This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

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 23 Version 24
What was the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda? What is the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
(17 days later)
The UK government wants to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, but the policy has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. Home Secretary James Cleverly is signing a new migration treaty with Rwanda to try and address concerns about the government's plan to send asylum seekers there.
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. In November, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the scheme was unlawful because of the risk asylum seekers sent to Rwanda could be returned to their home countries, where they could face harm.
But the prime minister insists the policy will go ahead. What is the Rwanda asylum plan?
What was the Rwanda asylum plan? Under the five-year trial - first announced in April 2022 - some asylum seekers arriving in the UK would be sent to Rwanda for processing.
The five-year trial - announced in April 2022 - would have seen some asylum seekers sent to Rwanda to claim asylum there. On arrival, they could be granted refugee status and allowed to stay. If not, they could apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country".
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 that "anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January 2022 could be sent there, with no limit on numbers.
The government said "anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January 2022 could be sent there, with no limit on numbers. Rwanda could also ask the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees.
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 there.
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. 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? Why does 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.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.
In January the PM said "stopping the boats" was one of his key priorities.In January the PM said "stopping the boats" was one of his key priorities.
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. As of 4 December, 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.
How is the UK stopping Channel crossings?How is the UK stopping Channel crossings?
What did the Supreme Court say about the Rwanda policy?What did the Supreme Court say about the Rwanda policy?
The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful.The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful.
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. Five leading judges 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.
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". Court president Lord Reed said there was strong evidence to believe that genuine refugees sent to the country could be returned to their home countries where they could face persecution. In law, this is called "refoulement".
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. This breaches part of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment. The UK is a signatory to the ECHR.
The judges said the policy also breached safeguards in three British laws passed by Parliament over the last 30 years. The judges also said the policy breaches safeguards in three British laws passed by Parliament during the last 30 years.
And they cited Rwanda's poor human rights record, and its past treatment of refugees. They cited concerns about Rwanda's poor human rights record, and its past treatment of refugees.
The Court heard evidence from the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) that the Rwandan government rejected 100% of all asylum claims made by people from Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria between 2020 and 2022.
The Rwandan government rejected the judges' conclusions, saying: "We take our humanitarian responsibilities seriously, and will continue to live up to them."The Rwandan government rejected the judges' conclusions, saying: "We take our humanitarian responsibilities seriously, and will continue to live up to them."
Chris Mason: Rwanda migrants policy in tattersChris Mason: Rwanda migrants policy in tatters
Fact-checking claims about asylum seekersFact-checking claims about asylum seekers
What has the government said? What is the government doing to address the Supreme Court ruling?
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. After November's ruling, 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.
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. Mr Sunak told MPs the Rwanda plan would go ahead
Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick later said it was "absolutely critical that flights go off to Rwanda in the spring". On 5 December, Mr Cleverly travelled to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, to sign a new migration treaty.
Emergency legislation could declare that Rwanda is a safe country, but legal experts have questioned how that might work. The government believes this will give the scheme a stronger legal grounding, and will protect against the risk of refoulement.
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. Reports have suggested that British lawyers may be sent to the east African nation to strengthen its asylum process.
The government is also preparing emergency legislation to 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 that the government's plan to get round the Supreme Court ruling this way was "profoundly discreditable", and that the policy 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."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 RwandaChris Mason: Eyebrows raised over Sunak's Plan B for Rwanda
Why the government has no good options on RwandaWhy the government has no good options on Rwanda
Where is 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.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.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.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.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.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".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
Would the plan save the government money?Would the plan save the government money?
The government has not provided a total cost for the scheme.The government has not provided a total cost for the scheme.
But speaking to journalists on a flight to Dubai for the COP28 climate summit, the prime minister said that the Rwanda plan will "literally save us billions in the long run".
He did not give details to back up this claim.
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 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 latter figure 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.
Legal challenges meant the first Rwanda flight was cancelled shortly before take-off in June 2022Legal challenges meant the first Rwanda flight was cancelled shortly before take-off in June 2022
The Home Office said no cost would be incurred if the policy prevented an individual from entering the UK illegally.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.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 crisisCalais migrant crisis
Refugees and asylum seekersRefugees and asylum seekers
UK Supreme CourtUK Supreme Court
Rishi SunakRishi Sunak
RwandaRwanda
MigrationMigration