Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Rishi Sunak finally secured parliamentary approval for his flagship Rwanda safety bill on Monday night, capping two years of delays in getting contentious plans to deport asylum seekers from the UK to the African country off the ground.
In a bid to stave off future legal challenges, the bill declares Rwanda a safe country despite the Supreme Court ruling to the contrary last year.
The prime minister hopes that the scheme, once under way, will deter irregular migrants from crossing the Channel and help him to fulfil a pre-election pledge to “stop the boats”.
What does the government do next?
Sunak, who wanted to begin deportations in spring, has said it would be up to 12 weeks before the Rwanda flights start. He told reporters on Tuesday that the government had identified “the initial cohort of people for the first flights”.
After notifying asylum seekers they are on the list to be sent to Kigali, the Home Office will then have to detain them to prevent them from going into hiding to avoid deportation. This will put pressure on the UK’s immigration removal centres, which have limited spare capacity, despite being increased recently to 2,200 places.
The government has refused to comment on whether it has found an operator for the flights. This is partly because human rights charities have launched a campaign to dissuade airlines or charter companies from getting involved. Airlines and aviation authorities have been warned by experts working for the UN they could be in breach of international law if they facilitate the deportations to Rwanda.
Costs are mounting. The government has already paid £220mn to secure agreement with Kigali even before anyone has been sent there, and is due to pay a further £50mn shortly. The government has set aside £12.6mn to train hundreds of guards to escort potentially unwilling migrants from removal centres and on to the aircraft.
The Home Office estimates that it will cost taxpayers up to £11,000 just to transport each asylum seeker. Further costs will be incurred once they arrive in Rwanda.
Who will be put on the flights?
More than 40,000 migrants have used irregular routes to enter the UK since a March 2023 deadline, after a change in the law made an asylum application from anyone who entered the country without permission inadmissible.
Most of the recent arrivals have come from conflict zones, such as Iraq, Syria and Sudan, which means it would be illegal for the British government to return them to those countries because their lives would be at risk.
Government officials have said they would initially target those least likely to be able to put up an effective legal challenge. The bill allows only narrow grounds for appeal but in a small concession to its opponents, ministers gave assurances on Monday that those who have worked with British armed forces abroad, notably Afghans, will be exempted from removal.
What are the chances of legal challenges?
High but the chances of success are uncertain.
Individual cases can be challenged on the grounds that an asylum seeker faces “serious and irreversible harm” if sent to Rwanda. But immigration lawyers said this is a high legal bar given the other provisions in the bill.
Contrary to a ruling last year from the Supreme Court, the legislation declares Rwanda as a “safe” country and also contains “notwithstanding” clauses, disapplying parts of the UK’s Human Rights Act.
“There can’t be any of these general challenges to the situation in Rwanda — any challenge has got to be very specific to the individual applicant,” said Chris Cole, a solicitor who sits on the Law Society’s immigration law committee.
Are there any higher courts that could block a decision?
Cole said it was hard to envisage a scenario where the UK Supreme Court could intervene, given the new legislation closed off so many of the routes for legal challenges in the lower courts.
“It’s going to be very difficult for lawyers to find a way to get a case back that far,” he said. “The government has been quite astute in looking at how lawyers can challenge this and done their best to block off as many as possible.”
In theory, asylum seekers threatened with removal can still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. However, the bill specifically instructs UK authorities to ignore any interim orders from Strasbourg.
That could put the UK on a collision course with the court but a constitutional clash is unlikely to help individual claimants facing immediate removal.
Is Rwanda ready?
The Rwandan government is still working on fulfilling its side of the treaty with the UK. Last Friday, for example, it pushed a law through parliament to ratify changes to its asylum system set out in a treaty signed between Kigali and London.
But under the accord, Rwanda is obliged to recruit independent experts to advise on its asylum applications and appeals process and to recruit international judges to support and oversee the system. Neither of these elements has been completed.
There is also the issue of accommodation. The Rwandan government has confirmed that many of the properties originally earmarked for UK asylum seekers have been sold off to Rwandans.
Additional reporting by Jim Pickard in Warsaw
