Rwanda plan a “damaging distraction”, Cooper says following High Court ruling

Yvette Cooper has argued that the government’s scheme for sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is a “damaging distraction” after the High Court concluded that the policy is lawful following a legal challenge.

The High Court ruled this morning that the Rwanda scheme is “consistent with the refugee convention and with the statutory and other legal obligations on the government”, including those imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union launched a legal challenge against the plan in April. The union brought the case jointly with charities Care4Calais and Detention Action, along with several individual asylum seekers.

Commenting following the ruling, the Shadow Home Secretary said: “The Rwanda scheme is a damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking to go after the criminal gangs and sort out the asylum system. It is unworkable, unethical, extortionately expensive.

“Ministers have already written a £140m cheque to Rwanda without the policy even starting, with millions more promised even though Home Office officials say there’s no evidence it’ll provide a deterrent and it risks making trafficking worse.

“The Rwandan government has said it can only process 200 people a year – or 0.5% of Channel crossings this year. It’s no surprise that the Home Secretary herself has described the scheme as a failure.

“The Conservatives have let criminal gangs take hold in the Channel, while their own asylum decision-making has collapsed. Labour have proposed serious policies to target the gangs and clear the backlog.

“Instead of spending millions on Rwanda, the government should put that money into pursuing the criminals who are organising these dangerous boats.”

Then Prime Minister Boris Johnson first unveiled plans for asylum seekers arriving in the UK to be flown to the African country back in April, as part of the government’s ‘New Plan for Immigration’.

The inaugural flight was cancelled in June following an 11th-hour intervention by the European court of human rights. Its ruling on the case of one of the asylum seekers due to be on board allowed lawyers acting for the remaining six to make successful last-minute applications.

PCS is reportedly considering appealing the ruling. General secretary Mark Serwotka said: “Regardless of the legality of the policy, it remains morally reprehensible and utterly inhumane and we call on the Home Office to recognise that and abandon it.

“The policy isn’t a deterrent. The only way to protect human life and prevent people from drowning in the Channel is to give them safe passage. PCS will continue our campaign to secure it.”

Care4Calais founder Clare Moseley said she is discussing “next steps” with her legal team, with the charity considering its position “in respect of the Court of Appeal”.

She added: “There are potentially thousands more people seeking asylum in the UK who are, right now and in the future, potentially facing the threat of removal to Rwanda under this cruel and unworkable policy. It is for all of them that we made this challenge, and for them, we must continue to pursue it.”

Last week, Rishi Sunak set out a five-point plan to crack down on migrants crossing the Channel in small boats. In a statement to MPs, the Prime Minister described the UK’s asylum system as “designed for a different era”.

Sunak said many people arriving in small boats originate from “fundamentally safe countries or travel through safe countries”. He added that many of the journeys are “co-ordinated by ruthless, organised criminals”, telling MPs: “Unless we act now and decisively, this will only get worse.”

The Prime Minister confirmed that his government will restart flights to Rwanda “so that those who are here illegally and cannot be returned to their home country can build a new life there”.

Responding to the statement, Keir Starmer said: “Channel crossings are a serious problem, requiring serious solutions. We need leadership at home and abroad.

“We need a Home Office that functions effectively, and we need to defeat the criminal gangs operating on the coast. But time and time again, this government has not provided serious solutions.”