Keir Starmer has criticized Rishi Sunak’s government for providing Rwanda with “hundreds of millions of pounds without receiving anything in exchange” after the deportation treaty was signed.
During the confrontation at the prime minister’s question period, the leader of the Labour party ridiculed the recently signed treaty, stating that the Rwandan government, led by President Paul Kagame, was well aware of the prime minister’s intentions.
As MPs were getting ready to listen to a personal statement from Suella Braverman, the former Home Secretary, on Wednesday afternoon, she was anticipated to strongly criticize Sunak’s immigration proposals.
Following her dismissal, Braverman penned a scathing letter to Sunak, in which she criticized his “magical thinking” regarding his strategy to prevent migrants from crossing the Channel.
The Conservative party is currently experiencing significant rifts within its ranks following a decision by the supreme court last month deeming the government’s proposal to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda as illegal. A bill has been drafted in response to this ruling, which is set to be introduced to Members of Parliament in the near future.
The leader of the Labour party stated in Parliament that Sunak was not familiar with the specifics of the latest agreement with Rwanda. According to “Annexe A,” in addition to the £140 million already given to Rwanda, under this treaty, we are responsible for covering the expenses of individuals we send there, including their accommodation and living costs for a period of five years. Furthermore, a government minister acknowledged this morning that if anyone we send to Rwanda commits a crime, they can be sent back to us.
Starmer mentioned the recent statement made by James Cleverly about the plan being “batshit”. He then went on to say that he is starting to understand why the Home Secretary referred to the Rwanda scheme as being related to “bat”.
“What was the initial appeal for Mr. Kagame in receiving hundreds of millions of pounds without any reciprocal benefits?”
A minister has acknowledged that a “small number” of asylum seekers who were sent to Rwanda may be allowed to return to Britain if they claim that their human rights were violated.
The Rwandan treaty signed by Cleverly, according to Home Office minister Chris Philp, has resolved all worries expressed by the UK supreme court. This includes guaranteeing that asylum seekers will not be relocated from Rwanda to an unsafe location.
When asked about the limit on the number of individuals who have experienced mistreatment that would be allowed to return to the UK, Philp stated on Times Radio that the amount would be minimal and only include a small group of at-risk refugees that they may be able to assist.
Bypass the advertisement for the newsletter.
after newsletter promotion
Philip announced that the updated contract had added improved measures for monitoring to guarantee the effective execution of the plan. An impartial committee, consisting of a prominent KC and a former high-ranking member of UNHCR, will be responsible for supervising the implementation of the agreement and ensuring that its terms are followed.
The minister declined to explicitly state the consequences if Rwanda did not comply with the treaty’s terms, stating that it would be outlined in the upcoming bill, which may be released this week.
It was also recognized by Philp that if asylum seekers were sent to Rwanda and then committed a crime, they could potentially be sent back to the UK. He stated, “There is a chance that they may be brought back here after completing their prison term.”
Philp stated that the government’s goal was to prevent courts from undermining their approach with the new bill, which is anticipated to be revealed in the near future.
Philp echoed concerns raised by Cleverly, who said he had been uncomfortable with some of the criticism directed at Rwanda.
Philp stated that the implied tone in some of the recent commentary about Rwanda suggests that it is not a reasonable country. He believes this to be unfair.
Sunak stated that the upcoming legislation will adequately address the supreme court’s concerns and allow for flights to commence by the spring season.
Philp explained to LBC that if it were not for the Rwanda treaty, the deported asylum seekers would have returned to the UK and been granted freedom.
Secondly, in the unlikely event that this occurs under very restrictive circumstances and after serving a prison sentence, if anyone were to return here, we would aim to send them back to their country of origin. This would be done in cases where the individual is deemed to be a threat to public safety according to the 1971 Immigration Act.
Source: theguardian.com
