Rishi Sunak gambled his premiership on the Rwanda deportation plan, and a Commons vote today is expected to expose serious splits among the Tory Party.
The initiative, which has already seen the government give over £240 million to the African country, has been slammed by critics as a “gimmick” and has splintered the Conservative Party.
Despite the two countries reaching an agreement in April of last year, no asylum seekers have been sent. Three Home Secretaries travelled the 6,000 miles, but they all returned.
Mr Sunak was dealt a heavy blow last month when Supreme Court judges declared that the programme was unconstitutional. Suella Braverman, the ousted Home Secretary, accused him of having no Plan B amid calls to scrap the project entirely in a scathing letter.
Meanwhile, a “star chamber” of Conservative legal experts has stated that the revised Bill is insufficient. The Prime Minister is speaking with prospective rebels this morning to persuade them not to break ranks and vote against his signature legislation.
Right-wing factions have argued the Bill has to be severely changed, while the moderate One Nation party has said it will not accept drastic modifications.
The Prime Minister should expect a hectic day today, with the vote scheduled for around 7 p.m. Even a narrow victory will be bittersweet because the Bill still needs to go through many levels of inspection, which means there is plenty of opportunity for it to be scrapped.
Despite the Supreme Court’s judgement, the Prime Minister chose to press on, drafting emergency legislation to resuscitate it and reaching a new pact with Rwanda. His Rwanda Safety Bill has provoked widespread outrage, with right-wing critics claiming it does not go far enough.
MPs will vote on it today, with only 29 Conservatives needed to derail it – an outcome that could destabilise the PM. In this section, we look at the scheme that has driven the government to its knees.
What is the Rwanda plan all about?
In a nutshell, the UK has agreed with the Rwandan government to fly hundreds of asylum seekers 6,000 miles to the African country.
Although the government claims that the country is safe and that migrants would be treated properly, it also believes that it will dissuade people from trying to enter the UK through illegal ways, such as small boats.
Those deported to Rwanda may be awarded refugee status and permitted to stay. They could even seek asylum in another “safe third country.”
How much does it cost?
After months of secrecy, the Home Office officially disclosed this week that £240 million has been handed transferred to Rwanda.
This is projected to climb to £290 million later this year and even more through annual payments. On Monday, the top civil servant at the Home Office disclosed that the expense was only made public due to an error in Rwanda. We’d still be in the dark if the government had its way.
Meanwhile, in the summer, a long-awaited economic evaluation indicated that the plan would cost £169,000 per person.
On top of that, the legal fees have reportedly exceeded £2 million. Still, this figure could climb further, and the ultimate cost of the project has yet to be disclosed.
However, the government maintains that it will save “billions” in the long term due to increased accommodation costs as a result of the large asylum backlog.
Has someone been sent to Rwanda yet?
Only if Home Secretaries are included. Priti Patel excitedly announced the agreement in April 2022, claiming it would be a game changer in combating illegal migration.
The project has been stuck since the first flight was aborted at the last minute due to a legal challenge in June of that year.
Suella Braverman, who was fired last month, went on a press trip to Kigali in March with a well-picked press pack. Following her appointment, her replacement, James Cleverly, flew to Rwanda for treaty negotiations. But all three returned.
How many asylum seekers can Rwanda take?
The Government said there’s no top limit on the number of people who can be sent to Rwanda. What’s less clear is how many people can be sent as soon as the project goes live. This week the Prime Minister’s official spokesman was unable to say what the capacity will be on day one of the scheme being operational.
Last year the Home Office said Rwanda would have accommodation for around 200 people at first. Given that over 43,000 small boat crossings were recorded in the 12 months to June, there are questions about how much of a difference it will make.
So what’s been happening in the courts?
There was much debate about whether the Rwanda programme was lawful, culminating in the landmark Supreme Court decision.
The Court of Appeal concluded in June that it wasn’t, stating that the African country isn’t a safe location to send asylum seekers. It further stated that the policy violates some provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court of Appeal decision overturned an earlier High Court decision that found the project to be valid.
However, the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, looked to have permanently derailed it last month.
Why is the Government still going ahead?
Despite the Supreme Court’s verdict, Rishi Sunak has refused to give up. He insists that proceeding is the only way to stop the boats, which he has promised to do. After sinking so much taxpayer money into the programme, admitting loss would be embarrassing for the PM, and the idea is popular among Tory MPs and the party membership.
What does the new Bill do then?
The contentious Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which was first issued on December 6, is the product of the government’s panicky reaction to the court verdict. It intends to eliminate all legal routes for appeal and to allow Parliament to disregard the courts.
If Rwanda’s parliament declares the country safe, all courts and tribunals must follow suit. Courts will also be prevented from hearing cases related to the Refugee Convention, and Human Rights Act protections would be withdrawn.
It cannot, however, prevent asylum seekers from petitioning the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, although ministers will be able to determine whether to comply with rulings issued by the court.
What are the Tory factions saying?
First up on the right, the New Conservatives said the Rwanda Bill needs “major surgery or replacement”. A spokesman for the group said: “More than 40 colleagues met tonight to discuss the Bill.
“Every member of that discussion said the Bill needs major surgery or replacement and they will be making that plain in the morning to the PM at breakfast and over the next 24 hours.”
However, highlighting the difficulties facing Mr Sunak, One Nation chairman Damian Green warned its MPs would oppose any amendments that would risk the UK breaching the rule of law and its international obligations. He said: “We support the Bill unamended, but if anyone brings forward any amendments that breach our international obligations or breach the rule of law, we vote against those amendments at future stages.
“We will vote with the Government tomorrow, but we want the Government to stick to its guns and stick to the text of this Bill.” So even if the Bill staggers through the Commons today, the fighting isn’t over.
Is the new bill legal?
Yes, says the government, which took the extraordinary step of publishing a summary of legal advice offered to ministers.
However, not everyone agrees, and it will need to be watertight if it is to be accepted. A “star chamber” of Tory attorneys is sceptical, arguing that the legislation is insufficiently broad.
The government, for its part, acknowledged an “exceptionally narrow route to individual challenge” and admitted that preventing judicial challenges would be “a breach of international law” and “alien to the UK’s constitutional tradition of liberty and justice.”
What happens if Rishi Sunak loses the vote?
It might not finish him off, but it will surely do significant damage. A failure on the flagship initiative, which Mr Sunak argues is critical to his commitment to stop the boats, would give those attempting to depose him an advantage.
The government has stated that there will be no confidence vote, which means that failure will not result in a general election. But there are plenty of Tory plotters, and dissatisfied MPs might write their own letters of no confidence to Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the backbench 1922 committee.
If 53 votes are cast, the decision to remove a third Prime Minister since the previous General Election is unlikely to be popular with voters.