Labour claims appeal court ruling shows Rwanda policy ‘completely unravelling’ – UK politics live | Politics

Penny Mordaunt, leader of the Commons, told MPs this morning that they will get a chance to debate the privileges committee’s report about interference with its Boris Johnson inquiry on Monday 10 July (Monday week). She said the fact that a debate had been scheduled a debate showed “how seriously the government takes these matters of privilege”.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson was unable to say “this far in advance” whether Rishi Sunak would be attending the debate, or voting.

Asked if the PM still had confidence in Lord Goldsmith, the only serving minister named in the report as one of those Tories who undermined the inquiry’s work, the spokesperson said he did.

Asked if the PM was relaxed about what Goldsmith had done, the spokesperson said Sunak has spoken publicly about how he supports and respects the work of the committee.

In its report the committee criticises Goldsmith for retweeting a tweet, on the day Boris Johnson announced his resignation as an MP, calling its inquiry into him a witch-hunt and a kangaroo court. Goldsmith also said:

Exactly this. There was only ever going to be one outcome and the evidence was totally irrelevant to it.

It is also worth highlighting the final paragraph of Rishi Sunak’s statement. (See 12.26pm.)

The policy of this government is very simple, it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen.

There is a debate within the Conservative party over whether or not it should consider withdrawing from the European convention on human right to enable the government to deport asylum seekers without risk of legal challenge. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has called for this publicly in the past, and there is a smallish cohort of Tory backbenchers who strongly agree.

Rishi Sunak has been more equivocal. In the past he has suggested there is no need for Britain to leave the convention, but he has not ruled out the idea and the line in his statement today about being willing to do “whatever is necessary” to ensure the UK controls its borders will encourage those Conservatives who want him to move in this direction.

Some in the party want to turn this into an issue at the next general election.

Rishi Sunak has just issued a statement saying that he “fundamentally” disagrees with the court of appeal’s ruling on the Rwanda policy. He has confirmed that the government will appeal to the supreme court.

Here is the statement in full.

While I respect the court I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions.

I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries – something that the lord chief justice agrees with.

Rwanda is a safe country. The high court agreed. The UNHCR have their own refugee scheme for Libyan refugees in Rwanda. We will now seek permission to appeal this decision to the supreme court.

The policy of this government is very simple, it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen.

Labour claims appeal court ruling shows Rwanda policy ‘completely unravelling’

Ben Quinn

Labour says the court of appeal ruling today shows the government’s policy on so-called small boats is “completely unravelling”. In a statement Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said:

Today’s judgment shows that Rishi Sunak has no plan to fix the Tories’ small boats chaos and his only idea is completely unravelling.

Ministers were forced to admit this week that it will cost £169,000 to send each person to Rwanda on top of the £140m of taxpayers’ money they have already spent. Now the court has found that ministers didn’t even do the basic work to make sure the scheme was legal or safe.

Time and again, ministers have gone for gimmicks instead of getting a grip, and slogans instead of solutions, while the Tory boats chaos has got worse. The Rwanda scheme is unworkable, unethical and extortionate, a costly and damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking.

They should now put that money into Labour’s plan to go after the criminal gangs, clear the asylum backlog and stop dangerous boat crossings that are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk.

Cooper will be facing Suella Braverman, the home secretary, in the Commons later when Braverman makes a statement on the court of appeal ruling. It is now expected around 3.30pm.

Labour is challenging Rishi Sunak to condemn the Tory MPs and peers criticised in today’s privileges committee report. (See 9.19am.) In a statement on it, Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the Commons, accused him of allowing them “to undermine and attack Britain’s democratic institutions”. She said:

Rishi Sunak has allowed senior members of his own party to undermine and attack Britain’s democratic institutions. This includes a serving government minister and two former cabinet ministers.

It’s yet another example of the prime minister’s weakness and failure to hold his own ministers to high standards that Zac Goldsmith is still a government minister.

It’s time Rishi Sunak condemned his Conservative colleagues who have sought to override parliament’s standards system to get one of their own off the hook. He must accept the committee’s damming conclusions and make time for MPs to approve the report in full.

Campaigners welcome appeal court ruling on Rwanda policy

Diane Taylor

The court of appeal judgment has been welcomed by campaigners and charities who work with asylum seekers. Here are some of the their comments.

From Alison Pickup, director of Asylum Aid (which was one of the parties involved in the appeal):

We are delighted that the court of appeal has upheld the argument that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers. While we are disappointed that the court has held that the process can be made fair, we are pleased that it has not upheld the high court’s judgment and has made it clear that the government needs to ensure that Home Office officials give people more time when they need it.

From Detention Action (which was involved in the original high court case, but not the appeal):

We are relieved that the UK’s court of appeal has recognised the unlawfulness of this government’s controversial and dangerous deal with the Rwandan regime … The intervention of the court proves that in the UK we still recognise our responsibility to protect people seeking asylum, even if the home secretary does not.

From Sonya Sceats, chief executive of Freedom from Torture (which was represented at the appeal hearing):

This is a victory for reason and compassion … As we outlined in our intervention in the court of appeal, this dirty deal with Rwanda does too little to identify and protect survivors and other vulnerable groups and would see them placed at risk of further harm.

From Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council:

We are relieved that the court of appeal has ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for people who claim asylum. However, we’re disappointed that they have not concluded that the overall policy is unlawful.

Let’s remember that the UK made an international commitment under the refugee convention to provide a safe haven for those fleeing for their lives who seek protection on our soil.

From Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive:

This judgment is very welcome, but it can’t undo the enormous suffering, harm and expense already caused by the government’s long and reckless pursuit of a patently unjust scheme.

From Aisha Dodwell, head of campaigns for the Catholic aid agency Cafod:

It is time for the government to look again at its shameful policy and its treatment of migrants and refugees. As Pope Francis has made clear, the world needs to show maximum respect for the dignity of each migrant by building bridges, not walls, as well as providing routes for safe and regular migration.

Rwanda ruling highlights possible need for UK to leave ECHR, says former Tory cabinet minster

Ben Quinn

The ruling of the court of appeal on Rwanda was described as “deeply disappointing” by the Tory MP and former levelling up secretary Sir Simon Clarke, who said he would anticipate “an immediate appeal” to the supreme court.

“We have to be able to control our borders. If the ECHR continues to forestall this, we have to revisit the question of our membership,” he added, referring to the European convention on human rights, cited in the judgment today as the reason for the Rwanda policy being unlawful. (See 10.29am.)

Some Tories want the UK to leave the ECHR, to remove legal objections to the deportation of asylum seekers, and some MPs want the party to make this a manifesto proposal at the next election.

Other rightwingers were also critical of the ruling. Nigel Farage, the former Ukip and then Brexit party leader, said the judiciary would “always do their best to assist illegal immigration”.

And Richard Tice, leader of Reform UK (the successor to the Brexit party), said the ruling was “disgraceful”.

Brendan Clarke-Smith, one of the Boris Johnson-supporting Tories criticised by the Commons privileges committee (see 9.19am), has said he is “shocked and disappointed” by its findings.

The committee criticised Clarke-Smith for posting this message on Twitter on 9 June, the day when Boris Johnson resigned as an MP with a statement denouncing the draft privileges committee report he had been shown confidentially. At that point the final report had not been published.

Tonight we saw the end result of a parliamentary witch-hunt which would put a banana republic to shame. It is the people of this country who elect and decide on their MPs. It’s called democracy and we used to value it here. Sadly this no longer appears to be the case.

Mark Jenkinon, another Johnsonite Tory named in the report today, has also rejected its conclusions. He accused it of “gross overreach”.

In its report the committe highlighted this message from Jenkinson, also posted on Twitter on 9 June.

When the witch-hunt has been forgotten, future generations will look back in astonishment.

The Rwandan government has issued a statement contesting the court of appeal’s decision that it is not a safe third country. Yolande Makolo, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, said:

While this is ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system, we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees. Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world and we have been recognised by the UNHCR and other international institutions for our exemplary treatment of refugees.

We make a significant contribution to dealing with the impacts of the global migration crisis. Rwandans know what it means to be forced to flee home, and to make a new life in a new country. As a society, and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans. Everyone relocated here under this partnership will benefit from this.

Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work. The broken global migration system is failing to protect the vulnerable, and empowering criminal smuggling gangs at an immeasurable human cost. When the migrants do arrive, we will welcome them and provide them with the support they’ll need to build new lives in Rwanda.

This passage, from the summary of the court of appeal’s judgment, explains why it decided that Rwanda was not a safe third country.

The decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill (the vice-president of the court of appeal (Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was before the high court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement, inadequate. The court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the proposed removals. In consequence sending anyone to Rwanda would constitute a breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights, with which parliament has required that the government must comply (Human Rights Act 1998, section 6).

Originally the hight court ruled that in principle Rwanda was a safe third country. But the high court found in favour of asylum seekers challenging the decision to send them to Rwanda because of the way their cases had been handled.

But the court of appeal’s decision was not unanimous. Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice, concluded Rwanda was a safe country. But he was “outvoted” by the other two judges sitting with him.

In agreement with the high court, the lord chief justice, the Lord Burnett of Maldon, has reached the opposite conclusion. He agrees that the procedures put in place under the Rwanda agreement and the assurances given by the Rwandan government are sufficient to ensure that there is no real risk that asylum-seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy will be wrongly returned to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment. He has concluded that the chances of failed asylum seekers being returned to their countries of origin are in any event low, not least because Rwanda has no agreements in place with any of the countries in question. In addition, extensive monitoring arrangements, formal and informal, of all those sent to Rwanda and their asylum claims once there provide powerful protection. The arrangements put in place provide sufficient safeguards in a context where both governments will be determined to make the agreement work and be seen to do so.

Here is the key passage from the summary of the judgment by Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice. He said:

The result is that the high court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful.

Lord Burnett says the court is allowing the appeal from campaigners acting on behalf of asylum seekers on the grounds of Rwanda being a safe third country.

But he says the court is not allowing the appeal on other grounds.

The court of appeal is now giving is judgment on the Rwanda appeal. There is a live feed at the top of the blog.

Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice, is now setting out the background to the case.

The essential issue is whether the Rwanda system could deliver reliable outcomes, he says. He says the appellants argued that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda might be returned to their home country when they had a good case for asylum.

He says the high court approved the Rwanda policy in principle, but objected to how it was applied in particular cases.