Connect with us

Published

on

Migrants who have been refused asylum in the UK will be offered thousands of pounds to move to Rwanda under a new “voluntary” scheme drawn up by the government, according to reports.

The move, which is separate to the government’s plan to send to people to Rwanda to have their claims processed, has already been agreed with the east African country, The Times newspaper is reporting.

The new relocation scheme is designed to remove migrants who have no legal right to stay in the UK but cannot be returned to their home country.

The Home Office hasn’t yet confirmed the payment scheme, but has said it is “exploring voluntary relocations… to Rwanda”.

The Times reports it will be aimed at individuals who do not have an outstanding asylum claim and are in a position to be relocated swiftly to Rwanda, which the government deems a safe third nation.

Politics latest: Sunak says alleged Tory donor comments were ‘racist’

Immigration officials will reportedly approach migrants whose asylum applications have failed and encourage them to accept the money and relocate to Rwanda.

More from UK

The scheme is said to be an extension of the existing Home Office voluntary returns scheme, under which migrants are offered financial assistance worth up to £3,000 to leave the UK for their country of origin.

Asylum seekers who refuse the financial incentive to move to Rwanda will be unable to officially work or claim benefits in the UK, The Times says.

In response to the report, a Home Office spokesperson said: “In the last year, 19,000 people were removed voluntarily from the UK and this is an important part of our efforts to tackle illegal migration.

“We are exploring voluntary relocations for those who have no right to be here, to Rwanda, who stand ready to accept people who wish to rebuild their lives and cannot stay in the UK.

“This is in addition to our Safety of Rwanda Bill and Treaty which, when passed, will ensure people who come to the UK illegally are removed to Rwanda.”

The government is understood to believe the voluntary scheme can be brought into effect quickly because it will draw on existing structures outlined by the deportation agreement already in place with Rwanda and existing voluntary returns processes.

However, the new Rwanda deal would reportedly mark the first time migrants will have been paid to leave the UK without going back to their country of origin.

Rishi Sunak
Image:
Rishi Sunak’s pan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda is heading back to the Commons.

It comes as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak‘s legislation designed to revive his plan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda – the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill – heads back to the House of Commons.

The government will seek to overturn a string of amendments to the bill agreed by peers in the House of Lords.

Changes backed by the Lords include overturning the government’s bid to oust the courts from the deportation process.

The extension of the voluntary scheme raises further questions about the bill, which is intended to prevent continued legal challenges to the stalled deportation scheme after the Supreme Court ruled the plan was unlawful.

Labour accused ministers of having to resort “to paying people” to go Rwanda because they know their deportation scheme “has no chance of succeeding”.

Shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock MP said: “We know from the treaty that capacity in Rwanda is very limited, so ministers should now explain what this new idea means for the scheme as it was originally conceived, and they should also make clear how many people they expect to send on this basis, and what the cost will be.

“There have been so many confused briefings around the Rwanda policy that the public will be forgiven for treating this latest wheeze with a degree of scepticism.”

The prime minister had previously warned the House of Lords against frustrating “the will of the people” by hampering the passage of the bill, which has already been approved by MPs.

The Commons will get a chance to debate and vote on the amendments on 18 March.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump says Musk ‘off the rails’ for forming political party to rival GOP

Published

on

By

Trump says Musk ‘off the rails’ for forming political party to rival GOP

Trump says Musk ‘off the rails’ for forming political party to rival GOP

US President Donald Trump has blasted Elon Musk’s plan to start a new political party that could splinter the Republican vote in the 2026 midterm elections.

Continue Reading

Politics

MP recalls childhood abuse as he calls for law change to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence

Published

on

By

MP recalls childhood abuse as he calls for law change to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence

An MP who decided until recently to “never speak” about the abuse he suffered as a child has shared his harrowing story so that “no kid has to go through” what he did.

Josh Babarinde describes being physically abused by his mother’s former partner from the age of four, and remembers crying himself to sleep under the covers “hearing shouts, hearing screams and things smash”.

He says he became hypervigilant growing up and felt safe at school but “like he was treading on eggshells” in his own home.

The Eastbourne MP, who is also the Liberal Democrats’ justice spokesperson, says his experience has driven his politics. He is calling on the government to stop abusers “slipping through the net” and being released from prison early.

Opening up about his story in his twenties was “difficult” but looking back, Mr Babarinde says, he is “so proud of the resilience of that kid”.

The MP recently found his childhood diary containing Star Wars drawings alongside an entry he wrote from the bathroom. The diary, he recalls, wrote: “I’m really going to try to go (to the toilet) but I can’t. Oh my goodness, I’m gonna be in so much trouble, I’m going to get smacked so hard.”

Then an entry five minutes later: “I still haven’t done anything, I’m going to be in so much trouble.”

More from Politics

He says reading the entry reminded him of how “helpless” he felt.

“It was mortifying,” he says. “An abuser takes away your sense of self-worth.”

Josh Babarinde speaking to Sky's Ali Fortescue.
Image:
Mr Babarinde says he wants the government to ‘properly recognise domestic abuse crimes in the law’

The 32-year-old is calling on the government to change the law to make domestic abuse a specific criminal offence. The change would mean, he argues, abusers can no longer effectively disguise their history under other offences like assault.

He says the Ministry of Justice’s early release scheme, which has seen thousands of prisoners released early to ease overcrowding, has failed to exclude domestic abusers despite government promises because there is no formal categorisation for offenders.

It is impossible, he argues, to know exactly how many domestic abusers are in prison currently so perpetrators are “slipping through the net” on early release.

Read more from Sky News:
Remembering the bravery of 7/7 victims and responders 20 years on
Met Police chief calls for ‘mega’ forces in push for shake-up

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

January: Rising violence against women and girls

Mr Babarinde says the uncertainty means victims and survivors are not able to prepare for their abuser’s release.

He said: “They might need to move house or move their kids to a new school, shop in different places. All of these kind of things are so important, and so that’s why that commitment the government made was so important.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: “Our thoughts are with all victims of domestic abuse – it takes immense courage to speak out.

“We are building a justice system that puts victims first – strengthening support, increasing transparency, and giving people the confidence to come forward and be heard.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

In common with many parents across the country, here’s a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually).

Me: “So it’s 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both.”

Daughter: “Ummmm, I want to watch TV.”

Me: “That’s fine, but it’s bed after that, you can’t do a jigsaw as well.”

Fast-forward 15 minutes.

Me: “Right, TV off now please, bedtime.”

(Pause)

Daughter: “I want to do a jigsaw.”

Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers.

Politics latest: Former Labour leader calls for wealth tax on assets above £10m

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma

That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend.

In essence: you’ve had your welfare U-turn, so there’s no money left for the two-child cap to go as well.

As an aside – and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society – yes, I hear you, and that’s part of my point.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare U-turn ‘has come at cost’

For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading.

So what can be done?

Well, the government could change the rules.

Altering the fiscal rules is – and will likely remain – an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour’s proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare: ‘Didn’t get process right’ – PM

A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself.

Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on.

That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don’t really understand what this prime minister stands for – and by extension, what all these “difficult decisions” are in aid of.

The downside is whether it will actually raise much money.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Corbyn an existential risk to Labour?

The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client’s cash away from the prying eyes of the state.

Or, of course, they could just leave – as many are doing already.

In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict.

If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable.

And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.

Continue Reading

Trending