Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of Britain survived a crucial test of his authority on Tuesday, facing down at least for now a rebellion from the hard right of his party.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of Britain survived a crucial test of his authority on Tuesday, facing down at least for now a rebellion from the hard right of his party.
At issue was a highly contentious immigration policy that aims to deter asylum seekers from crossing from France to Britain on small boats by putting hundreds of them on one-way flights to Rwanda.
At issue was a highly contentious immigration policy that aims to deter asylum seekers from crossing from France to Britain on small boats by putting hundreds of them on one-way flights to Rwanda.
Both Mr. Sunak and the hard-right caucus regard the project as key to the prospects of the governing Conservative Party.
Both Mr. Sunak and the hard-right caucus regard the project as key to the prospects of the governing Conservative Party.
The Conservatives have chosen to make tackling immigration a central theme in recent years, announcing hard-line measures aimed at deterring migrants from even trying to reach Britain. On Tuesday, it was announced that a man had died on a barge that the government had hired to house asylum seekers, the Bibby Stockholm, piling additional pressure on Mr. Sunak over his government’s treatment of migrants.
The Conservatives have chosen to make tackling immigration a central theme in recent years, announcing hard-line measures aimed at deterring migrants from even trying to reach Britain. On Tuesday, it was announced that a man had died on a barge that the government had hired to house asylum seekers, the Bibby Stockholm, piling additional pressure on Mr. Sunak over his government’s treatment of migrants.
But so deep are the divisions with the party, which has held power for 13 years and is significantly behind in the polls, that Tuesday’s debate on the Rwanda policy revived memories of the crisis after Britain voted to quit the European Union in 2016. That generated a succession of knife-edge votes in Parliament, plunged the country into political gridlock and ended with the prime minister, Theresa May, losing her job.
Under the government’s plan, some of those arriving on small boats would be deported to Rwanda to have asylum claims heard there. Even if they were then recognized as refugees, they would then be invited to stay in the small African country rather than receiving permission to live in Britain.
Tens of thousands of people have been making the dangerous journey across the English Channel each year, often on unseaworthy boats. And, while the numbers are small compared with the scale of legal immigration to Britain, the arrivals are a highly visible and embarrassing symbol of the failure of one of the central promises of Brexit campaigners: to control Britain’s borders.
The Rwanda policy was introduced under the government of Boris Johnson in 2022, and was immediately criticized by human rights groups and legal experts, who warned that it was likely to be unworkable given Britain’s commitments under international law. The government plowed ahead, and Mr. Sunak committed to the plan when he became prime minister last year.
Yet, despite the government spending or pledging a total of 290 million pounds — about $310 million — on the project so far, not a single asylum seeker has been flown to Rwanda. Britain’s Supreme Court ruled this year that Rwanda was unsafe for asylum seekers, and that some might be sent on to their countries of origin where they could be in danger. The new legislation aims to address the court’s objections.
The legislation proposes overriding some human rights law and, critics say, comes close to breaching international obligations. Courts would be told to set aside sections of Britain’s Human Rights Act, and the government could ignore emergency orders from the European Court of Human Rights to suspend a flight while a legal case was heard.
The bill also states that “Every decision maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country,” contradicting the judges on a point of fact and forcing immigration officials, the home secretary and the courts to abide by this. The government says that it has assurances from the Rwandan government, enshrined in a new treaty, that all asylum seekers will be allowed to remain in the country even if their claims fail. But critics argue that declaring Rwanda is safe when the Supreme Court said the opposite is like declaring that black is white.
Indeed, it was almost too tough for the One Nation Group, a caucus of Conservative lawmakers from the center and left of the party, which said on Monday night that it was ready to support the legislation in its current form but not if it was hardened any further. According to Mr. Sunak, the Rwandan government also threatened to pull out if Britain went any further toward breaking international law.
And yet the bill is not tough enough for some on the Conservative Party’s right wing. An immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, resigned from the government last week saying the bill did not go far enough. On Monday, legal experts for the European Research Group, a right-wing caucus which tormented Mrs. May during the Brexit drama, declared the bill “a partial and incomplete solution” to the legal problems that have so far grounded flights to Rwanda and said that “very significant amendments” were needed.
Right-wingers want the government to close off all routes for individuals to appeal against deportation and think Britain should to be prepared to leave the European Convention on Human Rights if necessary. Some wanted the government to withdraw the bill and start again.
By Tuesday morning, most political commentators expected him to win the vote. The government worked hard to court potential rebels.
But despite the legislation passing this hurdle, the fight isn’t over. At this stage, lawmakers were asked only to approve the measure in principle. There will be opportunities to amend the legislation later on, meaning that right-wing critics who held their noses and voted for the bill could still seek to change it.
If they succeed, that could revive discontent on the left of Mr. Sunak’s party — and intensify opposition to the bill in the unelected upper chamber of Britain’s Parliament, the House of Lords.
Mr. Sunak’s problem is that he has put the Rwanda plan at the heart of his political agenda. Without the bill, his flagship policy would be in tatters — just as Mrs. May’s Brexit plan was when she was repeatedly defeated in Parliament. Given the divisions within the Conservatives, the conflict over the policy may simply have been postponed.
Some analysts believe that Mr. Sunak’s priority at the moment is to keep the policy alive so that, when a general election comes, he can tell voters that he tried his best but that his plan was blocked by the opposition.
