The Prime Minister reportedly hopes to finalize plans for a new bill on illegal migration by the end of Monday. Photo: GIUSEPPE CACACE/AFP via Getty Images
Civil servants are trying to block Rishi Sunak's legislation that would make Rwanda a safe country to deport asylum seekers, it is claimed.
Sources claim Whitehall feels “institutionally obligated” » express concern about the proposal to exclude elements of the Human Rights Act from the Rwanda scheme.
It comes amid heated government debate over how far the bill should go, with right-wing Conservative MPs arguing the legislation would fail unless it also contravened the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Telegraph understands that Victoria Prentice, the attorney general, opposes such a move, arguing that using notwithstanding clauses to circumvent the ECHR would be unlawful.
After his Supreme Court defeat last month, Mr Sunak wants to end deportation flights by passing legislation that would declare Rwanda a safe country.
The government is also negotiating a treaty with Rwanda that would commit the country not to deport people seeking asylum, to third countries. – one of the main issues raised by the court.
The Telegraph understands that the agreement could be finalized this week, with the Home Secretary ready to fly to Rwanda to sign the agreement.
However, there is still ongoing debate about how extensive Mr Sunak's legislation should be. Under one plan, dubbed the “semi-skim option”, Britain's Human Rights Act would be formally repealed in relation to Rwanda's security.
Sources say ministers are facing resistance to the policy in Whitehall, with repeated questions being raised about it legitimacy, conflicting advice and attempts to dissuade ministers.
The Prime Minister is expected to finalize his plan. by the end of Monday, meaning it could potentially be signed off by ministers at Tuesday's weekly cabinet meeting.
However, senior Tories have raised concerns that if he opts for the semi-skimmed option, it could be too ” low-fat option. Limited” to fight legal action against deportation.
Some right-wing MPs are pushing for a “full” option – presumably backed by Robert Jenrick, the immigration secretary – which would use the notwithstanding clauses to override the entire Human Rights Act, the ECHR and other international conventions.
But this tough approach is being resisted by the Attorney General and centrist Conservatives.
'Most terrifying backlash'
The Telegraph understands that Ms Prentice had argued that despite this the provisions would have been unlawful and had previously blocked them when they were proposed by Suella Braverman, the former home secretary.
Ms Prentice was also adamant opposed to the idea of leaving the ECHR altogether.
In conversations with Conservative MPs, she said that leaving the ECHR would require the government to renew the Brexit deal on the Northern Ireland Protocol, while any new agreement with the EU would require that every member state has ratified it.
A former right-wing Tory cabinet minister said Ms Prentice was “wrong as a matter of law” in using the notwithstanding clauses.
The MP said there would be a “huge concern” if Mr Sunak's bill did not include
“If we can't build on Rwanda's policy – and we won't be able to do that unless we block all the obstacles with by means of default provisions – then the most appallingly unfavorable provisions will arise.” reaction of conservative voters,” they said.
“Given that we are now behind in the polls by an average of more than 20 points, I think many deputies simply will not accept this.”
Another senior Conservative warned Mr Sunak faces a leadership problem if he is seen to have crafted weak legislation that is unlikely to solve the problem or reassure the public.
Concerned right-wing MPs tended to be MPs rather than ministers and were “more likely to do something” than centrist MPs nervous about changes to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, they said.
Writing in The Telegraph, veteran Sir Bill Cash – a no matter the regulations – said the problem was “the will of voters and their trust in government” and that the public “will not condone failure to tackle illegal migration in yet another Bill.”
On Saturday evening, Labor said it believed activity in the English Channel on Saturday meant the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats was likely , reached or exceeded the 28,526 recorded in 2021, making it the second-highest year on record.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said: “Rishi Sunak said he would stop small boats this year, but instead this weekend's figures will make this the second-highest year on record for border crossings, chaos caused by the Conservatives on asylum. continues and he has broken yet another promise to the British people.
A source close to Ms Prentice said she was focused on making the policy work and getting flights to Rwanda up and running.
They indicated that the attorney general would wait to see what a clause said before passing judgment on it.
'This is not resistance, this is work'
Dave Penman, FDA general secretary for civil affairs, the servants' union responded to claims that Whitehall mandarins were obstructing the Rwanda plan.
He said: “It is the job of a civil servant to give ministers candid evidence-based advice and if ministers have policies that will create difficulties and may fail in court, then it is the job of a civil servant to give that advice.” /p>
“This is not resistance, this is the work they have to do.”
He continued: “It was not civil servants who stopped events in Rwanda. These are the courts.
“We just have people pointing fingers and trying to blame civil servants for the fact that their policies have significant shortcomings.”
He expressed the idea that in the Ministry of Internal Affairs there is “some kind of resistance movement” was “senseless.” “You wouldn't go to work for the Home Office if you didn't know you'd have to deal with some pretty controversial things,” he said.
Mr Penman said the briefing was against civil servants. carried out by ministers was an “act of desperation.”
“This shows that their policies are failing, and they want to blame someone for the failure of their policies,” he added.
“If a government employee resists—genuinely resists and does not do what is asked, or refuses to comply with a government decision—then name them.”
Recent Comments