Rishi Sunak accused of giving Rwanda millions ‘for nothing in return’

Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition party, has accused Rishi Sunak’s government of providing Rwanda with "hundreds of millions of pounds without receiving anything in return." This comes after a deportation agreement was signed between the two countries.

During the prime minister’s questions, the leader of the Labour Party made fun of the recently signed treaty, claiming that President Paul Kagame's government in Rwanda had anticipated the prime minister's actions.

As Members of Parliament got ready to listen to the ex-Home Secretary Suella Braverman's personal statement on Wednesday afternoon, anxiety was high as she was thought to strongly condemn Sunak's immigration proposals during the speech.

Following her dismissal, Braverman penned a scathing missive to Sunak whereby she lambasted his strategy in halting the flow of migrant crossings across the Channel, labeling it as "fantastical reasoning."

The Conservative party is experiencing significant internal conflicts following a recent decision from the highest court in the land, which stated that the government's proposal to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was not legal. An urgent law is anticipated to be introduced to parliamentary members in the near future to make sure that the deportation proceedings to Rwanda are executed as soon as possible.

During a session in the House of Commons, the leader of the Labour party stated that Sunak had not thoroughly examined the new Rwanda agreement. According to the contents of "Annexe A", in addition to the £140 million that has already been given to Rwanda, payments for lodging and maintenance for individuals sent under this agreement must be provided for a duration of five years. Furthermore, a government official revealed earlier that if any of the individuals we send to Rwanda are found guilty of a crime, they can be sent back to us.

Starmer mentioned that James Cleverly allegedly referred to the plan as "batshit". Starmer went on to say that he is starting to understand why the home secretary said the Rwanda scheme was related to "bat" in some way.

What could have been the initial draw for Mr Kagame towards receiving hundreds of millions of pounds without any reciprocation?

A minister has accepted that if any asylum seekers raised concerns about the violation of their human rights, they might be allowed to return to Britain, even if they were sent to Rwanda, a small fraction of these refugees.

Chris Philp, who is the minister of Home Office, stated that the agreement that Cleverly signed with Rwanda has resolved all the worries that the UK supreme court had put forth. This includes the guarantee that asylum seekers will not be deported from Rwanda to any risky location.

Philp was asked if there was a limit to the number of individuals alleging mistreatment who would be permitted to return to the UK. He replied to Times Radio, stating that only a tiny amount of vulnerable refugees may be assisted.

According to Philp, the recent agreement comprises of improved surveillance measures to guarantee the effective implementation of the plan. An unbiased panel, comprising of a prominent KC and a previous high-ranking member of UNHCR, has been set up to supervise the execution of the agreement and verify compliance with its provisions.

The minister declined to explain the consequences in case Rwanda does not comply with the agreement. He stated that the specific measures would be included in the updated legislation, which may be released within the next few days.

Philp also recognized that if asylum seekers who were transferred to Rwanda end up committing a crime, it's possible for them to be sent back to the UK once they complete their prison term. He mentioned, "It's possible for them to be returned here."

According to Philp, the government aims to introduce a new bill soon that will prevent courts from altering their approach.

Philp expressed similar worries as Cleverly, who disclosed feeling uneasy about certain types of criticism aimed at Rwanda.

In his statement, Philp mentioned that some of the opinions expressed in discussions regarding Rwanda in the past year have insinuated that Rwanda is unreasonable. He believes that this portrayal is unjust and unfounded.

Sunak stated that regardless of the precise shape of the new legal guidelines, it will be effective enough to address the concerns raised by the supreme court in order for flights to commence by the coming spring.

Philp spoke to LBC about the possibility of deported asylum seekers coming back to the UK and being given their freedom. He explained that these individuals would have originally been living in the UK if it weren't for the Rwanda treaty.

The second point is that in very rare cases, after serving a prison sentence, if someone did return back to this place, we would aim to send them back to their home country. This only applies when the individual is not suitable for the welfare of the public under the 1971 Immigration Act. However, the possibility of this scenario occurring is highly improbable.