Priti Patel today vowed that Rwanda flights will take off within weeks as Cabinet ministers urged her to ignore Strasbourg judges who blocked the plans at the eleventh hour.
Colleagues suggested the views of the European Court of Human Rights should simply be disregarded as the Home Secretary made a defiant statement to MPs insisting the government is still ‘committed’ to the controversial policy.
Ms Patel said the European Court of Human Rights intervention had been ‘surprising’ and ‘disappointing’ as well as slamming the ‘opaque nature’ of the ruling – but stressed that it had not ruled the proposals were illegal. She insisted the ‘usual suspects’ and ‘mobs’ could not be allowed to dictate.
The bullish stance came as Tories vented fury at the ECHR, with one MP saying the UK should now ‘kick these b***ards into touch’.
Any attempt to shrug off instructions from the ECHR would likely cause an outcry from lawyers, a revolt in domestic courts, and repercussions in the Council of Europe. A Home Office source said it was not something they were looking at currently, although in the past Conservatives have mooted downgrading the status of rulings. Lawyers insist the domestic courts only ‘take account’ of ECHR views anyway.
But a Cabinet minister told MailOnline: ‘ECHR decisions, unlike the European Court of Justice, do not have direct effect so can simply be overridden.
‘When our own courts accept something is legal we should not allow an oddly constituted international court to overrule the democratic process. We should assert Parliamentary sovereignty.’
Boris Johnson has floated the idea of walking away from the ECHR – a step that has previously been taken by Greece, which has since rejoined, and Russia. The UK helped found the international body, which now has nearly 50 members.
However, other ministers tried to pour cold water on the idea this morning, with warnings that it is a key part of the Good Friday Agreement.
Downing Street said the PM had not considered ignoring the court, but made clear all options were on the table in terms of UK membership. Another flight is being put together before a judicial review result is due July.
A Home Office source said of the prospect of disregarding the court’s views: ‘It would just annoy the courts here when they are on our side…
‘It would also weaken our case that we are acting within the international law.’
There is no precedent for ignoring the court, but its rulings on issues such as prisoners’ rights have previously been contested for many years.
The dramatic developments came after days of wrangling in Britain’s highest Supreme Court over the plans, which upheld the government’s right to go ahead with the flight.
Ministers have insisted the deal with Rwanda can deter migrants from coming to the UK and save lives – pointing to the fact that yesterday 444 more people crossed the Channel in flimsy dinghies.
Ms Patel told MPs today: ‘The British people have repeatedly voted for controlled immigration and the right to secure borders. This is a Government that acts and hears that message clearly. And we are determined to deliver that.’
She added: ‘We believe that we are fully compliant with our domestic and international obligations, and preparations for our future flights and the next flights have already begun.’
But the bold strategy has been condemned by the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby as ‘immoral’, while Prince Charles is said to have privately branded it ‘appalling’.
The injunction from the ECHR – which is not connected to the EU – meant lawyers representing the remaining six migrants on board including more Iraqis, an Iranian, a Vietnamese and an Albanian, then lodged their appeals to judges in London before the Home Office ultimately scrapped their removal orders.
At 10pm the final migrant was on board the plane, which cost the taxpayer an estimated £500,000 to charter, when he was told he was not flying to Africa.
Mr Johnson is understood to have met Tory MPs last night and made no secret of his ire. ‘To say he is frustrated is an understatement,’ one of those present told MailOnline.
However, Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey played down the prospect of the UK quitting the ECHR this morning, saying there was ‘no decisions or even hints about that’.
Pensions minister Guy Opperman said the ruling had merely been a ‘setback’. ‘I don’t believe it is our policy, nor would it be something I will be advocating for withdrawing from the ECHR.’
The government has previously looked at the possibility of leaving the body but shied away from it.
One major stumbling block is that the ECHR is written into the text of both the Good Friday Agreement and the EU trade deal.
In a defiant statement to MPs, Priti Patel insisted the government is still ‘committed’ to the controversial policy and ‘will not accept that we have no right to control our borders’
A dinghy sails perilously close to a massive tanker in the Channel yesterday as judges in Strasbourg intervened in the row over flights to Rwanda
Furious Tory MPs have been breaking cover to demand the UK leaves the European Court of Human Rights today
Explaining the situation, Ms Patel said removal directions for people on the flight have been ‘paused’ as a result of the ECHR intervention.
But she added: ‘The European Court of Human Rights did not rule that the policy or relocations were unlawful, but they prohibited the removal of three of those on last night’s flight.
‘Those prohibitions last for different time periods but are not an absolute bar on their transfer to Rwanda. Anyone who has been ordered to be release by the courts will be tagged while we continue to progress their relocation.’
She said the court’s decision was ‘disappointing and surprising’, but added ‘we remain committed to this policy’ before adding: ‘We believe that we are fully compliant with our domestic and international obligations, and preparations for our future flights and the next flights have already begun.’
Ms Patel said: ‘What is concerning of course is that our domestic courts have been very transparent in their decision-making and the way in which they communicated their verdicts, in the High Court, Supreme Court and also the Court of Appeal.
‘It is concerning obviously about the opaque nature in which last night’s appeal was conducted by the European Court of Human Rights, in the way in which they informed the UK Government around one individual.
‘Of course it is right that we spend time now going back to that court to actually get the grounds upon which they made their decision.’
A succession of Tory MPs pushed for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR and the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court.
Because neither the convention nor the court are European Union creations, the UK’s membership was unaffected by Brexit.
Alexander Stafford condemned the ‘despicable ruling from the foreign European Court of Justice’ while Sir Desmond Swayne said: ‘We are going to have to grasp the nettle and extend the principle of ‘taking back control’ to the convention.’
Jonathan Gullis, a ministerial aide to Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis, said ‘the ECHR’s role in UK law needs looking at urgently’ – but reportedly deleted an initial social media post suggesting the court’s role should be removed entirely.
Outside of the Commons, Attorney General Suella Braverman said many people would be frustrated at the role played by a ‘foreign court’.
Pressed on whether withdrawing from the ECHR was a possibility, she told the BBC’s World At One programme: ‘We’re not ruling anything in and we’re not ruling anything out.’
She added: ‘We are definitely open to assessing all options available as to what our relationship should be going forward with the European Court of Human Rights.’
Ministers face a struggle to contain outrage on Tory benches, with the MP WhatsApp groups on fire last night.
One said of the ECHR: ‘It’s time we kicked these b*****ds into touch. For once I won’t apologise for my French’.
James Sutherland, an aide to Environment Secretary George Eustice, is said to have told a group: ‘Did we expect any less? Outrageous that the UK is still beholden to the ECHR as a sovereign nation’.
Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns said: ‘Yes let’s withdraw from European Court of Human Rights and stop their meddling in British law.’
Another Conservative, Greg Smith, said: ‘What last night showed is we now need the same speed and urgency to bring in a UK Bill of Rights and remove all power of the European Court of Human Rights over our sovereign decisions.’
A Downing Street source told the Daily Mail: ‘It’s an abomination that after domestic courts have repeatedly ruled in the Government’s favour, that an out-of-hours judge in the European Court has intervened to block the removal of illegal migrants to Rwanda.’
Another insider said: ‘European judges grounded the whole thing despite the Supreme Court, High Court and Court of Appeal ruling in favour of the Government. It is appalling. One out-of-hours European judge has overruled days and days of debate in the UK courts on the papers alone’.
The Ministry of Defence has revealed that a total of 444 people were detected crossing the English Channel in small boats yesterday. That was the highest since 562 were recorded on April 14.
Some 11 boats were detected with an average of 40 people on each.
A private charter jet (believed to be empty of passengers) leaves MOD Boscombe Down after it was refused permission to take-off for Rwanda
Crew members board the Rwanda deportation flight Boeing 767 at Boscombe Down Air Base. Legal wrangling continued throughout Tuesday evening before the first flight due to take UK asylum seekers to Kigali was dramatically grounded
Protesters gathered outside Colnbrook Immigration Detention Centre in Heathrow and lay on the ground in an effort to halt Tuesday’s first flight transporting UK asylum seekers to Rwanda
Six people are due to be transferred on tonight’s first flight to Rwanda, after one asylum seeker’s removal was called off by the European Court of Human Rights
Boris Johnson, pictured at Cabinet yesterday, turned his fire on lawyers whom he accused of ‘abetting the work of criminal gangs’
Ms Patel last night defiantly vowed to plough ahead with her Rwanda relocation plan.
In a strongly-worded rebuttal of the Strasbourg justice’s ruling, she said she would not be ‘deterred from doing the right thing’.
Ms Patel admitted the policy ‘will not be easy to deliver’ but expressed optimism that the Government would be able to overcome left-wing lawyers’ repeated legal challenges.
In a round of interviews this morning, Ms Coffey said she is ‘highly confident’ the Government will be able to go ahead with other Rwanda flights.
Ms Coffey said ministers were ‘surprised and disappointed’ by the ECHR rules – swiping that she had never known it to act so quickly.
‘The Government is disappointed by the decision. I have never known such a quick decision made by somebody at the ECHR.
‘I think the public will be surprised at European judges overruling British judges,’ she told Sky News.
‘Nevertheless I know the Home Office is already getting ready for the next flight and we will to continue to prepare and try and overturn any future legal challenges as well.’
Asked if how confident she was the next flight would be able to go ahead, she said: ‘I am highly confident.
‘This decision was taken at rapid pace yesterday. As a consequence it is right that the Government continues to try and make sure we deter unsafe, illegal routes of trying to enter the country because the only people who benefit are unscrupulous people traffickers, often trying to put people into modern slavery as well.’
One senior Tory MP told MailOnline that the migrant issue is far bigger than Partygate and Mr Johnson will be in deeper trouble if he does not ‘fix’ it.
‘They have got to do something. If not the government will look incompetent,’ the MP said.
‘In my inbox, consistently for months, the biggest thing by far has been Channel boats.
‘The government has to fix it.’
Although by yesterday just seven migrants were due to be sent to Rwanda, defiant ministers had insisted the flight would go ahead even if there was only one person on board.
The High Court is due to hold a judicial review in July to decide on the legality of the Rwanda scheme.
However, the Supreme Court had refused to step in to block the flights in advance.
Shadow foreign secretary David Lammy dismissed the idea of leaving the ECHR, saying it would be a ‘grave thing’ to do.
He told BBC Breakfast: ‘It protects all of our rights, our rights to privacy, our rights at work, our rights if we’re in rented accommodation with landlords, all sorts of things that affect all of our lives.
‘And it’s a very grave thing to suggest that those courts should not look at this scheme properly.’
London’s Labour mayor Sadiq Khan immediately celebrated the news as it was confirmed the flight had been called off.
He tweeted: ‘Tonight’s inhumane deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda has been stopped by the ECtHR – minutes before it was due to depart.
‘Sending people fleeing violence to a country thousands of miles away was already cruel and callous. It’s now potentially unlawful too.’
Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon added: ‘Whilst we are relieved to hear the flight to Rwanda did not take off as planned tonight it is clear that the Government remain determined to press on with this deal.
‘The fact that the final flight could not take off is indicative of the inhumanity of the plan and the Government’s complete refusal to see the face behind the case.’
A group of protesters had gathered outside Colnbrook Detention Centre in Heathrow yesterday afternoon and lay on the ground in an effort to halt the flight.
But the cancellation was eventually forced after the ECHR ruled in favour of a 54-year-old Iraqi man, understood to have travelled to the UK by boat in May and thought to have been tortured in the past.
An unnamed judge effectively barred the man, identified only as KN, from being sent to Rwanda under its rules which apply when there is an ‘imminent risk of irreparable harm’.
The court pointed out that Rwanda was outside its jurisdiction, stressing ‘the fact that Rwanda is outside the Convention legal space (and is therefore not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) and the absence of any legally enforceable mechanism for the applicant’s return to the United Kingdom in the event of a successful merits challenge before the domestic court’.
It added that the UK Government must not remove KN until three weeks after the full judicial review by the UK High Court has taken place into the legality of the Rwanda policy.
The ruling effectively overturned a series of decisions by British courts – including the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court – that had allowed the Rwanda flight to go ahead.
Left-wing activists and lawyers had launched a string of legal challenges against the Home Office. Some had prevented individuals being placed on the passenger list, but attempts to win an injunction blocking the whole policy resoundingly failed.
At that stage, lawyers for KN went to Strasbourg.
As the complex series of last-minute legal wrangles unfolded, hundreds of migrants crossed the Channel on small boats yesterday.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and demonstrators protest outside the Home Office in London against plans to send migrants to Rwanda
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan tweeted: ‘Sending people fleeing violence to a country thousands of miles away was already cruel and callous’
Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper highlighted the £120million fee paid to the Rwanda government over the scheme, which has so far failed to resettle any migrants
Demonstrators gathered in George Square, Glasgow, earlier today against the government plans to send migrants to Rwanda
The controversial plans are due to undergo a Judicial Review in July and have attracted criticism from church leaders, lawyers and left-wing politicians (Pictured: today’s protest in Glasgow)
Protesters gathered at the perimeter of MoD Boscombe Down, near Salisbury, where the Boeing 767 aircraft was due to embark on a flight to Rwanda with seven asylum seekers
The protesters waved banners saying’refugees welcome’ and gave interviews to the media assembled outside the military base
An estimated 400 people – including a heavily-pregnant woman, babies and small children – risked their lives to reach Dover in the perilous crossing from northern France.
Yesterday’s unconfirmed number of arrivals is thought to have brought the total since the start of the year to more than 10,600.
Ms Patel has insisted the Rwanda policy is vital to prevent a repeat of tragedies such as the drowning of 27 men, women and children on November 24 last year.
In her statement last night she said: ‘Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now…
‘Access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. The demands on the current system, the cost to the taxpayer, and the flagrant abuses are increasing, and the British public have rightly had enough.
‘I have always said this policy will not be easy to deliver and am disappointed that legal challenge and last-minute claims have meant today’s flight was unable to depart.
‘It is very surprising that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened despite repeated earlier success in our domestic courts.
‘These repeated legal barriers are similar to those we experience with other removals flights and many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next.’
In an interview with BBC’s Newsnight, former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption said it was unclear if the Strasbourg ruling should stop flights and that the enforceability of the interim Strasbourg judgement is a controversial question.
Lortd Sumption added: ‘This isn’t a final judgement of the Strasbourg court, it’s an interim judgement and what is more, that particular article is not one of the ones incorporated into UK law of the Human Rights Act. A more difficult question is what position is there in international law.
‘On the face of it there is nothing in the convention gives effect to orders of the Strasbourg court.’
Four men who challenged their removal at the High Court in London had their cases dismissed yesterday, while a fifth man lost a bid to bring an appeal at the Supreme Court.
Baroness Chakrabarti, former director of Liberty and former Labour shadow attorney general, condemned the Government for going ahead with the plan before the Court of Appeal’s final verdict on the lawfulness of offshore processing, because of an ongoing ‘culture war’.
She said: ‘Would it not have been open to the Home Office to hold off removals until then or is it a confected culture war so that other ministers make these remarks about ‘leftie lawyers’ thwarting the will of the people, and that these souls, these seven or so souls, are collateral damage in that culture war.’
Lord Coaker, shadow spokesman for home affairs and defence, branded the Government’s Rwanda policy ‘unethical, unworkable and expensive, and flies in the face of British values’.
He argued, during a House of Lords debate on the policy, that it is not only ‘shameful’ in a moral capacity, but that the Government putting an RAF base on standby just to facilitate the flight of around seven people would be costly for the taxpayer.
He asked: ‘What will the cost to the taxpayer be of each person?’
Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford replied that she did not believe it was moral to ‘stand by and allow people to drown’ or to ‘line the pockets of criminal gangs who seek to exploit people trying to cross in small boats’.
She added: ‘In terms of the cost, I don’t think we can put a cost on the price of human lives. I think we need to do all we can to deter these perilous journeys.’
The Hallmark Residences Hotel in Kigali, Rwanda where it is believed migrants from the UK are expected to be taken when they arrive
Why are European judges ruling in Britain despite Brexit? What will happen to the next Rwanda flight? Your questions about today’s migrant drama answered
The first deportation flight of migrants to Rwanda which had been due to take off yesterday was cancelled at the last minute following a major intervention from the European Court of Human Rights.
All migrants were removed from the plane at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire after the court granted an urgent interim measure in regards to an Iraqi national, and was considering a number of further requests.
Home Secretary Priti Patel described the European Court of Human Rights intervention as ‘very surprising’, adding that ‘many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next’.
As Prime Minister Boris Johnson insisted the Government would not be deterred from its policy, here are some of the key questions surrounding the European court and how it relates to the UK and this case:
Why does a European court have jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit?
The European Court of Human Rights is an international court set up in 1959 to rule on individual or state applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights in the European Convention on Human Rights.
While Britain officially left the European Union on January 1, 2021, it did not leave the European Convention on Human Rights.
That means judgements by the European Court of Human Rights are still binding on Britain, because it is one of the 46 Council of Europe member states that have ratified the Convention.
While Brexit stopped European Union law superseding UK law, including on areas such as agriculture, it did not affect the standing of the European Convention on Human Rights in Britain.
The Human Rights Act of 1998 – when Tony Blair’s New Labour government was in power – enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, allowing the rights guaranteed by the Convention to be enforced in UK courts.
The Government has previously vowed to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new Bill of Rights, after a pledge to reform human rights laws was included in the Tory manifesto in 2019.
So why did the European Court of Human Rights intervene in the Rwanda flight?
Left-wing lawyers appealed through the UK court system in the case of an Iraqi asylum seeker, referred to as KN, who was due to be on the first flight to Rwanda last night.
They appealed on the grounds of whether Britain’s policy is in accordance with the Human Rights Act, whether the Home Secretary has the right to carry out the removals, the rationality of her claim that Rwanda is generally a ‘safe third country’ and whether there is enough malaria prevention in the country.
Having exhausted High Court and Supreme Court routes in the UK to prevent KN being put on the flight, the man’s lawyers went to the European Court of Human Rights, which they could do because Britain is still a member of this despite Brexit.
The European Court of Human Rights then issued an interim measure in a last-ditch intervention, which said KN should not be sent to Rwanda until a full decision on the legality of the Government’s policy has been reached in the domestic courts.
The court also said it was effectively barring KN from being sent to Rwanda under its rules which apply when there is an ‘imminent risk of irreparable harm’.
The appeals are understood to have been considered by an out-of-hours judge on papers, overruling the UK rulings. It is understood the European Court of Human Rights was considering a number of further requests.
The European Court of Human Rights added that the UK Government must not remove KN until three weeks after a full judicial review by the UK High Court has taken place into the legality of the policy – which is due in late July.
What happens next in the courts?
A full High Court review of the Rwanda policy is expected in July.
In its ruling, the European Court of Human Right acknowledged concerns about access to ‘fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status’ in Rwanda.
It also considered the fact that Rwanda is not part of the European human rights framework and the absence of ‘any legally enforceable mechanism’ to return KN to the UK if there is a successful legal challenge to the policy.
The court ruled that KN should not be removed until three weeks after the delivery of the ‘final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings’ – something which could put the Government’s Rwanda policy on ice for months.
The grounded Rwanda deportation flight EC-LZO Boeing 767 at Boscombe Down Air Base in Wiltshire last night
What will happen to the next Rwanda flight?
The Government still intends to go ahead with the next deportation flight to Rwanda – with Home Secretary Priti Patel saying that preparation ‘begins now’, adding that she will ‘not be deterred from doing the right thing’.
Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey said she is ‘highly confident’ that the Government will be able to go ahead with the policy of deporting migrants to Rwanda. She told how the Home Office is ‘already getting ready for the next flight and we will to continue to prepare and try and overturn any future legal challenges as well’.
Ms Coffey also said ministers were ‘surprised and disappointed’ by the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights and she has ‘never known such a quick decision made by somebody at the ECHR’.
But human rights lawyer Frances Swaine, who represents a man due to be flown to Rwanda, said the Government should wait until a judicial review is heard before attempting another deportation flight to the country.
‘The European Court of Human Rights has recommended that there are no other flights proposals put together until the substantial judicial review hearing into the whole policy is heard’, she told the BBC. ‘We’re expecting that that would take place in about six weeks time during July although we don’t have a firm date for it yet.
‘And I think if I was the Government, which obviously I’m not, but if I was, I would be sitting back and thinking was it worth it, either from a financial or a legal perspective, to organise one of these very expensive flights again when they’ve been so unsuccessful this time around on legal grounds.
‘Because there will be a decision in July as to whether or not this policy can be extant, or whether there would need to be some changes to the law if the Government was absolutely determined to see it through. But wait until we have the decision first and then decide whether to go ahead.’
What is the European Convention on Human Rights?
The European Convention on Human Rights was developed amid the Second World War to ensure that governments would never again be allowed to dehumanise and abuse people’s rights with impunity.
It came into full effect in 1953 and intends to serve as a simple and flexible roundup of universal rights, which could be adapted over time.
Articles listed in the Convention include the right to a fair trial, right to liberty and security, and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
How does the European Convention relate to the UK’s Human Rights Act?
The UK was the very first nation to ratify the convention in March of 1951.
The Human Rights Act of 1998 enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, allowing the rights guaranteed by the Convention to be enforced in UK courts.
However, the Government has vowed to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new Bill of Rights, after a pledge to reform human rights laws was included in the Tory manifesto in 2019.
The Government said the changes will strengthen ‘freedom of speech’ and bring ‘proper balance’ between the rights of individuals and effective politics.
Could the UK leave the European Convention on Human Rights to get the policy through?
The Government has already committed to a shake-up of human rights laws but the intervention of the European court will fuel demands for the UK to leave the convention entirely.
The Prime Minister did not rule out such a drastic measure when questioned about it yesterday, ahead of the Strasbourg court’s injunction. But leaving the ECHR – which emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War – would be a significant step which could have major knock-on effects on other international agreements.
Under the Good Friday Agreement, the ECHR underpins human rights guarantees in Northern Ireland. Remaining signed up to the ECHR also helps ensure judicial and legal co-operation with the EU under the terms of Brexit.
Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey said she doesn’t know of any moves for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, saying: ‘Right now I am not aware of any decisions or even hints about that.’
Ms Coffey told how she instead expected the Government would contest the ruling, saying: ‘The most important thing is that we tackle this issue right now. We will go back, I am sure, to the ECHR to challenge this initial ruling.’
Does this mean the Rwanda migrants plan is illegal?
This is a major issue of contention. Campaigners for the individuals selected for the first flight have already argued in court that if the policy is eventually ruled unlawful, anyone sent to Rwanda would have to be brought back.
The United Nations refugee agency warned the Home Office twice that the move to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, saying that this was because of the risk of refugees being refouled by the African country.
Refoulement is where refugees or asylum seekers are forcibly sent back to a country where they could face persecution, and is illegal under international law – something the UN has responsibility for overseeing.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has also described the policy as ‘potentially unlawful’, but the Home Office has defended it and Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the Government had anticipated ‘a lot of teething problems’.
Court of Appeal president Lord Reed said yesterday there had been an ‘assurance’ that, if the Government’s policy is found to be unlawful, steps would be taken to bring back any migrants flown there in the interim.
Will the government have to pass a new law?
Passing a new law enacting the Rwanda policy through the Commons and Lords would bypass the current legal challenges to the policy.
What will happen to the asylum seekers who were meant to be on the flight?
The migrants are likely to have been returned to a detention centre after being taken off the flight, and Home Secretary Priti Patel said that ‘many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next’.
The ECHR ruling said the migrant known as KN should not be removed until three weeks after a full judicial review by the UK High Court has taken place into the legality of the policy
What would have happened to the migrants sent to Rwanda?
The first migrants to arrive in Rwanda were expected to have been flown into a private terminal at Kigali’s international airport before being taken straight to accommodation at Hope Hostel – where they will be given a chance to rest, eat and settle in, as well as being tested for Covid-19, before they are processed.
The Rwandan government said this is the only facility being used for initial accommodation under the plan so far. Hope Hostel can sleep 100 people, although plans for expansion could see another block built on the site.
A large tent has been erected next door and is understood to be where the processing will take place. Within 24 hours of arrival, migrants will get a three-month residency in Rwanda while their immigration status is decided.
The immigration department will submit a file for the consideration committee within 15 days, after which a decision is expected to be reached within a further 45 days, the Rwandan Ministry of Justice said. The new arrivals will not need to submit an asylum claim, but those who do will have this considered in the first instance.
Anyone without an asylum claim, or one that is rejected, will then be considered under wider immigration rules with a view to provide a right to residency and to work. The government said it had boosted staff numbers and resources to make the process as efficient as possible and hopes to consider claims within three months.
While their immigration status is determined, migrants will take part in an ‘orientation’ programme to help them adjust to their new life in Rwanda – if they choose to stay – with information about the country such as the weather and geography as well as a tour of the area. Food and accommodation will be provided and paid for.
Migrants will also be given a monthly allowance of 100,000RWF a month (roughly £90) to help pay for essentials. Meanwhile they will be given access to language classes and translation services as well as legal advice.
What does Rwanda say about last night’s cancelled flight?
Rwandan government spokesman Yolande Makolo said that the country is ‘not deterred by these developments’.
She added: ‘Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. The current situation of people making dangerous journeys cannot continue as it is causing untold suffering to so many. Rwanda stands ready to receive the migrants when they do arrive and offer them safety and opportunity in our country.’
The Rwandan government has already hit back at ‘insulting’ criticism of plans to send migrants there, saying opponents were ‘missing the bigger picture’ about efforts to improve the standard of living and offer better opportunities so their young people do not move to Europe as well as provide a safe haven for refugees.
Schoolchildren walk along a street among pedestrians in Kigali, Rwanda, today following the dramatic flight cancellation
Why does the UK government want to fly the migrants to Rwanda?
The Government says it welcomes refugees who come by approved immigration routes, but wants to put the criminal smuggling gangs who operate dangerous Channel crossings out of business.
Home Secretary Priti Patel has said that the ‘Migration Partnership’ with Rwanda aims to ‘see those arriving dangerously, illegally, or unnecessarily into the UK relocated to build their lives there’.
The Government has spoken about breaking the business model of people smugglers amid concerns over the demands on the current system and the cost to the taxpayer of regular crossings over the Channel.
At a Cabinet meeting yesterday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that what the ‘criminal gangs are doing and what … those who effectively are abetting the work of the criminal gangs are doing, is undermining people’s confidence in the safe and legal system, undermining people’s general acceptance of immigration’.
Speaking earlier this week, Mr Johnson told LBC radio: ‘I think it’s very important that the criminal gangs who are putting people’s lives at risk in the Channel is going to be broken – is being broken – by this Government.
‘They are selling people a false hope, they are luring them into something extremely risky and criminal.’
Ms Patel has said the ‘vast majority’ of those who arrive in the UK through means deemed ‘illegal’ – such as on unauthorised boats or stowed away in lorries – will be considered for relocation.
More than 28,000 migrants entered the UK across the Channel last year, up from 8,500 in 2020, and about 10,000 have arrived so far this year. Dozens have died, including 27 people in November when a single boat capsized.
Why do some people object?
Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon said the threat of removal will cause ‘human suffering, distress and chaos’ with ‘far reaching consequences for desperate people who are simply in need of safety’.
Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, said the policy is ‘inhumane’, while Prince Charles is also understood to have privately condemned the scheme as ‘appalling’.
The Archbishop of Canterbury and other senior bishops suggested the Rwanda scheme breached Christian values, writing in a joint letter to the Times: ‘Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should shame us as a nation.
‘The shame is our own, because our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, as we have for centuries.’
The letter went on to describe those facing removal as ‘the vulnerable that the Old Testament calls us to value’ and urged the creation of safe migration routes to combat ‘evil’ traffickers.
Migration and refugee groups point out that there are no approved legal routes for most people, with the exception of those fleeing Afghanistan and Ukraine.
