Patel seeks to curb modern slavery claims as
Rwanda plan labelled ‘government by gimmick’
After cancellation of Africa flight, home secretary
tries to stem claims from refugees hoping to stay in UK
Aubrey
Allegretti, Rajeev Syal and Diane Taylor
Wed 15 Jun
2022 21.00 BST
Priti Patel
has been accused by Labour of participating in a “government by gimmick” in the
aftermath of the 11th-hour cancellation on Tuesday of the inaugural flight
taking asylum seekers to Rwanda.
As the home
secretary entertained demands from Conservative backbenchers to pull out of
Europe’s human rights framework after the policy was scuppered by a court
ruling, Labour said the plan to transport refugees 4,000 miles away was never a
“serious policy”.
The
criticism came as the Guardian learned that Patel was seeking to curb the number
of modern slavery claims from refugees hoping to stay in the UK. Government
sources said a slew of “spurious” claims was partly responsible for migrants
being removed from deportation flights.
On Tuesday
up to seven people who went to the UK seeking refuge had been expected to be
shortly removed to Rwanda. But a ruling granting a temporary injunction by the
European court of human rights (ECHR) on one of the seven cases allowed lawyers
for the other six to make successful last-minute applications.
Appearing
in the Commons, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the “waste of
public money” on the failed policy was “a shambles and shameful”.
“This is
not and never has been a serious policy and [Patel] knew that when she
chartered the plane,” Cooper said.
The ruling
by the Strasbourg court was greeted with fury by Tory MPs, with fresh demands
for the UK to pull out of the European convention on human rights. The ECHR
rules on issues relating to the convention and is not an EU institution, so its
influence has not been affected by Brexit.
Greg Smith,
the Conservative MP for Buckingham, called on the government to bring forward
its promised UK Bill of Rights and “remove all power of the European court of
human rights over our sovereign decisions”.
Jonathan
Gullis, a ministerial aide to the Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis,
said “the ECHR’s role in UK law needs looking at urgently” – but reportedly
deleted an initial social media post suggesting the court’s role should be
removed entirely.
Patel told
MPs that three of the asylum seekers who were to be on the first flight to
Rwanda on Tuesday night had had their removal blocked by the Strasbourg-based
court.
Asked if
the government could withdraw from the convention, the prime minister’s
official spokesperson said: “We are keeping all options on the table, including
any further legal reforms that may be necessary. We will look at all of the
legislation and processes in this round.”
Patel is
considering tightening up the criteria for people to be classed as victims of
modern slavery, a category that prevents their immediate removal from the UK.
Those
people who are referred to the scheme via the national referral mechanism (NRM)
can access government support, including legal advice and accommodation, while
their case is considered, for at least 45 days. The NRM, overseen by the Home
Office, asks organisations such as councils, police and some third-sector
organisations to identify victims.
Jacqueline
McKenzie, a lawyer for one of the asylum seekers who was due to be on the
flight, said: “It is shocking if they wish to make it even harder to qualify as
a modern slavery victim. Some real victims are going to get caught up in this
and will not be able to seek protection.”
In a further
development, the British Medical Association, two royal colleges and other
health professionals said they were “horrified” by the government’s Rwanda
plans and were warning that the new policy would cause “catastrophic and
irreversible harm”.
In a joint
letter to Patel, the Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology, BMA, Faculty of Public Health, Helen Bamber Foundation, MSF UK,
Doctors of the World UK, Medical Justice and Freedom from Torture said that the
plans would have a severe and irreparable impact on people’s health, wellbeing
and dignity.
“We oppose
this policy on medical, ethical and humanitarian grounds,” they wrote. “We have
severe concerns that those forcibly deported to Rwanda will struggle to access
appropriate and timely healthcare.”
First
Edition
Meanwhile,
a response to a freedom of information request, obtained by the Guardian, said
officials did not know how much the new policy was costing them.
The FoI
response stated: “We have carried out a thorough search and we have established
that the Home Office does not hold the information you have requested on total
government plans and preparations for our partnership with Rwanda. It is not
possible to give a specific financial figure in this regard.”
The FoI
added that UK officials had made six visits to Rwanda before the Migration and
Economic Development Partnership Deal was signed, and that Rwandan government
officials visited the UK once.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário