RISHI Sunak’s plans to revive the stalled Rwanda asylum scheme do not go far enough, a panel of lawyers convened by a group of hard-right Tory MPs has said.
In an attack on the Prime Minister, the so-called “star chamber” of lawyers for the European Research Group (ERG) said the emergency legislation, which MPs will vote on in Parliament on Tuesday, “provides a partial and incomplete solution” to the problem of asylum seekers using the courts to avoid being put on a plane to the African nation.
MPs on the Tory right gathered to consider the bill on Monday. It was the first of two meetings between warring Conservative factions which are set to pose the biggest threat to Sunak’s premiership yet.
The lawyers, led by Bill Cash, veteran Tory MP for Stone, said “very significant amendments” to the legislation are needed and it remains “vulnerable” to international law arguments.
READ MORE: Scottish Government report 'showcases' embassies UK threatens to shut
“The Prime Minister may well be right when he claims that this is the ‘toughest piece of migration legislation ever put forward by a UK Government’, but we do not believe that it goes far enough to deliver the policy as intended,” they said in a summary of their opinion.
In a rare move intended to win over critics, the UK Government will produce a summary of its legal advice in support of the scheme on Monday.
The more moderate wing of One Nation Conservatives will hold a separate evening meeting in Parliament on Monday before releasing a statement on their judgment of the proposals.
Sunak has tried to find a middle ground in response to the Supreme Court ruling that his plan to send asylum seekers who arrive in the UK on small boats to Rwanda is unlawful.
Judges said the policy leaves people sent to Rwanda open to human rights breaches, adding there had not been a proper assessment of whether the country is safe.
READ MORE: 'Inspiring' Lesley Riddoch Denmark film to be shown across Scotland
The UK Government’s bill allows ministers to disapply the Human Rights Act but does not go as far as overriding the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The ERG panel of lawyers suggested that some of the changes needed to tighten up the legislation may fall outside the scope of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.
The panel is made up of Cash, former Brexit minister David Jones, Martin Howe KC and Barnabas Reynolds.
Their findings were presented at a meeting of the ERG and other groups on the Conservative right in Parliament.
The lawyers raised concerns that even though the bill attempts to restrict legal challenges against removal to Rwanda on the grounds it is not a safe country, they believe migrants will find other ways to challenge the UK Government.
Their summary said: “It is to be expected that if the bill successfully blocks challenges based on contentions that Rwanda is not safe, then migrants and their advisers will focus more of their efforts on generating and pursuing challenges of other kinds.
“Experience to date in cases about attempted removal of illegal migrants to Rwanda demonstrates that individual challenges are likely to be numerous, and that they have had a high rate of success.”
They also suggested there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the UK courts “from following or being influenced by a final ruling of the Strasbourg Court” on a case where the bill does not “expressly preclude them from doing so.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel