The plan in Rwanda involves returning the funds it has received.
Yvette Cooper, the opposition’s spokesperson for home affairs, stated that the UK should act swiftly to accept the offer. She released a statement saying:
If Rwanda agrees to return the funds for this unsuccessful program, Rishi Sunak should take the opportunity instead of prolonging the chaos within the Conservative party. We require a strong hold, not more ineffective tactics.
The taxpayer is facing a charge of over £400m for a plan that will probably only benefit 1% of incoming individuals. This money could be better utilized in enhancing our border protection, such as through Labour’s proposal to combat illegal smuggler groups with international law enforcement and create a significant new unit for deportations.
However, it appears that the Rwandan government is reconsidering their stance. Yolande Makolo, spokesperson for the Rwandan government, clarified Kagame’s statement by stating that they would take into account any future requests from the UK for a reimbursement. However, she did not disclose the amount of money that has already been utilized by the UK.
According to the agreement, Rwanda is not required to give back any of the funds they received. However, if no migrants participate in the scheme and the UK government wants a refund for the money designated to assist the migrants, we will review their request.
It is premature to discuss numbers at this time, as we are still waiting for the UK legislative process to conclude and are dedicated to ensuring the success of the partnership.
Filters BETA
During the Rwanda discussion, he informed his peers that rejecting the bill would require them to seek new employment opportunities. He stated:
It’s either this bill or nothing. It’s either this bill or no opportunity.
At 4:45 PM, Garry Graham, the deputy general secretary of the union, stated:
This could create a challenging scenario for civil servants, where they may have to choose between violating international laws, defying a minister’s orders (and risking disciplinary consequences), or resigning from their position.
This issue is a result of the government’s actions and they should not be placing civil servants in a difficult position.
The House of Lords is a place where there is a higher likelihood of amendments being made. This is due to the fact that the government does not hold a majority there and because the chamber is predominantly comprised of lawyers who prioritize safeguarding rights.
The Lords international agreements committee has released its findings on the government’s recent treaty with Rwanda. This treaty serves as the foundation for the statement in the bill stating that Rwanda is a secure country for refugees. However, the committee has expressed doubt about this claim. It advises the government to hold off on ratifying the treaty until it can confirm that Rwanda has resolved the issues with its asylum system that were brought to light by the supreme court.
The report says:
The Rwanda treaty, which builds upon the memorandum of understanding that formed the basis of the UK’s agreement with Rwanda, offers improved protections on paper. However, several legal and practical measures must be implemented before these protections can be considered effective and potentially impact the supreme court’s decision. Additionally, evidence of successful implementation is required to determine the effectiveness of these arrangements. Overall, it is unlikely that the treaty will have an immediate or near-term impact on the situation in Rwanda.
It is advised that the treaty not be approved until parliament is confident that all of its protections have been fully put into effect. Parliament must evaluate whether Rwanda is safe based on this treaty. The government should provide additional details to parliament to verify that all necessary legal and practical measures and training have been taken to support the protections outlined in the treaty. A further discussion should take place before proceeding with ratification.
The committee’s report in paragraph 45 outlines 10 areas in which Rwanda is expected to make improvements according to the treaty. The report mentions that these changes may take some time to be implemented. The improvements include a new asylum law, a system to prevent non-refoulement, a procedure for submitting individual complaints to the monitoring committee, training for international judges on Rwandan law and practices, and training for Rwandan officials who handle asylum applicants.
The committee says:
It is evident from this that considerable measures, both legal and practical, must be carried out before the guarantees outlined in the Rwanda Treaty can be fully put into effect. The government has not given any indication of when these steps will be completed, but it is obvious that it will require a significant amount of time.
The Human Rights Act is not applicable in the case of deportations to Rwanda. However, there may be up to 10 additional votes, resulting in a process that could last for over two hours.
Following this, an additional hour has been allocated for the third reading debate. As a result, the final vote on whether or not the bill will receive a third reading will occur later than expected. Mark Francois, chair of the European Research Group and one of the prominent rebel members of the Conservative Party, has informed fellow members that he anticipates the vote to take place at 9:30am according to Paul Waugh from the i newspaper.
According to Mark Francois, a gathering of Conservative rebels was informed that the vote for the third reading of Rwanda is expected to take place at 9:30pm.
The European Court of Human Rights has issued Rule 39 orders to prevent deportations.
The current guidance from the Home Office instructs officials to postpone any removals if they have received notification of a R39 indication.
New guidelines will be implemented stating that if a rule 39 order is issued, officials must promptly refer the matter to a ministerial decision, allowing the minister to determine whether or not the deportation will proceed.
Today, Sir Matthew Rycroft, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, announced a new policy in a letter. This was in response to a letter from Darren Tierney, head of propriety at the Cabinet Office, who has created a draft of guidance for all civil servants on this matter. The draft guidance states:
According to UK legislation, a minister of the crown is responsible for deciding whether or not to follow a rule 39 indication. Parliament has given ministers the authority to use their own judgment in these situations. Any implications for the UK’s international commitments are the responsibility of the ministers. If a minister chooses not to comply with a rule 39 indication after considering policy, operational, and legal advice specific to the case, it is the duty of civil servants to carry out that decision in accordance with the civil service code. This applies to all civil servants.
If the Rwanda bill is passed, this instruction will be released.
The language used avoids addressing the legality of a minister disregarding a rule 39 order. During a session in the House of Commons today, Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, stated that the attorney general believes that defying the Strasbourg court in this manner would be against the law. (See 1.17pm.)
He stated that he was suffering from a severe and incurable type of leukemia.
The passing of Lloyd will result in a special election in Rochdale. In the previous election, Lloyd had a lead of 9,668 votes.
Rwanda’s President, Paul Kagame, announced that should the UK discontinue the Rwanda program, the country would reimburse the funds it has received to support it.
In response, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the UK should grab the offer quickly. In a statement she said:
If Rwanda permits us to retrieve the funds from this unsuccessful plan, Rishi Sunak should take advantage of the opportunity rather than prolonging this chaotic situation caused by the Tories. We require firm control, not more of this ineffective tactic.
The government is charging the taxpayer over £400 million for a program that will probably only benefit 1% of incoming individuals. This money could be used to increase border security, such as implementing Labour’s proposal to combat illegal smuggling by enforcing cross-border laws and creating a new unit for deportations.
However, the government of Rwanda appears to be reconsidering. Yolande Makolo, spokesperson for the Rwandan government, stated that they would take into account a potential request from the UK for a reimbursement, but did not disclose the amount of money that the UK has already paid. She mentioned:
According to the agreement, Rwanda is not required to give back any of the money that was paid. However, if no migrants participate in the program and the UK government wants to ask for a reimbursement of the money designated to assist the migrants, we will review and possibly grant this request.
It is too early to discuss numbers right now, since we are waiting for the UK legislative process to conclude. We are dedicated to ensuring the success of our partnership.
This afternoon, the main subject of discussion is the Rwanda bill and its focus on injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights.
According to her, these are rarely given out in the UK, occurring approximately twice per year and only in cases where there is a significant danger of severe and permanent damage.
The court of human rights in Europe.
According to her, these orders were not included in the initial European convention on human rights. They were created by the court as a means of broadening its scope.
She argues that the Human Rights Act implemented by Labour has exacerbated the issue. It has promoted a culture of prioritizing rights, and the government’s decisions have been undermined by an influential legal industry.
For instance, Braverman mentions a Nigerian citizen who was given a four-year prison sentence in 2016 for committing severe crimes such as battery and assault. However, an effort to send him back to Nigeria was obstructed due to fears that he would struggle to adapt in his home country, and these concerns outweighed the government’s desire to deport him.
She mentions a separate instance in which a drug dealer was not expelled due to the potential loss of continued medical care.
She argues that a previous case has determined that the government must demonstrate that a person’s life will not be significantly shortened if they are deported and lose access to NHS facilities.
Stella Creasy of the Labour Party questions Braverman’s criticism of the ECHR as a “foreign court” by pointing out that if the ECHR is considered foreign, then what does that make Nato?
Braverman argues that this is a matter of basic politics. She asserts that the court is not prioritizing the interests of the UK.
Patrick Grady, a member of the SNP, is echoing Braverman’s statement that the recent events are the beginning of the next Conservative leadership race.
David Cameron has dismissed the notion that the Rwanda bill controversy is causing embarrassment for the UK on an international scale.
When this was brought up to him during a panel at Davos, the foreign secretary responded, “On the contrary.”
He stated that nations across the globe are faced with the challenge of handling unlawful immigration. Although Britain’s approach may seem unconventional, innovative solutions like this are crucial in disrupting the cycle of heinous human trafficking.
Graeme Wearden covers this topic in more detail on his live business blog.
Source: theguardian.com
