Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak’s administration of providing Rwanda with “hundreds of millions of pounds without receiving anything in exchange” after the deportation agreement was signed.
During a heated exchange in the prime minister’s question session, the leader of the Labour Party ridiculed the recently signed treaty with the Rwandan government led by President Paul Kagame, stating that they were well aware of the prime minister’s intentions.
As Members of Parliament were getting ready to listen to a statement from ex-Home Secretary Suella Braverman on Wednesday afternoon, it was anticipated that she would strongly condemn Sunak’s immigration proposals.
Following her termination, Braverman composed a scathing letter to Sunak, in which she condemned his “magical thinking” in regards to his strategy for preventing migrant crossings in the Channel.
The Conservative party is experiencing significant internal conflicts following the supreme court’s recent decision declaring the government’s proposal to transport asylum seekers to Rwanda as illegal. A last-minute bill is anticipated to be introduced to Parliament in order to ensure that flights to Rwanda proceed as planned.
In Parliament, the leader of the Labour party stated that Sunak had not thoroughly reviewed the specifics of the recently established agreement with Rwanda. According to Annex A, in addition to the £140 million already given to Rwanda, we must also cover the expenses for housing and supporting individuals sent there under this treaty for a period of five years. Furthermore, a government minister confirmed today that individuals sent to Rwanda who commit a crime can be sent back to us.
Regarding the allegations that James Cleverly referred to the plan as “batshit”, Starmer stated, “I am starting to understand why the home secretary made a reference to a ‘bat’ in relation to the Rwanda program.”
“What initially drew Mr Kagame to receive hundreds of millions of pounds without any reciprocation?”
Previously, a government official acknowledged that a limited amount of refugees who were relocated to Rwanda may be allowed back into Britain if they assert that their human rights were violated.
The Home Office minister Chris Philp said the Rwanda treaty signed by Cleverly had addressed all concerns raised by the UK supreme court, including that asylum seekers would not be sent from Rwanda “to some other unsafe place”.
When asked about a limit on the number of individuals who have experienced mistreatment and can return to the UK, Philp stated on Times Radio that it would likely only apply to a small group of vulnerable refugees that they could potentially assist.
Disregard the advertisement for the newsletter.
after newsletter promotion
According to Philp, the latest agreement involves improved surveillance protocols to ensure the plan is carried out correctly. An independent committee, consisting of a prominent KC figure and a former high-ranking member of the UNHCR, will oversee the implementation of the treaty and guarantee compliance with its terms.
The minister declined to explain the consequences if Rwanda does not comply with the treaty’s terms. He mentioned that the details would be outlined in the upcoming bill, which may be released as early as this week.
Philip admitted that if asylum seekers who were sent to Rwanda committed a crime, they could potentially be sent back to the UK after serving a prison sentence.
Philp stated that the government’s intention was for the upcoming bill, which is anticipated to be revealed in the near future, to prevent courts from undermining this strategy.
Cleverly’s concerns about the criticism towards Rwanda were mirrored by Philp, who also expressed discomfort with the situation.
Philip stated that there has been a negative undertone in the commentary about Rwanda over the past year, suggesting that it is not a reasonable country. He believes this is unfair to Rwanda.
Sunak has stated that the upcoming legislation, in whatever form it may be, will effectively address the supreme court’s concerns and allow for flights to resume starting next spring.
Regarding the possibility of deported asylum seekers coming back to the UK and having their freedom, Philp stated on LBC, “This individual would have been in the UK regardless, even without the Rwanda treaty.”
Secondly, in the unlikely event that this occurs under very restricted circumstances, after serving a prison sentence, if an individual were to return to this location, we would seek to send them back to their country of origin. This action would be taken under the 1971 Immigration Act in cases where the individual is deemed not beneficial to the well-being of the public.
Source: theguardian.com
