Rethink Rwanda asylum plan, MPs tell Priti Patel

Priti Patel must reconsider her Rwanda asylum plan because it is not safe, Parliament’s human rights committee has said.

In a letter to the Home Secretary, the joint committee of MPs and peers said it was not satisfied that the central African state was a “sufficiently safe” destination for migrants under the UK’s agreement.

It warned that the agreement could be seen as “outsourcing” UK obligations under the international refugee convention to another country.

The committee said it shared the Home Office’s desire to curb the number of Channel crossings but was “unconvinced” the Rwanda plan was an “appropriate, or indeed effective, way to achieve this aim”.

The policy has been stalled until September, when a judicial review will determine whether it is lawful. 

Two charities, Care4Calais and Detention Action, and the PCS union, which represents Border Force staff, are challenging its legality after the initial flight was blocked by a European judge.

The Government has maintained that it is lawful, and that Rwanda is a safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum-seekers.

As part of the partnership, Britain is providing an initial £120 million to boost the development of Rwanda, including jobs, skills and opportunities, to benefit both migrants and host communities.

However, the committee’s letter, from Joanna Cherry, its chairman, said it was “concerned that the agreement has been put in place without adequate assurances as to the safety of those removed to Rwanda”.

The letter said: “Removing asylum-seekers to a state where they face a real risk of serious human rights abuses, or of being sent on to a dangerous third country as a result of an inadequate asylum system, is inconsistent with the UK’s human rights obligations.

“While we have received mixed reports on the safety of Rwanda, particularly for vulnerable groups, and the adequacy of its asylum system, we are not satisfied that it is a sufficiently safe destination to be a partner in this kind of asylum agreement.”.

The MPs and peers also warned that it was “unclear” from evidence heard by the committee so far whether those selected to be sent to Rwanda would have “adequate opportunity to challenge their removal”.

Last week, a High Court hearing revealed that the Foreign Office advised the Government against sending asylum seekers to Rwanda and that the country had been accused of recruiting refugees for military conflicts. But Rwandan government officials defended its human rights recorded and said the information was inaccurate.

The letter comes after the Commons home affairs committee found there was “no evidence” that the Rwanda policy was acting as a deterrent to Channel migrant crossings.

More than 15,300 people have reached the UK in small boats since the start of this year, according to provisional government figures.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Our world-leading partnership with Rwanda is vital to overhauling the broken asylum system, preventing loss of life in the Channel and breaking the business model of people smugglers.

“Rwanda has been recognised globally for their record in welcoming and integrating migrants and asylum seekers, and our own comprehensive assessment of Rwanda has found it is a fundamentally safe and secure country.”