What does the Rwanda policy court ruling mean for the government?

Aside from its moral shortcomings, the Rwanda plan was not enough to fix the problem, says Sean O’Grady

Britain’s government insists Rwanda is ‘less attractive’ than the UK but safe for deportees ... but the Supreme Court will decide (PA) (PA Archive)

Judges at the Supreme Court ruled that the government’s Rwanda plan is unlawful. The policy has been under legal review for about 18 months, and has made its way to the highest court in the land because of its political and legal significance. In the meantime, no removals to Rwanda have been carried out.

The first deportation of asylum seekers, planned for June 2022, was halted at the last minute by lawyers acting for the refugees and on behalf of the United Nations High Commission for  Refugees, who cited a breach of human rights. The deportation was then referred to the High Court where it was ruled to be in order. The case then went to the Court of Appeal, which in June 2023 overturned that decision by a majority vote. The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court.

What happens now that the government has lost?

It looks foolish – a flagship policy endlessly promoted by three Tory premiers is sunk, with undisclosed millions wasted. Aside from an early returns agreement with Albania, there’s no obvious alternative to accommodating and processing asylum seekers in the UK, whether in hotels, camps or on barges. Further damage will be done to the prime minister’s reputation and his already slim chances of winning the next election.

Where does it leave Mr Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats”?

In his speech announcing five “people’s priorities” for 2023, Mr Sunak promised to “pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.” The government has passed the law but it has not succeeded in stopping the boats in 2023; thus, he can be said to have failed.

Perhaps conscious of the upcoming media audit of his five promises, Mr Sunak has already begun to shift the goalposts, commenting: “I never said we would be able to solve it overnight.” It might not even happen before the next election, he admitted. “I want it to be done as soon as possible – but I also want to be honest with people that it is a complex problem. There is not one simple solution and it can’t be solved overnight and I wouldn’t be being straight with people if I said that was possible.”

What’s wrong with the Rwanda Plan?

Aside from the scheme’s profound moral hazards, it is tiny in scope; one wonders how far such a modest scheme could adequately deter people from crossing the English Channel by irregular means. On 14 April 2022, then prime minister Boris Johnson declared the new Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) with Rwanda would mean anyone entering the UK illegally could be relocated to Rwanda. He said the deal with Rwanda “is uncapped … and Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead.” Since then, two home secretaries, Priti Patel and Ms Braverman, have said the scheme is unlimited in its potential. But that hides a more immediate capacity constraint: since last year, Rwanda has indicated that somewhere between 200 and 1,000 people could be processed in its facilities (and at some considerable cost to the British taxpayer). This is by any measure minimal, and indeed tiny when set against the estimated flow of irregular refugees crossing the English Channel – around 15,000 so far this year.

Previous laws effectively rendering it illegal to seek asylum, and some extra funding for French patrols, have failed to make much impact on the figures, which are down about 20 per cent so far this year compared to 2022.

What would Labour do?

For a change, Keir Starmer offers an unequivocal answer: the Rwanda plan will be scrapped by a Labour government. Last month, Sir Keir said it was “the wrong policy” and “hugely expensive.”