This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866

The article has changed 66 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 22 Version 23
What is the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda? What was the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
(about 1 month later)
The UK government wants to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda. The UK government wants to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, but the policy has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is deciding whether to back the Court of Appeal's ruling in June that the policy is unlawful. The Court said there was a risk that asylum seekers sent there could be returned to their home country, which would break UK and international human rights laws.
What is the Rwanda asylum plan? But the prime minister insists the policy will go ahead.
The five-year trial - announced in April 2022 - would see some asylum seekers sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. What was the Rwanda asylum plan?
They may be granted refugee status to stay in Rwanda. If not, they can apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country". The five-year trial - announced in April 2022 - would have seen some asylum seekers sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there.
The government says the plan will deter people arriving in the UK through "illegal, dangerous or unnecessary methods", such as on small boats which cross the English Channel. Under the plan, they could be granted refugee status to stay in Rwanda. If not, they could apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country".
The government said "anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January 2022 could be sent there, with no limit on numbers.
Rwanda could also have asked the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees.
The UK has already paid the Rwandan government £140m, but no asylum seeker has actually been sent to the country. The first flight was scheduled to go in June 2022, but was cancelled after legal challenges.
Why did the government want to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
The government said the policy would deter people arriving in the UK through "illegal, dangerous or unnecessary methods", such as on small boats across the English Channel.
More than 45,700 people used this route to come to the UK in 2022, the highest figure since records began.More than 45,700 people used this route to come to the UK in 2022, the highest figure since records began.
By the end of September 2023, the number of small boat crossings was about 20% lower than at the same point the year before. In January the PM said "stopping the boats" was one of his key priorities.
No asylum seeker has actually been sent to Rwanda so far. The first flight was scheduled to go in June 2022, but was cancelled after legal challenges. As of 13 November, the number of small boat crossings in 2023 was a third lower than at the same point the year before. But it is not clear which government policies have contributed to that fall.
Is Rwanda safe and is the scheme legal? How is the UK stopping Channel crossings?
The UK Supreme Court began its hearing to determine the fate of the Rwanda scheme on 9 October, with a decision expected at a later date. What did the Supreme Court say about the Rwanda policy?
In June 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier High Court ruling that the Rwanda plan was lawful. The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful.
The Court of Appeal judges ruled that the east African nation was not a safe third country because "deficiencies" in its asylum system mean that some claimants could be sent back to their home countries, where they might face persecution. Five top justices said the Court of Appeal had been right to conclude in June that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was a safe country for asylum seekers.
It said that "unless and until" those deficiencies are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful. Lord Reed, the Court president, said there was strong evidence to believe that genuine refugees sent to the country could be at risk of being returned to their home countries where they could face persecution. In law, this is called "refoulement".
The ruling also said that the Rwanda policy breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment. It breaches part of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment. The UK is a signatory to the ECHR.
Legal challenges meant the first Rwanda flight was cancelled shortly before take-off in June 2022 The judges said the policy also breached safeguards in three British laws passed by Parliament over the last 30 years.
It was not a unanimous decision. Two judges agreed to reverse the High Court decision but a third did not. And they cited Rwanda's poor human rights record, and its past treatment of refugees.
The judges said their decision did not imply a view about the "political merits" of the policy. The Rwandan government rejected the judges' conclusions, saying: "We take our humanitarian responsibilities seriously, and will continue to live up to them."
Asylum Aid, the charity which brought the case against the government, said the judgement was a "vindication of the importance of the rule of law and basic fairness when fundamental rights are at stake". Chris Mason: Rwanda migrants policy in tatters
The UN's refugee agency, which advised the court on matters of international refugee law during the appeal, also welcomed the ruling, and urged the UK government to "pursue other measures" instead. Fact-checking claims about asylum seekers
However, the government confirmed it wanted the issue to go to the Supreme Court. What has the government said?
While legal proceedings continue, flights still cannot take off for Rwanda. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he remained "completely committed to stopping the boats", and was determined to "end the merry-go-round" of legal challenges.
Rwanda Supreme Court showdown: What do we know? He told MPs that the government was negotiating a new treaty with Rwanda that would protect against refoulement, and was prepared to change the law to ensure the policy went ahead.
Rwanda can be trusted, Supreme Court told Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick later said it was "absolutely critical that flights go off to Rwanda in the spring".
Emergency legislation could declare that Rwanda is a safe country, but legal experts have questioned how that might work.
Former Supreme Court judge Lord Jonathan Sumption told the BBC the prime minister's plan was "profoundly discreditable", and would still be a breach of the government's international law obligations.
"It would be constitutionally a completely extraordinary thing to do, to effectively overrule a decision on the facts, on the evidence, by the highest court in the land," he said.
Chris Mason: Eyebrows raised over Sunak's Plan B for Rwanda
Why the government has no good options on Rwanda
Where is Rwanda?
Rwanda is a small land-locked country in east-central Africa, 4,000 miles (6,500km) south-east of the UK.
It borders Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Tanzania and Uganda.
With a landmass about one-tenth of the size of the UK, it has a population of 13.8 million.
President Paul Kagame hopes to win a fourth term in 2024, which would extend his presidency to nearly three decades.
He won the last presidential election in 2017 with nearly 99% of the vote, but critics accuse him of supressing his political opponents.
According to Human Rights Watch, "Rwanda is a country where it's very dangerous to oppose the government".
Land of safety - or fear? Why Rwanda divides opinionLand of safety - or fear? Why Rwanda divides opinion
How many people could be sent to Rwanda? Would the plan save the government money?
It is unclear exactly how many asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda. The government has not provided a total cost for the scheme.
The UK government previously said "anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January 2022 could be sent, with no limit on numbers.
Under the deal, Rwanda can also ask the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees.
But in October 2022, Privilege Style - the airline which was scheduled to take asylum seekers to Rwanda - withdrew from its Home Office contract, after a campaign by refugee charities.
At the time the Guardian reported that two other airlines which had previously conducted deportation flights had also ruled out participation in the Rwanda scheme.
How much will the plan cost?
So far the UK has paid the Rwandan government £140m for the scheme but it has not provided an overall cost.
An economic-impact assessment prepared for the government's Illegal Migration Bill estimated that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.An economic-impact assessment prepared for the government's Illegal Migration Bill estimated that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.
That figure is the difference between the total cost of removing an individual - estimated to be £169,000 - and the £106,000 spent on housing support if they remain in the UK. That is the difference between the total cost of removing an individual - estimated to be £169,000 - and the £106,000 spent on housing support if they remain in the UK.
The £169,000 total includes a payment to the third country of around £105,000 per person, as well as £22,000 for flights. The latter figure includes a payment to the third country of around £105,000 per person, as well as £22,000 for flights.
The Home Office said no cost would be incurred if the policy deterred an individual from entering the UK illegally. Legal challenges meant the first Rwanda flight was cancelled shortly before take-off in June 2022
But it said it was "uncertain" how many people would be deterred because the policy was "novel and untested". The Home Office said no cost would be incurred if the policy prevented an individual from entering the UK illegally.
But it acknowledged it could not say how many people would be deterred.
The UK's asylum system costs £3bn a year. About £8m a day is spent on hotel accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers.The UK's asylum system costs £3bn a year. About £8m a day is spent on hotel accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers.
Critics say the daily cost is so high because of the time taken to decide on applications, and a ban on asylum seekers working while waiting for confirmation of their status.Critics say the daily cost is so high because of the time taken to decide on applications, and a ban on asylum seekers working while waiting for confirmation of their status.
Related TopicsRelated Topics
Calais migrant crisis
Refugees and asylum seekersRefugees and asylum seekers
Europe migrant crisis UK Supreme Court
Rishi Sunak
RwandaRwanda
MigrationMigration