Eight frontbenchers quit the Labour Party last night, in a major blow to Labour leader Keir Starmer over the party’s stance on a ceasefire in Gaza.
The major rebellion occurred as more than a quarter of Labour’s MPs defied Starmer to support an immediate cessation in the fighting. Among the most high profile names choosing to defy the Labour leadership was Jess Phillips, who joined colleagues including Yasmin Qureshi, Afzal Khan and Paula Barker in quitting on Wednesday evening after deciding to support the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech backing a ceasefire.
Four other frontbenchers: Rachel Hopkins, Sarah Owen, Naz Shah and Andy Slaughter, have also left the front bench after breaking the party whip to back the amendment. Mary Foy, Angela Rayner’s parliamentary private secretary (PPS), and Dan Carden, another PPS, have also left the frontbench.
Overall, 56 Labour MPs voted in favour of a ceasefire.
The Rwanda deal was signed when Priti Patel was home secretary. Rwanda visit April 14, 2022. Image: UK Home Office.
Before publishing this article unaltered, I draw your attention to these excerpts:
…
It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.
…
This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.
But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.
…
So it would appear that UK is not going to be sending refugees to Rwanda despite Rishi Sunak and Conservative claims that it will.
Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next
The UK supreme court has unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.
Upholding an earlier decision by the court of appeal, the supreme court found that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda may be at risk of refoulement – being sent back to a country where they may be persecuted, tortured or killed.
The courts cited extensive evidence from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) that Rwanda does not respect the principle of non-refoulement – a legal obligation. The UNHCR’s evidence questioned the ability of Rwandan authorities to fairly assess asylum claims. It also raised concerns about human rights violations by Rwandan authorities, including not respecting non-refoulement with other asylum seekers.
It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.
The ruling is another blow to the government’s promise to “stop the boats”. And since the Rwanda plan is at the heart of its new Illegal Migration Act, the government will need to reconsider its asylum policies. This is further complicated by Conservative party infighting and the firing of home secretary Suella Braverman, just two days before the ruling.
How did we get here?
For years, the UK government has been seeking to reduce small boat arrivals to the UK. In April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed an agreement making it possible for the UK to deport some people seeking asylum in Britain to Rwanda, without their cases being heard in the UK. Instead, they would have their cases decided by Rwandan authorities, to be granted (or rejected) asylum in Rwanda.
While the Rwanda plan specifically was found to be unlawful, the government could, in theory, replicate this in other countries so long as they are considered “safe” for asylum seekers.
The government has not yet sent anyone to Rwanda. The first flight was prevented from taking off by the European court of human rights in June 2022, which said that British courts needed to consider all human rights issues before starting deportations.
A UK high court then decided in December 2022 that the Rwanda plan was lawful.
Catch up on our other coverage of the Rwanda plan:
Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania challenged the high court ruling, with the support of the charity Asylum Aid. Their claim was about whether Rwanda meets the legal threshold for being a safe country for asylum seekers.
The court of appeal said it was not and that asylum seekers risked being sent back to their home countries (where they could face persecution), when in fact they may have a good claim for asylum.
The government has since passed the Illegal Migration Act. The law now states that all asylum seekers arriving irregularly (for example, in small boats) must be removed to a safe third country. But now that the Rwanda deal has been ruled unlawful, there are no other countries that have said they would take asylum seekers from the UK.
What happens next?
Former Home Secretary Suella ‘Sue-Ellen’ Braverman continued with the Rwanda policy.
It is clear that the government’s asylum policies will need rethinking. Should another country now be designated as a safe country and different arrangements put in place, these will probably be subject to further legal challenges, including in the European court of human rights and in British courts.
This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.
But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.
The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that he is working on a new treaty with Rwanda and is prepared to change domestic laws to “do whatever it takes to stop the boats”.
The UK is not the only country to attempt to off-shore asylum processing. Germany and Italy have recently been considering finding new safe third countries to accept asylum seekers as well.
But ensuring these measures comply with human rights obligations is complicated. International law requires states to provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution or risk to their lives. As this ruling shows, the UK is not going to find an easy way out of these obligations.
Toufique Hossain, director of public law and immigration at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, (centre) with his legal team outside the Supreme Court in London. Picture date: Wednesday November 15, 2023.
PITILESS Tory plans to deport refugees to Rwanda were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court today, plunging Rishi Sunak’s government deeper into chaos.
The court determined that Rwanda was not a safe destination for asylum-seekers and that there was a high risk of them being returned to their country of origin to be tortured or worse, thus torpedoing what is a flagship Tory policy.
The defiant Prime Minister pledged to fight on to stop destitute refugees crossing the Channel, responding to the judgement by asserting that “illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so.”
He later claimed that the judges had agreed that the “principle of removing asylum-seekers to a safe third country is lawful” and told MPs he was ready to “revisit” UK laws to block migration if necessary and to seek a fresh treaty with Rwanda.
…
Labour ducked the moral issues raised by the policy, with leader Sir Keir Starmer and shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper focusing instead on the waste of money and time involved in the failed Rwanda policy.
The judges’ decision was, however, welcomed by a wide range of human rights campaigners.
Amnesty International’s Sacha Deshmukh said: “The government must now draw a line under a disgraceful chapter in the UK’s political history.
Former chair of climate change committee says UK’s decision has encouraged other countries to keep exploiting fossil fuels
The UK’s decision to open a new coalmine in Cumbria was a “disaster” that encouraged other countries to press ahead with fossil fuels, and the continued expansion of North Sea oil and gas is likely to continue the harm, a former chief adviser to the government has said.
Other countries are using the UK as an excuse for pressing ahead with fossil fuel projects despite their climate commitments, according to Adair Turner, the first chair of the Committee on Climate Change and a former head of the CBI.
Lord Turner told the Guardian that he had “literally been involved in discussions” in China and India where UK decisions had been given as a reason for not moving faster on the climate.
“I can tell you that [the Cumbrian coalmine] was a disaster globally, and in China and India, where I was engaged in debates [on reducing greenhouse gas emissions], I have had people say ‘yeah, but you’re building a new coalmine in the UK’,” he said.
“So that was a disaster for our reputation, and it provides arguments for the people within government or within interest groups in China and India to say ‘oh look, the UK is supposedly committed to net zero, but it’s not serious, it’s building a new coalmine’. And the same occurs with new oil and gas fields in the North Sea.”
Turner is now chair of the Energy Transitions Commission (ETC), a thinktank that on Thursday published a report that says the production of and demand for fossil fuels must be reduced rapidly, and that this is achievable. “Unabated” fossil fuel use must be phased out, and there is only limited scope for the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS), the report finds.
Image of the Green Party’s Carla Denyer on BBC Question Time.
Reacting to news that the Supreme Court has blocked government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer said:
“This is welcome news. The government must now admit that its cruel and inhumane policy is finished and drop it.
“The new Home Secretary has the chance now to turn over a new leaf and make clear that there is no intention to quit the European Convention on Human Rights.
‘He should pledge to create an asylum system that works. That is one with clear, open, safe and legal routes for applicants, quick and efficient determinations and support for resettlement into local communities with properly funded local services.”
