Home Office asking civil servants to move to Rwanda to oversee asylum scheme
It has come to my attention that the Home Office has requested their employees to submit applications for positions in Rwanda. These positions will be involved in processing the asylum applications of migrants, who have been sent there from the UK.
The new law for Rwanda deportation has been approved this week. The Home Office has requested asylum decision-makers to relocate to Kigali, starting from next month. They will provide guidance and support to Rwandan officials who are handling claims.
Leaders who make decisions, officers who provide technical support, workers who create policies, and four team leaders are going to be dispatched to an African nation. The arrangement, based on a rotating schedule, will see personnel stationed for only a few weeks, as far as I comprehend.
Traveling back and forth using non-stop flights requires a total of over 17 hours.
The team in charge of making decisions on asylum at the Home Office was informed that they would need to provide help and knowledge to the Rwandan government in managing the asylum applications of those who were sent there by the UK. This was stated as an operational and practical type of support.
Government authorities informed their employees that if they were sent to Rwanda, they would need to adhere to exceptionally stringent ethical guidelines due to the great interest that the project has drawn from politicians. The exact number of civil servants that will be sent has not been made known.
According to insiders, the Home Office initiated recruitment for individuals who could go to Kigali. This was before the Rwanda act was passed by Parliament on Monday night. One source from the Home Office mentioned that the process was quite hurried, since the window for submitting applications was only open for a week.
Rishi Sunak has promised to ensure that the initial flights take off within the next 10 to 12 weeks.
The airplanes are going to transport individuals seeking refuge who made their way to the UK through illegal means, like traveling on small boats, to Rwanda to have their requests evaluated. The requests won't be reviewed by the UK beforehand, and if their claim is endorsed, they will not be permitted to come back to the UK.
The UK administration has collaborated with Rwanda to strengthen its asylum system by aiding in the education of officials about refugee legislation and asylum verdicts. However, they did not disclose their intention to send their personnel to provide practical assistance.
The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) revealed that it had not been consulted on their members being required to go to Rwanda for work when contacted by i. The union had taken legal action against the Government regarding the Rwanda scheme.
There have been multiple worries expressed about whether Rwanda’s ability to accommodate refugees from the UK, which includes those from the UN, is sufficient.
In November, the highest court in the land declared that the plan was not valid due to inadequacies in the asylum process of Rwanda, which may lead innocent individuals to be returned to their nations of origin and suffer torment.
As per global laws on human rights, the concept of "non-refoulement" ensures that no individual should be sent back to a nation where they might experience torture, ruthless, inhumane or degrading behavior or punishment, or any other harm that cannot be made right.
The highest court in the land highlighted that Rwanda has denied all applications for political asylum from nations that are ravaged by conflicts such as Syria and Afghanistan. The United Nations (UN) agency for refugees provided proof that over 100 instances of refoulement happened after the United Kingdom (UK) made a pact with Rwanda in East Africa.
The Safety of Rwanda Act was approved by the Government and they also made changes to their agreement with the Rwandan government to tackle the worries raised by the Supreme Court.
One of the recent changes made involves implementing a caseworker model for asylum processing, and also Rwanda seeking guidance from an impartial professional concerning its asylum decision-making practices for a minimum of six months.
The PCS declared that it will be bringing up concerns to the Home Office regarding the wellbeing of their members who will journey to the African country.
The general secretary of PCS, Fran Heathcote, expressed that the disorganized execution of a disorganized policy reflects the disorganized nature of the governing body.
Our organization was not informed or given the opportunity to provide input regarding the decision for our members to work in Rwanda. If our members do end up going to Rwanda, we will bring up concerns about their safety and wellbeing with the Home Office. We want to know about the living arrangements, who will be managing them, and which laws and regulations will apply to them - those of the UK or Rwanda?
The government's Rwanda plan is regarded as unethical, inhumane, and impractical, and it is the responsibility of our members to put it into operation. However, they have been overlooked in the rush to please voters on the right.
A few employees who work from home for the government have indicated in the past that they might engage in a work stoppage if required to carry out the Rwanda agreement. The Rwanda strategy aims to discourage hazardous journeys across the Channel, which have increased this year.
Up to now, a total of 6,667 individuals have travelled in 2024, which is higher than the 5,546 individuals who did so during the corresponding period in the previous year.
The statistics for this year have decreased by 0.4% when compared to 2022, which witnessed the highest number of small boat crossings since the crisis took place in 2018.
On Tuesday morning, five individuals, comprising three males, one female, and a little girl aged seven, passed away when they attempted to travel to the UK in a small boat. The incident happened in proximity to the French coastline.
A comment request was made to the Home Office, but they did not provide a response.
