The UK government has published a new bill that aims to address the legal concerns raised by the Supreme Court about its plan to send asylum seekers who arrive illegally in Britain to Rwanda for processing and resettlement. The bill, which faces a contentious vote in parliament on Tuesday, would order British judges and courts to ignore some sections of the UK Human Rights Act and some orders from the European Court of Human Rights. The government says the bill is necessary to deter illegal migration and save lives, but critics say it is unlawful, inhumane and ineffective.
Background
The UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, also known as the Rwanda asylum plan, was first announced by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022. It was an immigration policy whereby people identified by the UK as being illegal immigrants or asylum seekers would be relocated to Rwanda for processing, asylum and resettlement. In return, the UK agreed to give Rwanda £120 million and £20,000-£30,000 per migrant to cover the cost of relocation and temporary accommodation. The UK also agreed to accept an unspecified number of the “most vulnerable refugees” currently residing in Rwanda.
The government said the plan would decrease the number of migrant crossings in the English Channel, stop human smuggling, and boost Rwandan investment and development. However, the plan faced legal challenges from human rights groups and asylum seekers, who argued that it violated the UK’s obligations under international law and the European Convention on Human Rights. They claimed that Rwanda was not a safe country for asylum seekers, and that there was a risk of “refoulement”, which is the legal term for being sent to a third country where they could face harm.
Legal battles
The plan was halted by a last-minute interim measure by the European Court of Human Rights in June 2022, which prevented the first flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda from taking off. The High Court then ruled in December 2022 that the plan was lawful, but that the individual cases of eight asylum seekers due to be deported had to be reconsidered.
The Court of Appeal overturned this decision in June 2023, ruling that the plan was unlawful. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling in November 2023. The Supreme Court said that the plan was incompatible with the UK Human Rights Act, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
The court also said that the government had failed to provide sufficient evidence that Rwanda was a safe country for asylum seekers, and that the agreement with Rwanda did not guarantee their protection from refoulement.
New bill
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the government published a new bill on 11 December 2023, which it said addressed the court’s concerns and made clear in UK law that Rwanda was a safe country for asylum seekers. The bill would amend the UK Human Rights Act to exclude some of its provisions from applying to the Rwanda plan.
It would also allow the government to ignore emergency orders from the European Court of Human Rights to suspend a flight to Rwanda while an individual legal case was still being heard. Asylum seekers would still be able to challenge their removal to Rwanda based on their personal circumstances, but the bill would limit the grounds and the time for such appeals.
The government said that the bill was necessary to prevent further legal delays and to implement its “firm but fair” immigration policy. Home Secretary James Cleverly said that the bill would “save countless lives” and would break the business model of “vile people smugglers”. He also said that he had signed a new treaty with Rwanda on 5 December 2023, which he said would strengthen its asylum process and guarantee that any people sent to Rwanda would not be at risk of refoulement.
Criticism and resignation
The bill has been met with fierce criticism from opposition parties, human rights groups, legal experts and some Conservative MPs. They have accused the government of undermining the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the UK’s international reputation. They have also questioned the effectiveness and the morality of the bill, saying that it would not deter migration, but would instead expose asylum seekers to further danger and suffering.
The bill also triggered the resignation of Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick, who said that the bill “did not go far enough” to prevent further legal challenge. He said that he could not support a bill that “undermines the sovereignty of parliament and the will of the people”. He also said that the Rwanda plan was “a flawed and unworkable policy” that “will fail to stop migration, and will only create more misery and chaos”. He called for a “radical overhaul” of the UK’s immigration system, and said that he would vote against the bill.
Conclusion
The UK’s Rwanda migrant deportation bill is a controversial and unprecedented attempt by the government to bypass the Supreme Court’s ruling and to send asylum seekers who arrive illegally in Britain to Rwanda for processing and resettlement. The bill faces a difficult passage through parliament, where it is likely to face amendments and opposition from various quarters.
The bill also raises serious questions about the UK’s respect for human rights, the rule of law and its international obligations. The bill’s fate and its impact on the UK’s immigration policy and its relations with Rwanda remain uncertain.