A key plank in the British government's plan to send some asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is expected to become law this week, but opponents plan new legal challenges that could keep deportation flights grounded.
A bill aimed at overcoming a UK Supreme Court block on sending migrants to Rwanda is due to pass parliament after the government overcomes efforts to water it down in the House of Lords.
The Rwanda plan is key to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak 's pledge to "stop the boats" bringing unauthorized migrants to the UK, and Sunak has repeatedly said the long-delayed first flights will take off by June.
"This week parliament has the opportunity to pass a bill that will save lives of those being exploited by people-smuggling gangs," Sunak's spokesman, Dave Pares, said Monday.
"It is clear we cannot continue with the status quo … now is the time to change the equation."
It has been two years since Britain and Rwanda signed a deal that would see migrants who cross the English Channel in small boats sent to the East African country, where they would remain permanently. The plan has been challenged in the courts, and no one has yet been sent to Rwanda under an agreement that has cost the UK at least £370 million (US$470 million).
In November, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Rwanda plan was illegal because the nation wasn't a safe destination for asylum-seekers. For decades, human rights groups and governments have documented alleged repression of dissent by Rwanda's government both inside the country and abroad, as well as serious restrictions on internet freedom, assembly and expression.
In response to the ruling, Britain and Rwanda signed a treaty pledging to strengthen protections for migrants. Sunak's government argues the treaty allows it to pass a law declaring Rwanda a safe destination.
The Safety of Rwanda Bill pronounces the country safe, making it harder for migrants to challenge deportation and allows the British government to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights that forbid removals.
Human rights groups, refugee charities, senior Church of England clerics and many legal experts have criticized the legislation. In February a parliamentary rights watchdog said the Rwanda plan is " fundamentally incompatible " with the UK's human rights obligations.
The Safety of Rwanda Bill has been approved by the House of Commons, where Sunak's Conservatives have a majority, only for members of parliament's unelected upper chamber, the House of Lords, to insert a series of amendments designed to water down the legislation and ensure it complies with international law.
The Commons rejected the changes last month, but the Lords refused to back down. The Commons is expected to send the unmodified bill back to the Lords late Monday in a process known as parliamentary ping pong. The back-and-forth could continue for several days, but ultimately, the elected Commons can overrule the unelected Lords.
"When a government devises and wants to implement a policy which is clear and precise in terms of its objectives, the Lords shouldn't stand in its way," Conservative MP John Hayes told the BBC.
"And I think in the end the Lords will give way on this because they recognize that balance."
Once the bill becomes law, it could be weeks before any flights to Rwanda take off, as people chosen for deportation are likely to lodge legal appeals.
Just under 30,000 people arrived in Britain in small boats in 2023, and Sunak has made reducing that number a key issue ahead of an election due later this year. Some 6000 people have made the journey so far in 2024, up from the same period last year, including 534 in 10 boats on Sunday.
The opposition Labour Party, which leads in opinion polls, opposes the Rwanda plan, arguing it won't work, and says it would work with other European countries to tackle people-smuggling gangs.
The Times of London reported Monday that the UK government had approached other countries, including Costa Rica, Armenia, Ivory Coast and Botswana, about making similar deals if the Rwanda plan proves successful. The government said only that Britain is "continuing to work with a range of international partners to tackle global illegal migration challenges."
What is the UK's Rwanda plan?
Britain's parliament is set to pass legislation which Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hopes will pave the way for the government to send asylum seekers to Rwanda if they arrive in Britain without permission.
Last November, the UK Supreme Court declared the policy unlawful, but Sunak says the new law overrides any legal concerns and will thus fulfil his pledge to stop people arriving across the Channel in small boats.
Here are details about the plan and the migration issue:
Why is immigration such an issue in Britain?
Taking back control of Britain's borders and ending the free movement of people into the country was a major factor that led to the 2016 vote for Britain to leave the European Union. Polls show it remains one of the most important issues for voters.
Official figures put 2022 annual net migration to the United Kingdom at a record of 745,000, and Sunak has set out a series of measures to cut legal migration by 300,000.
He has also promised to stop people making the dangerous journey of about 20 miles (32 km) across the Channel in small boats. More than 29,000 people arrived this way last year, after a record 45,775 migrants arrived in 2022. So far this year (up to April10), more than 5500 people have been detected, a similar rate to 2022.
What is Britain's Rwanda plan?
The scheme, which was agreed in April 2022 by then prime minister Boris Johnson, sends anyone who arrived in Britain illegally after January 1, 2022 to Rwanda, some 4000 miles (6400 km) away.
However, the first deportation flight in June 2022 was blocked by European judges. The UK Supreme Court then upheld a ruling that the scheme was unlawful because migrants were at risk of being sent back to their homelands or to other countries where they would be at risk of mistreatment.
Despite no deportations taking place, Britain has already paid Rwanda more than £200 million (US$304 million), and to resettle some 300 refugees could cost more than £600 million. It also remains unclear how many people Rwanda can take.
Why is the Rwanda policy so important to Sunak?
After becoming prime minister in 2022, Sunak made his pledge to "stop the boats" one of his top five priorities.
Britain is currently spending more than £3 billion a year on processing asylum applications, with the cost of housing migrants awaiting a decision in hotels and other accommodation running at about £8 million a day.
Figures show about 100,000 asylum applications remain to be decided.
What is Sunak's 'Safety of Rwanada' law?
To address the issues raised by the Supreme Court, Sunak agreed a new treaty with Rwanda that seeks to prevent asylum seekers deported there from being sent anywhere else other than back to Britain.
His proposed bill, which the government stated might not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, affirms that Rwanda is a safe country.
It disapplies some sections of Britain's Human Rights Act and says ministers alone would decide on whether to comply with any injunction from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
However, the law has provoked widespread criticism, from members of Sunak's own Conservative Party to the United Nations human rights chief. Once passed, Sunak has said flights to Rwanda would begin by the middle of the year.
Will Rwanda deportation flights take off?
For some in Sunak's party, the new law did not go far enough in preventing asylum seekers from being able to appeal against their deportation.
The legislation means that while UK courts will not be able to consider whether Rwanda is safe, individual cases could still have to be considered in their own right, albeit on very limited grounds.
The ECHR could again issue orders to block deportation flights, although the court has amended its rules so that injunctions will only be issued in "exceptional circumstances". Its president has said Britain had a legal obligation to comply with its rulings.
Unions have said ministers would need parliament to change the civil service code if it wants government staff to ignore ECHR rulings if instructed by ministers. Otherwise they warn they might take legal action themselves.
How does Britain compare with other countries?
Many European nations, such as Germany, have tightened their border controls to address immigration concerns, while European lawmakers last week approved a revamped migration system to reduce unwanted immigration.
Denmark has also signed a similar agreement with Rwanda, but has yet to send any migrants there, and Italy has announced plans to build reception centres in Albania.
Israel scrapped a similar deal with Rwanda after five years, with the Israeli Supreme Court declaring it unlawful because Rwanda had not complied with assurances it had given.