A flight removing the first asylum seekers to Rwanda under a controversial new immigration policy will take off from the UK today, the government has confirmed. Foreign secretary Liz Truss said a flight to east Africa is scheduled on Tuesday evening, but could not say how many people would be on it.
The policy, which is part of home secretary Priti Patel’s bid to curb Channel crossings, appeared to hit a hurdle when several people due to be sent to Rwanda as well as campaign groups asked court judges to block their deportation flights. But members of the government have defended the policy after three Court of Appeal judges ruled that the removal could go ahead.
Three asylum seekers due to be on the first flight launched a last-minute High Court bid to be removed as passengers. However, the Supreme Court rejected their appeal with just hours to go before the flight is due to take off.
READ MORE:
Prime minister Boris Johnson insisted that the government would not be deterred by heavy criticism and told his Cabinet ministers this morning that “we are going to get on and deliver” the plan. Opening the Cabinet meeting in No 10, Mr Johnson said there was a “huge amount of attack” aimed at the policy.
“What is happening with the attempt to undermine the Rwanda policy is that they are, I’m afraid, undermining everything that we’re trying to do to support safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK and to oppose the illegal and dangerous routes," he told ministers.
But what does the policy entail and why has it been so controversial? Here's everything you need to know.
Why are asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda?
Ms Patel has come under pressure in recent years to crack down on the number of migrants reaching the UK illegally. Under the new scheme, 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.
Once migrants are brought ashore in Dover by Navy and Border Force personnel they will receive medical assessment before being taken to the Manston disused airfield and processing site. Those deemed to have entered by dangerous or illegal means will be detained and considered for removal to Rwanda under a screening process.
Rwanda has to approve any requests and the country has made clear it would reject any individuals with criminal records. People seeking asylum from Rwanda are not expected to be sent back there, regardless of how they entered the UK.
The selected migrants will be sent by chartered flight to Rwanda where they will be housed in temporary accommodation, not detained, and have their asylum claims assessed. If they are not granted refugee status, they will be given the option of applying to stay under another basis.
Mr Johnson has said the agreement is “uncapped” and Rwanda will have the “capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead”. It is understood that adults will be prioritised for relocation under the scheme, with officials insisting families arriving in the UK will not be split up.
The PM says the new strategy will support safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK while deterring criminal gangs from using illegal and dangerous routes. Explaining why the policy has been introduced, he said: “The objective is to ensure that we make that clear distinction, that I think everybody can see is fair and reasonable, between legal immigration to this country by safe and legal routes, which we support and uphold and protect because we all understand the benefits that it brings, and distinguishing that from dangerous and illegal cross-Channel migration which we intend to stop.”
He accepted the measure is not a “magic bullet” that will solve the crossings problem, but said he hopes it will be a “very considerable deterrent”. He said his aim is to break the business model of the “vile people smugglers” who risk turning the Channel into a “watery graveyard”.
Why has the policy been so controversial?
Contrary to the government's belief, refugee charities have argued that the plans do nothing to alleviate the pressures forcing migrants to take the extraordinary step of paying criminals to pack them into unsafe boats to cross a perilous shipping lane. The plans have also been condemned by the Church of England’s senior bishops and reportedly by the Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles is is said to be “more than disappointed” by the government’s policy to send migrants to Rwanda, with reports that he privately described the move as “appalling”. Meanwhile, the archbishops of Canterbury and York along with the other Anglican bishops in the House of Lords condemned the plans as “immoral”, with the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby saying: “Deporting asylum seekers should shame us as a nation.”
Groups opposing the plans attempted to get a legal injunction that would prevent the first flight from taking off until a full hearing planned for next month, which will decide whether the policy is lawful. Lawyers for Asylum Aid, one of the organisations taking legal action against Ms Patel over the policy, has argued that asylum-seekers affected are “effectively guinea pigs” for a process which had not been properly tested.
A government spokesman insisted the policy was compliant with Britain’s national and international obligations and was necessary to combat the activities of the human trafficking gangs.
On Sunday, more than a hundred people gathered in Manchester city centre to protest the plans. Impassioned speeches from activists slammed the government's deportation policy, while protesters carried placards and broke out into chants criticising the scheme. Nahella Ashraf, co-chair of Greater Manchester Stand Up To Racism, said the purpose of the rally was to 'show solidarity' with those affected by the policy.
She explained: "The reason we're here is because we want to show that we're absolutely disgusted by this new policy where basically the government want to ship people off on a one-way ticket to Rwanda. These are people that are really traumatised and vulnerable who have come to Britain looking for safety and they're being shipped off to a place, let's be honest, that has very little human rights, particularly for refugees."
Is Rwanda a safe country?
According to Mr Johnson, Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world, but critics of the policy have aired concerns over the African nation’s “dismal” human rights record. Guidance published by the Home Office said the east African nation is “a safe country to relocate people to”, although an assessment carried out before the agreement found “some concerns with its human rights record around political opposition to the current regime, dissent and free speech”.
A Human Rights Watch report last year found evidence that Rwandan authorities had arbitrarily detained over a dozen gay and transgender people ahead of a June 2021 conference, accusing them of “not representing Rwandan values”.
According to the Foreign Office, homosexuality “remains frowned upon by many” in Rwanda and LGBT people can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities. The travel advice page describes the country as “generally safe” with relatively low crime levels, but the situation near the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi remains unstable, and there have been armed attacks in some areas.
What has the Rwandan government said?
Rwandan high commissioner Johnston Busingye told The Telegraph that his country will be a “safe haven” for migrants. The country has defended the scheme, arguing it is “well thought out”.
Yolande Makolo, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, told Sky News people should give the migration partnership “a chance”. “It’s very well thought out, it’s going to be well-resourced, we’re determined to make this work, we have the experience, we’re building the capacity to do this properly,” she said. “So everyone just needs to give this a chance to work. And we need to look at migration differently."
READ NEXT:
