Damien Green labels former home secretary’s controversial proposals ‘unconservative’
Rishi Sunak has been taking part in a Q&A in Worksop. Pictures have arrived on the wires, but no words yet. As soon as we hear what he said, I’ll post his comments.
Here is a summary of the main points from Suella Braverman’s Telegraph article attacking Rishi Sunak’s revised Rwanda plan.
Braverman, the former home secretary, criticises the government for not legislating in a way that might have stopped the supreme court ruling the Rwanda deportation policy unlawful. Given that Braverman was in government until Monday, this is a brave argument to make, but Braverman is restating the argument she made in her departure letter on Tuesday, in which she claimed Rishi Sunak repeatedly blocked her ideas. In the Telegraph Braverman says:
The fault lies with the politicians who have failed to introduce legislation that would guarantee delivery of our Rwanda partnership.
What matters for those of us who believe in effective immigration control is how to move forward. This requires honesty.
Above all, it demands of the government an end to self-deception and spin. There must be no more magical thinking. Tinkering with a failed plan will not stop the boats.
Braverman says Sunak’s revised Rwanda plan (turning the agreement with Rwanda into a treaty, and passing a new law saying it’s a safe country) won’t work. She says:
Amending our agreement with Rwanda and converting it into a treaty, even with explicit obligations on non-refoulement, will not solve the fundamental issue …
To try and deliver flights to Rwanda under any new treaty would still require going back through the courts, a process that would likely take at least another year.
She says under Sunak’s plan deportation flights to Rwanda won’t start before the general election. She says:
That is why the plan outlined by the PM will not yield flights to Rwanda before an election if Plan B is simply a tweaked version of the failed Plan A.
She proposes a new, five-point plan to enable deportations to Rwanda to start quickly. I have quoted the key element in full already. (See 9.23am.) Here are the other four proposals in full.
The Bill must address the Supreme Court’s concerns regarding Rwanda
Parliament is entitled to assert that Rwanda is safe without making any changes to our Rwanda partnership.
However, for substantive and presentational reasons, it would be preferable to amend that agreement to address issues identified by the judges. This could include embedding UK observers and independent reviewers of asylum decisions.
It is less important whether these commitments are embodied in an amended memorandum or a new treaty.
What is crucial is that they are practical steps to improve Rwanda’s asylum system. On the basis of these new commitments, Rwanda’s safety could be credibly confirmed on the face of the Bill.
She questions the value of international law, referring at one point to the “vague, shifting, and unaccountable concept of “international law’”. She says:
The more fundamental question is where does ultimate authority in the United Kingdom sit? Is it with the British people and their elected representatives in Parliament? Or is it with the vague, shifting, and unaccountable concept of “international law”?
Continue reading…
