[ad_1]
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, has said the plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda will “only lead to more human suffering, chaos and at huge expense to the UK”. He said:
Treating people like human cargo by using the force of military to repel vulnerable people who have already endured extreme human suffering, and expelling them to centres in Rwanda, a country with a questionable record on human rights, is dangerous, cruel and inhumane.
Karen Bradley, the Conservative former Northern Ireland secretary, has suggested Boris Johnson should resign over Partygate. In a statement on her website she said:
My constituents know that I have been clear that those that make the rules must not break them, whether intentionally or otherwise. The public are right to expect the highest standards of behaviour from their leaders …
I do wish to make it clear that if I had been a minister found to have broken the laws that I passed, I would be tendering my resignation now.
Coronavirus infections falling across most of UK, ONS says
Covid-19 infections have fallen across most of the UK, though levels in Wales remain at a record high, PA Media reports. PA says:
England has seen infections drop for the first time in six weeks, with 3.8 million people likely to have had coronavirus last week, or around one in 14.
This is down from 4.1 million the previous week, or one in 13, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Scotland and Northern Ireland have also seen levels fall.
But in Wales infections have risen for the sixth successive week, with 231,900 people estimated to have had Covid-19 last week, or one in 13 – up slightly from 230,800, also one in 13.
This is from Sayeeda Warsi, a former Conservative party chair, on the Rwanda plan.
Here is the full text of the memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda on asylum seekers.
On Radio 4’s the World at One Mark Easton, the BBC home affairs editor, reminded listeners that Rwanda was once involved in a secret, and highly controversial, deportation scheme involving Israel. My colleague Peter Beaumont wrote about it here.
There is another account of the Israeli scheme here.
From ITV’s Anushka Asthana
This is from Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, on the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
This is from ITV’s Anushka Asthana, who asked Boris Johnson about Rwanda’s human rights record at the Q&A earlier.
And this is from the Mirror’s Pippa Crerar on the same topic.
The Telegraph’s Christopher Hope says the Rwanda plan is popular with two prominent red-wall Tories.
Refugees minister Lord Harrington refuses to says he backs plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
Lord Harrington, the minister for refugees, has refused to say he supports the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, the BBC reports.
Harrington was appointed last month. A business minister in the last parliament, he was appointed minister for refugees (and made a peer) specifically to sort out the problems faced by Ukrainians trying to get visas under the two schemes set up since the war started. Last week, asked about reports that the Home Office was planning to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, he said he knew nothing about it.
From my colleague Patrick Wintour
Summary of key points from Johnson and Patel on Rwanda plan for asylum seekers
Here are the key points from what Boris Johnson, in his speech and Q&A, and Priti Patel, at her press conference in Kigali, have been saying about the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
- Johnson said that potentially tens of thousands of asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda over the coming years under the new scheme. (See 11.39am.) And Patel said the “vast majority” of people arriving in the UK on small boats could qualify. (See 12.16pm.) The nationality and borders bill, which has almost completed its passage through parliament, will criminalise coming to the UK without authorisation to seek asylum and the government wants to limit asylum to people who apply through the existing “safe and legal routes” (which in practice are inaccessible to many of the people who do end up being granted asylum in the UK). People sent to Rwanda will be told to claim asylum in Rwanda, not in the UK. And reports that only adult men would be sent to Rwanda have not been confirmed by the government. (Johnson said seven out of 10 people arriving on small boats last year were men under 40, but Patel said that if she disclosed the criteria that would be used to decide who would be sent to Rwanda, she would create a new opportunity for the people smugglers).
- Johnson implied that he expected legal challenges to hold the introduction of the scheme for some time. He said in his speech:
We are confident that our new migration partnership is fully compliant with our international legal obligations, but nevertheless we expect this will be challenged in the courts, and if this country is seen as a soft touch for illegal migration by some of our partners, it is precisely because we have such a formidable army of politically motivated lawyers who for years have made it their business to thwart removals and frustrate the government. So I know that this system will not take effect overnight.
Johnson repeatedly made this point in his Q&A, too, perhaps implying that the policy is more of a statement of intent than something that the government is confident of implementing. But Patel said she was confident the plan complied with national and international law. (See 11.59am.)
- But Johnson also hinted the government might change the law, if necessary, to allow this policy to be implemented. He said:
I promise that we will do whatever it takes to deliver this new approach, initially within the limits of the existing legal and constitutional frameworks, but [we are] also prepared to explore any and all further legal reforms which may be necessary.
This may fuel speculation that in future Johnson would like the UK to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Johnson said the government had abandoned plans to try to turn back small boats in the Channel. He said:
I know there are some who believe we should just turn these boats back at sea.
But after much study and consultation – including with Border Force, the police, national crime agency, military and maritime experts, to whom I pay tribute for all the incredible work that they do dealing with this problem as things stand – it’s clear that there are extremely limited circumstances when you can safely do this in the English Channel.
And it doesn’t help that this approach, I don’t think, would be supported by our French partners, and relying solely on this course of action is simply not practical in my view.
- But he said that, from today, the Royal Navy would take charge of monitoring small boats in the Channel, with a view to ensure no boat arrives in the UK undetected. He said the new bill would allow people piloting these boats to be jailed for life. He said:
To identify, intercept and investigate these boats, from today the Royal Navy will take over operational command from Border Force in the Channel, taking primacy for our operational response at sea, in line with many of our international partners, with the aim that no boat makes it to the UK undetected.
This will be supported with £50m of new funding for new boats, aerial surveillance and military personnel in addition to the existing taskforce of patrol vessels, Wildcat helicopters, search and rescue aircraft, drones and remotely piloted aircraft.
This will send a clear message to those piloting the boats: if you risk other people’s lives in the Channel, you risk spending your own life in prison.
- He said the new bill would also allow the UK to impose visa penalties on countries that refuse to accept the return of failed asylum seekers.
- He claimed the new policy was needed because, in an era of “mobile connectivity”, it was more impossible than ever for the UK to take in all people seeking asylum. He said:
There are currently 80 million displaced people in the world, many in failed States where governments can’t meet their aspirations.
In an era of mobile connectivity they are a call or a text away from potentially being swept up in the tide of people smuggling.
The answer cannot be for the UK to become the haven for all of them.
That is a call for open borders by the back door, a political argument masquerading as a humanitarian policy.
Those in favour of this approach should be honest about it and argue for it openly.
We reject it, as the British people have consistently rejected it at the ballot box – in favour of controlled immigration.
- He claimed that other countries would want to adopt this approach. He said:
And that is what I think is most exciting about the partnership we have agreed with Rwanda today because we believe it will become a new international standard in addressing the challenges of global migration and people smuggling.
Patel made the same claim too. (See 12.06pm.)
- Johnson said those opposed to the plan had to explain what their alternative was. He said:
This problem has bedevilled our country for too long and caused far too much human suffering and tragedy, and this is the government that refuses to duck the difficult decisions, this is the government that makes the big calls, and I profoundly believe there is simply no other option.
And I say to those who would criticise our plan today, we have a plan; what is your alternative?
Here is the full text of Boris Johnson’s speech on tackling illegal immigration.
Matt Dathan from the Times, who is one of the journalists accompanying Priti Patel on her trip to Rwanda, has posted more picutures on Twitter of the accommodation where it is proposed asylum seekers from the UK will be housed.
Keir Starmer has dismissed the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as unworkable. He told the BBC:
I think we need to see these plans for what they are. It is a desperate announcement by a prime minister who just wants to distract from his own law breaking.
They are unworkable, they’re extortionate, they’re going to cost taxpayers billions of pounds, and they just reflect a prime minister who’s got no grip, no answers to the questions that need answering and no shame. And I just think Britain deserves better than this.
[ad_2]
Source link