15 November 2023 , 16:58
701
0
Rishi Sunak tonight pledged emergency laws so Channel migrants can be sent to Rwanda.
The Prime Minister used a Downing Street press conference to unveil plans to revive the Government’s flagship plan to deport asylum seekers to the African nation after it was torn up by the UK’s Supreme Court. Standing behind a lectern with “stop the boats” written on the front in capital letters, Mr Sunak said he will introduce "emergency legislation" to deem Rwanda a safe country and prevent the "merry-go-round" of legal challenges.
The measure will include rules so migrants can be “protected against removal from Rwanda”, he added. Insisting the Government had “prepared for all outcomes of this case”, he said an international treaty would be signed with Rwanda.
The PM spoke at a Downing Street press conference (Getty Images)Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who was sacked by the PM on Monday, had called for emergency legislation in response to the court’s ruling. An hour later, Mr Sunak bowed to her demand, saying: “We will take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation. This will enable Parliament to confirm that, with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe.
“It will ensure that people cannot further delay flights by bringing systemic challenges in our domestic courts and stop our policy being repeatedly blocked.” He also signalled he could defy any European Court of Human Rights’ ruling aimed at torpedoing the plan.
Teachers, civil servants and train drivers walk out in biggest strike in decade
The PM left the door open to abandoning the European Convention of Human Rights - potentially sparking a huge row in the Conservative Party. “We must be honest about the fact that even once Parliament has changed the law here at home we could still face challenges from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg,” Mr Sunak told the press conference. “I am prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships to remove the obstacles in our way. So let me tell everyone now – I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights. If the Strasbourg Court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of Parliament I am prepared to do what is necessary to get flights off.”
In a broadside to Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson, who called on ministers to ignore the court’s judgement, Mr Sunak added: “I do not agree with this decision but I respect it and I accept it. The rule of law is fundamental to our democracy.” However, he ruled out firing Mr Anderson, saying: "I think what Lee's comments, and indeed the comments of others, do is reflect the strength of feeling in the country on this issue - and I absolutely share actually in the frustrations that my colleagues and indeed people across the country have about this issue. Everyone should understand the strength of feeling.”
The treaty with Kigali will “provide a guarantee in law that those who are relocated from the UK to Rwanda will be protected against removal from Rwanda, and it will make clear that we will bring anyone back if ordered to do so by a court,” said Mr Sunak. “We will finalise the treaty in light of today’s judgement and ratify it without delay.”
Mrs Braverman called for emergency legislation in a series of tweets. She warned the PM must be willing to either "legislate or admit defeat" on stopping the boats.
Her intervention came less than 24 hours after she published a devastating letter accusing Mr Sunak of “betrayal”. She condemned his “weak” leadership of the country and claimed he had backtracked on a string of promises he had made to her last year before she backed him to become Tory leader.
Writing on X this afternoon, she urged Mr Sunak to pass new laws in order to get the Rwanda scheme up and running. She said: “Today’s Supreme Court judgment is no surprise. It was predicted by a number of people close to the process. Given the current state of the law, there is no reason to criticise the judges. Instead, the government must introduce emergency legislation.
“The Bill must block off ECHR, HRA (Human Rights Act), and other routes of legal challenge. This will 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. Those who - like me - believe that effective immigration control is vital must understand that they cannot have their cake and eat it: there is no chance of curbing illegal migration within the current legal framework. We must legislate or admit defeat.”
What is the plan?
In a nutshell, the UK has signed an agreement with the Rwandan Government which would see hundreds of asylum seekers flown 4,000 miles to the African nation.
Although the Government says the country is safe and people will be well-treated, it also believes it will deter people from trying to reach the UK by unauthorised means, like small boats. Those sent to Rwanda could be granted refugee status and allowed to say there. Alternatively they may try to get asylum in another "safe third country".
How much has it cost (so far)?
We don't know the full picture as yet - but what we do know is that it's been very, very expensive. So far the UK Government has handed over £140million to Rwanda.
Richard 'shuts up' GMB guest who says Hancock 'deserved' being called 'd***head'
The Mirror has requested a full breakdown of all other costs associated with the project, such as airline fees and spending on court battles, but has been rebuffed.
Has anyone been sent there yet?
Only if you count Home Secretaries. Priti Patel gleefully announced the deal in April 2022, saying it would be a groundbreaker in tackling illegal migration.
That June a first flight was cancelled at the last minute due to a legal challenge, and the project has been stalled since. In March Suella Braverman - who was sacked on Monday - travelled to Kigali with a carefully-selected press pack on a PR trip. But she came back.
So what's been happening in the courts?
There's been a long back-and-forth over the last year over whether the Rwanda scheme is actually legal.
In June the Court of Appeal ruled it wasn't, saying that the African nation isn't a safe place to send asylum seekers to. It also warned that the policy breaches parts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Ms Braverman is among the Tories calling for the UK to withdraw from this.
The Court of Appeal decision overturned a previous ruling by the High Court, which had determined the project to be legal.
Are the public convinced it'll work?
No. Polling from Savanta found that 51% don't think the threat of deportation to Rwanda will make a difference. Just a quarter of voters believe it will bring down the number of small boat crossings.
Chris Hopkins, Political Research Director at Savanta, said: "Despite a year of hyping what feels like one of the government's flagship policies, there's no movement whatsoever in public opinion regarding the Rwanda plan, according to this repeat of polling from June 2022. However, the good news for the government is that the policy is reasonably popular, with a plurality of support from the public, and a majority of support from those that voter Conservative in 2019."
What would Labour do?
Labour has said it will scrap the Rwanda project if it comes to Government. Keir Starmer has said his party would plough the cash into dealing with people arriving in the UK in the first place.
He said last month: "I think it’s the wrong policy. It’s hugely expensive. It’s a tiny number, a tiny number of individuals who go to Rwanda. And the real problem is at source.”