Britain under scrutiny as $300 million U.K.-Rwanda deal fails to curb asylum-seekers in English Channel
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing mounting pressure to clarify the reasons behind the payment of $300 million to Rwanda, despite the failure of the asylum plan that was at the heart of the deal. The amount given to Rwanda is nearly double the $175 million initially disclosed by Britain. The agreement, which was reached in April 2022, aimed to redirect asylum-seekers who crossed the English Channel to Rwanda, where their applications would be processed. However, the plan was challenged in U.K. courts, and the Supreme Court ruled it to be unlawful due to safety concerns in Rwanda.
Despite the legal setback and the rising costs, Prime Minister Sunak has vowed to proceed with the controversial plan. In the 2023-24 financial year alone, the Home Office has already paid $125 million to Rwanda, with an additional $60 million expected to be transferred in the next 12 months.
Tom Pursglove, the Junior Immigration Minister, defended the high cost, asserting that it was necessary to ensure the establishment of the appropriate infrastructure for the partnership with Rwanda. He insisted that part of this expenditure would address the concerns raised by the Supreme Court.
However, the Liberal Democrats, the opposition party, described the payment as an unforgivable waste of taxpayers’ money.
The U.K. government sees the asylum plan with Rwanda as a pivotal component of its self-imposed objective to prevent undocumented migrants from crossing the English Channel from France in small boats. This year alone, over 29,000 individuals have made the journey, compared to 46,000 in 2022.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, the U.K. and Rwanda signed a new treaty aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the court. The treaty includes provisions ensuring that Rwanda will not transfer any individual relocated under the partnership to another country.
To facilitate the plan, the British government plans to introduce legislation declaring Rwanda a safe destination. This proposed law, if approved by Parliament, would allow the government to disapply specific sections of the U.K. human rights law concerning asylum claims related to Rwanda and restrict the ability to challenge deportations in court.
The bill is scheduled for its first vote in the House of Commons on Tuesday. However, it has proven to be a contentious issue within the governing Conservative Party, which currently lags behind the Labor opposition in opinion polls leading up to the upcoming election.
Conservative lawmakers opposed to the bill, particularly those on the party’s authoritarian right, view curbing immigration as a crucial fulfillment of the government’s promise to regain control after Brexit. They argue that the proposed legislation is too lenient and are calling for the U.K. to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. While almost every European country, excluding Russia and Belarus, adheres to this convention and its court, the party’s right wing remains determined in its pursuit of stricter immigration policies.
Important figures involved in the negotiation and signing of the treaty between the U.K. and Rwanda include Home Secretary James Cleverly and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta. They met in Kigali, Rwanda, to finalize the agreement and ensure that it addressed the concerns raised by the Supreme Court.
As the U.K. government persists in its quest to implement the Rwanda asylum plan, it faces resistance from both its opposition and its own party members. The financial burden on taxpayers, the legal challenges, and the ongoing controversy surrounding the case continue to overshadow Prime Minister Sunak’s determination to move forward with the initiative.
