused.

The first reason I’m confused is because this is meant to be a show of strength, but most people have literally never heard of these four individuals.

Rachael Maskell is a bit well-known, but if this is intended to impress the public, then I’m not sure the public will notice.

Secondly, if it’s about installing discipline in the parliamentary Labour Party, I’m confused about that. Surely Sir Keir Starmer‘s aim right now should be to unite the parliamentary Labour Party rather than divide it.

After the welfare rebellion, the promise was to listen. Starmer gave interviews saying he was going to create policy more sympathetic to his party.

This is the opposite approach.

The third reason I’m confused is because they’ve been suspended in part for their role in the welfare rebellion that forced the government into its U-turn.

It was only yesterday morning that Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the government’s welfare reforms were in the “right place” – yet the people who helped get them there are suspended.

Suspended for agreeing with what is now government policy is an odd look.

Fourth, I’m confused at who the most prominent individual to be suspended is – Rachael Maskell.

She was on Sky News within minutes of the suspension looking genuinely surprised and really rather upset.

Now, there’s absolutely no doubt she was a ringleader in this rebellion. Eight days ago, she authored an article in the New Statesman discussing how to organise a government rebellion – so I think that’s pretty much case closed.

But Rachael is of the soft left, not the hard left. And who else is on the soft left? It’s Starmer.

It does feel as if the prime minister is slightly coming for people who have dangerously similar views to him.

I understand this is all about drawing hard lines and showing who’s on your team and who isn’t.

But some of that line looks like it goes awfully close to people that you really wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of if you’re prime minister.

And finally, three other MPs – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin – have been sacked from their trade envoy jobs. They do retain the party whip.

But here’s the thing that hurts your head: if you are a Lib Dem trade envoy, like Sarah Olney, or if you’re a Tory trade envoy, as George Freeman was until a couple of weeks ago when he was suspended, you do not have to obey the whip – and you can continue to keep your trade envoy role.

But if you’re in the Labour Party and you’re a trade envoy, you do have to obey the whip.

And it’s just one of those mad inconsistencies where if you’re in another party, you can keep your trade envoy role, if you’re in the governing party, you can’t. That just doesn’t make sense at all.

So there are my five reasons why I’m completely confused.