What is the new Rwanda plan and why is it controversial?
Rishi Sunak has introduced emergency legislation in a bid to salvage his embattled Rwanda asylum plan and deliver on his pledge to “stop the boats”.
The goal is to ensure those not entering the UK by legal means face being sent on a one-way trip to the east African country.
But last month, the Supreme Court ruled the policy unlawful and could not go ahead as it was, concluding there was a real risk genuine refugees sent to Rwanda could be returned to their home country, where they would face “ill-treatment”.
In a bid to address the concerns, Home Secretary James Cleverly travelled to the country’s capital Kigali to sign a fresh deportation treaty before setting out the details of a proposed bill, which faces its first parliamentary test on Tuesday.
What is the latest Rwanda plan?
It is made up of two parts, aimed at making the deal legally watertight and so avoiding further setbacks, which have so far blocked all deportation flights amid soaring costs of the stalled policy.
The treaty, which needs to be ratified by the UK and Rwandan parliaments to make it internationally binding, centres on providing assurances to the Supreme Court that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will not be removed and sent to another country where they face persecution.
As part of this, a new appeals process will be established to deal with exceptional cases, such as if someone living in the country under the scheme commits a crime.
British and Commonwealth judges, as well as Rwandan judges, will preside over the appeal hearings and decide whether the individual remains in Rwanda or is sent back to the UK.
Meanwhile, the legislation is designed to enable parliament to confirm Rwanda is a “safe country”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Rwanda scheme ‘will do the job’
In a bid to reduce the scope for domestic court hold-ups, the legislation gives ministers the powers to disregard sections of the Human Rights Act, but does not go as far as allowing them to dismiss the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The UK was among the first to ratify the international treaty which commits its 46 signatories to abide by rules on rights to life, liberty and expression, and protection from torture, degrading treatment and slavery.
It is not linked to the European Union, so Brexit did not affect the UK’s obligations.
Why does this matter?
Because Tory hardliners argue without making the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill more robust and allowing ministers to ignore asylum rulings by both domestic judges and the European Court of Human Rights, which makes binding judgments on the convention, the policy is destined to fail.
It led to the resignation of immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who argued the legislation was “a triumph of hope over experience”.
At the same time, centrist Conservative MPs are insisting the government respects the rule of law and the UK’s international obligations.
The public divisions causes a further headache for Mr Sunak as he seeks to take the legislation through parliament and reassert his authority over fractious backbenchers.
Read more:
Whatever happens in Rwanda vote, PM is in deep trouble
What is the European Court of Human Rights?
As well as differing positions on the ECHR, the Conservatives’ poor showing in the polls has heightened the tensions within the party.
A number of Tory MPs believe reducing immigration, and particularly ending the scenes of asylum seekers arriving on Kent’s beaches, will be key to narrowing Labour’s lead and want to see the government do everything possible to achieve that.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘My patience has worn thin, right?’
Although the government argues the proposed bill goes as far as it can as the Rwandan government will pull out of a deal that involves leaving the ECHR altogether, ministers have hinted at compromises with rebels.
Is party infighting the only problem facing the government?
No. As well as having to navigate the bill through the Commons, it also has to clear the House of Lords, where the Tory administration does not have a majority.
Any move to relax human rights safeguards are likely to encounter stiff opposition, not least among the many leading lawyers who sit on the red benches.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
The inability of the home secretary to guarantee the proposed law is compatible with the ECHR will only fuel concerns.
As the Rwanda plan was not a manifesto commitment, critics in the unelected chamber will also argue the usual convention of not delaying the delivery of an election pledge does not apply.
With an upcoming election, the timing also means the government cannot use powers under the Parliament Act to force through the legislation.
The stablecoin-regulating GENIUS Act is headed to Donald Trump’s desk, which is expected to shake up how stablecoins operate in the US and abroad.
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle knew about Afghan data leak and should have made ministers tell MPs, Dame Harriet Harman has claimed.
Speaking to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer said the Speaker – whose job she ran for in 2019 – should have asked for a key select committee to be made aware.
A spokesperson for the Speaker said he was “himself under a super-injunction” and so “would have been under severe legal restrictions”.
A massive data breach by the British military that was only made public this week exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 Afghan individuals, endangering them and their families.
Successive governments tried to keep the leak secret with a super-injunction, meaning the UK only informed everyone affected on Tuesday – three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised.
The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023.
A super-injunction which prevented the reporting of the mistake, was imposed in September of that year.
The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 – which can only now be revealed – to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan.
Some 6,900 Afghans – comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents – are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme.
Dame Harriet said: “The Speaker was warned, ‘If somebody’s going to say something which breaches this injunction, will you please shut them up straight away if an MP does this’, and he agreed to do that.
“But what he should have done at the time is he should have said but parliamentary accountability is important. I’m the Speaker. I’m going to stand up for parliamentary accountability. And you must tell the Intelligence and Security Committee and allow them to hold you to account.
“What’s happened now is now that this is out in the open, the Intelligence and Security Committee is going to look at everything. So, it will be able to see all the papers from the MoD [Ministry of Defence].”
Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle. Pic: Reuters
Pressed on whether she meant the Speaker had failed to do his job, Dame Harriet replied: “Yes, and it’s a bit invidious for me to be saying that because, of course, at that time, Lindsay Hoyle was elected a speaker, I myself ran to be speaker, and the House chose him rather than me.
Read more:
Afghan data breach timeline: The fallout behind the scenes
Sixteen and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in next general election
“So it’s a bit bad to make this proposal to somebody who actually won an election you didn’t win. But actually, if you think about the Speaker’s role to stand up for parliament, to make sure that government is properly scrutinised, when you’ve got a committee there, which is security cleared to the highest level, appointed by the prime minister, and whose job is exactly to do this.”
A spokesperson for the Speaker said: “As has been made clear, Mr Speaker was himself under a super-injunction, and so would have been under severe legal restrictions regarding speaking about this.
“He would have had no awareness which organisations or individuals were and were not already aware of this matter.
“The injunction could not constrain proceedings in parliament and between being served with the injunction in September 2023 and the 2024 general election, Mr Speaker granted four Urgent Questions on matters relating to Afghan refugees and resettlement schemes.
“Furthermore, as set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Speaker has no powers to refer matters to the Intelligence and Security Committee.”
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike