UK accelerates Rwanda migrant flight plans as Kigali says it will be legal ‘regardless’ | Politics | News
More than 5,000 migrants have crossed the Channel so far this year
The Home Office has accelerated preparations for the first migrant flights to Rwanda over the past few days, the Daily Express can reveal. Officials are ramping up efforts to close every loophole that lawyers could try to exploit and prevent attempts to meddle with deportations ahead of the Rwanda Bill being signed into law.
And Kigali has told this news website the scheme will “meet the highest standards of international law” regardless of whether Britain quits the European Court of Human Rights. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, in his strongest comments yet on the ECHR, said protecting Britain’s borders is “more important” than being a member of a foreign court.
A source close to Home Secretary James Cleverly said: “Since Easter there has been a real step up in preparations to deliver on the Rwanda scheme.
“Preparations around basic logistics have been ongoing but it is also about being ready for any scenarios where others might try to frustrate or delay the process at the logistical stage.
“We are determined to deliver.” The Daily Express understands 150 and 200 asylum seekers have already been identified for the first flights to Rwanda.
Rishi Sunak will be hoping the Rwanda scheme deters migrants from crossing the Channel
The Express previously revealed 5,664 asylum seekers are eligible for relocation to Kigali. This has now been whittled down to the “low three-figures” for the first flights, this newspaper understands.
And while Rishi Sunak’s Safety of Rwanda Bill is designed to prevent lawyers from challenging the legality of the deportation scheme in its entirety, the Home Office is trying to limit the disruption to flights.
Individual migrants will be able to appeal against deportation, but these will only be upheld if they can show they would be at “real risk of serious and irreversible harm.”
The Rwanda Bill will bar any ‘systemic’ challenges against the policy. And it also gives ministers the power to ignore last-minute pyjama injunctions issued by Strasbourg. Critics have claimed doing so would put the UK in breach of international human rights laws, leading to calls to quit the ECHR.
Vincent Biruta, Rwanda’s foreign minister, had said Kigali would not have been able to continue with the partnership to take asylum seekers had the UK opted out of international human rights laws.
Stay up-to-date with the latest Politics news
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info
But Yolande Makolo, Rwandan Government Spokesperson, told the Daily Express on Thursday: “Whether or not the UK remains a part of the ECHR is ultimately a decision for them. Rwanda, of course, is not party to the ECHR.
“Regardless of their decision, our position remains as it has always been, that the Partnership must meet the highest standards of international law, which it does, and that both the UK and Rwanda act lawfully.”
Individual migrants will be able to appeal against deportation, but these will only be upheld if the migrants can show they would be at “real risk of serious and irreversible harm.” The Rwanda scheme is a key element of the Government’s plan to end the Channel migrant crisis.
More than 5,000 migrants have crossed the English Channel this year, with nearly 800 crossing over the East bank holiday weekend. Last year, more than 29,000 reached the UK by small boat, down from 45,755 the year before.
Tory MPs on Thursday welcomed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s vow to quit the ECHR if it continues to repeatedly block flights to Rwanda.
Some are concerned the Strasbourg court will still be able to ground flights to Kigali – something Mr Sunak has denied – at the eleventh hour. The Prime Minister said: “I do believe that border security and making sure that we can control illegal migration is more important than membership of a foreign court because it’s fundamental to our sovereignty as a country.”
Tory grandee Sir John Hayes told the Daily Express: “I’m strongly in favour of leaving of leaving it. Most people felt that when we left the EU, we would free ourselves from the overtures of foreign courts.
“Yet the unelected, unaccountable judges in the European Court seem still to be determined to frustrate the will of the British people, expressed through their sovereign Parliament. The sooner we free ourselves. He’s made it clear that the will of the people should prevail. It’s not up to that foreign court to frustrate the express will of Britons who want to protect their borders.
Tory MP Bob Seely, a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, told the Daily Express: “Well said, Rishi. We should respect the ECHR, but we should not be bound by it.
“It has changed from what it was. There is a very clear principal here – our Parliament is sovereign. It should not be overruled by a foreign court.”
Marco Longhi, a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, told this newspaper: “If the PM’s comments in relation to the ECHR are accurate then I back this new approach 100%.
“The ability of a foreign court or convention to overrule the decision of a sovereign Parliament is simply wrong – and many of the people who voted for Brexit voted to put a stop to this outside interference.
“However, I have learned that there is a difference between talking and taking action, and the clock is no longer on our side.
“I would urge that we exit as soon as possible and potentially make the next election a referendum on ECHR membership.”
Conservative MP Paul Bristow added: “An independent, sovereign country needs to be able to effectively control its borders, no ifs, no buts.
“Leaving the ECHR would deliver this, be immensely popular, and should feature front and centre of any General Election manifesto.”
Another, Neil O’Brien, described the comments as “encouraging” and warned “it’s difficult to see how illegal immigration will be fixed unless we address the ECHR issue”
Earlier this year ECHR’s chief Siofra O’Leary hit back with a warning member states would be compelled to comply with any of its rulings.
Last week, the Government received a slight boost in its bid to deport migrants to Rwanda as the ECHR toughened its requirements for migrants to escape being sent to Kigali.
New guidance states judges would only be able to issue a section 39 injunction if there would be an “imminent risk of irreparable harm” if a migrant was deported to Rwanda.
Kigali has provided “cast-iron guarantees” around non-refoulement, so that asylum seekers are not sent back to a country where they fear for their safety.
This was the central concern of the Supreme Court’s bombshell judgment in November.