Home News

Asylum seekers could be sent to Rwanda for “spending a couple of weeks in Brussels staying with friends” while journeying to the UK, or for being found with foreign receipts and train tickets in their pockets.Home Office guidance – made public following threats of legal action by refugee charities – includes examples of reasons that people can be selected for removal under Priti Patel’s new scheme.Ukrainian refugees have not been excluded, according to official documents that suggest that anyone who “travelled through safe third countries” like Poland or France can be considered.They state that asylum seekers may be sent to Rwanda if their claim is deemed “inadmissible” under government policy, and they arrived by a small boat or another “dangerous” method after 1 January.A document on what constitutes “inadmissibility” says it includes people deemed to have a connection to a safe country that is not the UK or their home nation.That means that they have been recognised as a refugee in, travelled through, made an asylum application to or could have made an application to that country “on the balance of probabilities”. Guidance for Home Office staff gives examples, saying that an asylum seeker who “passed through Belgium” before arriving in the UK could be declared inadmissible.“An admission from the claimant that they had spent a couple of weeks in Brussels staying with friends while trying to find an agent to bring them illegally to the UK would likely constitute evidence that they had been in that particular country,” it states. “The decision would also need to consider whether the claimant has provided any exceptional circumstances as to what they could not have made an application for protection in that particular country.”The document states that even if asylum seekers deny having stayed in a safe country previously, “material in their belongings such as receipts and tickets from Belgian shops, services and transport showing time and freedom of movement in Belgium would likely meet the standard of proof required”.Staff must weigh up any evidence that the receipts did not belong to that person or that “exceptional circumstances” meant they could not stay in Belgium, the guidance adds. It says that removal to Rwanda should be considered if it “stands a greater chance” than removal to the country they are deemed to have a connection to.Before Brexit, the UK was part of an EU-wide regulation that allowed the transfer of asylum seekers to countries they had previously stayed in.It saw Britain send thousands of people to France, Belgium and other countries deemed responsible for them, but the deal has not been replaced by the EU and individual nations have told The Independent they will not negotiate the bilateral “returns agreements” originally promised by the government.Stay in France if you don’t want to go to Rwanda, minister tells asylum seekersThe UN Refugee Agency (UNHRC)has vocally opposed the Rwanda deal, saying it “evades international obligations and is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention”.Officials have said that there is no international legal obligation requiring refugees to seek asylum in the “first safe country they reach”, which is a key assertion underpinning the government’s policies.“If all refugees were obliged to remain in the first safe country they encountered, the whole system would probably collapse,” the UNHCR added. “The countries closer to zones of conflict and displacement would be totally overwhelmed, while countries further removed would share little or none of the responsibility. This would hardly be fair, or workable, and runs against the spirit of the convention.”Under British law, asylum can only be claimed inside the UK and there is no visa for people wanting to reach the country specifically for that purpose.It means that people who are not eligible for limited resettlement schemes must travel independently to the country.Refugee charities have repeatedly called for the government to set up alternative routes that remove the need for English Channel crossings rather than pursuing increasingly punitive “deterrents”.The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants said the government was “not interested in taking the practical steps needed”.“They could easily issue humanitarian visas and new pathways for people to re-join family here, but instead they continue to forge ahead with cruel and senseless asylum plans,” said interim chief executive Paola Uccellari.“It’s time Priti Patel stopped dreaming up diabolical ways to treat people seeking safety here – whether that’s deporting people to Rwanda, or opening up prison-like asylum camps in rural Yorkshire. What we need are fair and effective asylum rules, which give people the chance to come here safely and build their lives in our communities.”Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, said: “If this government truly wished to shut down people smugglers, they would allow all refugees in Calais to apply for visas, as they have done for Ukrainians. “The question is, why has this cheaper, easier and more humane option not been considered?”The home secretary rebuffed a Conservative MP’s call for asylum processing in France earlier this year, telling parliament’s Home Affairs Committee that it would “make France a big magnet for more migrants to come”.Amid a series of potential legal challenges against the Rwanda policy and the removal of individuals notified that they have been selected for it, the Home Office insisted that the plans were lawful and that it would defend any case “robustly”. More

Charities have said they will “see the government in court” after it published official guidance for selecting asylum seekers to send to Rwanda.A flurry of legal letters in recent weeks had demanded details of who will be eligible for removal under Priti Patel’s new scheme.The Home Office has made guidance for individual cases public but refused to confirm if specific groups of people are affected, saying the information could be used by people smugglers. More

The first group of migrants will this week be informed of plans to deport them to Rwanda, the Home Office has confirmed.The UK government’s controversial new policy will see asylum seekers – who arrived via illegal routes from January this year – be sent to the east African nation while their immigration applications are processed.First flights are expected to take place in the coming months, the Home Office said on Monday night, adding that the government “has the power to detain individuals pending their removal from the UK”.Lawyers for some of those affected will almost certainly lodge claims to stop their removal – there are a number of legal challenges brought by charities that are protesting against the move.If the migrants’ applications are approved, they will be granted asylum or given refugee status in the UK.Those with failed applications will be offered the chance to apply for visas under other immigration routes if they wish to remain in Rwanda – but could still face deportation to their country of origin.Tens of thousands of people could end up being sent to Rwanda while they await news of their future, Boris Johnson has said.When the plan was announced last month, Priti Patel – who visited Rwanda to strike the deal with the country’s foreign minister Vincent Biruta – hailed it as a “world first” agreement.The home secretary has also said: “Britain’s asylum system is broken as criminals exploit and smuggle people into our country at huge costs to UK taxpayers.“The world-leading migration partnership with Rwanda means those making dangerous, unnecessary and illegal journeys to the UK may be relocated to Rwanda to have their claims for asylum considered and to rebuild their lives there, helping break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life.“This is just the first stage of the process and we know it will take time as some will seek to frustrate the process and delay removals.“I will not be deterred from acting to deliver on the changes the British people voted for to take back control of our money, laws and borders.”This year so far, at least 7,739 people have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel, according to an analysis of government figures by the PA news agency. The number is more than triple that of the same period in 2021 (2,439). More

After the vote and the count, the eternal existential question: what does it all mean anyway?Commentators have spent the last 36 hours wrestling with local election results that have, somehow, been a disaster for Boris Johnson without being much good for Sir Keir Starmer either.The facts are simple enough. The Tories lost almost 500 councillors, while Labour and the Lib Dems both made big gains: 261 and 189 respectively. The Greens won 82 and the Scottish National Party 61.Yet what exactly this tells us about the state of British public opinion – and how a general election might go – remains as contested as the campaigning itself.In the run up to voting day on Thursday, The Independent identified eight key council areas that may offer key clues to the direction of politics over the next two years. Now, we look at the results in those places and the lessons they (possibly) offer…Derby City CouncilWhen commentators suggest that Labour endured a difficult election despite picking up some 261 council seats, it is places like Derby they are thinking of.The city authority is historically red but has been led by a minority Tory administration since 2018 – a shift that preceded the fall of the Red Wall at the following year’s general election.If Labour is to triumph the next time the country goes to the polls, it is exactly such Midlands (and Northern) cities and towns they need to win back. Yet, despite picking up two seats in Derby on Thursday, they remain behind the Tories here with just 16 councillors compared to the blues’ 18.In a swathe of other former heartland areas – including Bolton, Dudley and Walsall – the same thing happened. Modest gains were overshadowed by the fact the Tories remained the larget party. In several areas, Labour lost seats: Newcastle-under-Lyme, Barnsley and South Shields among them.The conclusion? It may be some time yet before the Red Wall reverts back to Labour. More

Dozens of the UK’s leading animal charities have written to Boris Johnson asking him to include in the Queen’s speech an earlier promise to ban imports of hunting trophies, fur, foie gras and shark fins.The measures were in the Animals Abroad Bill, which the government dropped earlier this year in a dramatic U-turn to the anger of campaigners who have devoted years fighting for the changes.The bill also included a ban on the advertising of cruel tourism activities abroad, such as elephant rides and elephant entertainment venues.The heads of 38 organisations have joined forces to back the letter, including the RSPCA, the Born Free Foundation, Peta, World Animal Protection, World Horse Welfare, Compassion in World Farming and Whale & Dolphin Conservation.The sister of a woman killed at an elephant theme park in Thailand last month told The Independent of her bitter disappointment that the government was shying away from a ban, instead stating it expected tourists to do their own research.“How do holidaymakers know if you don’t tell them?” asked Helen Costigan.The Independent previously reported that the various measures were agreed at cabinet level, before Jacob Rees-Mogg, Brandon Lewis and Mark Spencer are thought to have vetoed them – even though the changes were promised in the government’s action plan for animal welfare published last year.Every year, hunters from the UK travel abroad, often to southern Africa, and pay thousands of pounds to legally shoot animals, such as lions, elephants and even baboons.They are allowed to bring back body parts such as stuffed heads, paws and horns in a grisly trade that critics say is driving wildlife populations towards extinction.The last Conservative Party election manifesto included a pledge to ban trophy hunt imports. But according to The Times, Mr Johnson has indeed dropped plans to ban the import and sale of foie gras and fur.Conservationists have made repeated trips to Westminster to hand in petitions and have meetings with government representatives over the issues of the imports and adverts.The charities’ latest letter tells the prime minister: “We would welcome the opportunity to meet with your office and discuss the government’s plans and ambitions for animals in the next session and look forward to hearing from you.”Claire Bass, executive director of Humane Society International/UK, said: “Boris Johnson made a promise to the people that after Brexit, Britain would become world leaders in animal welfare.“He can keep that promise by ensuring that the Animals Abroad Bill with proposed bans on cruel fur, foie gras, shark fins and other horrors, is in the Queen’s speech next week. More

Some energy suppliers have excessively hiked customers’ direct debit payments beyond what is required, the business secretary has said as he gave them a three-week deadline to explain themselves or face “substantial fines”. Household energy bills have soared in the UK after the regulator Ofgem raised its price cap by 54 per cent in April in response to a record rise in wholesale gas prices – bringing an average increase of £693. But the regulator warned a fortnight later that it had seen “troubling signs” of “bad practices” by some suppliers, including potentially “increasing direct debit payments by more than is necessary”, amid reports that some customers have seen their payments double – or even triple.In a blog post on 14 April, Ofgem’s chief executive, Jonathan Brearley, said there were also concerns regarding some suppliers’ “troubling” treatment of vulnerable customers when they fall into difficulties, and of firms potentially “directing customers to tariffs that may not be in their best interest”.Mr Brearley said Ofgem was commissioning a series of market compliance reviews that would include “stricter supervision of how direct debits are handled” by suppliers and ensure they are “held to higher standards for overall performance on customer service and protecting vulnerable customers”.Upping the ante on Tuesday afternoon, Kwasi Kwarteng outright accused some suppliers of “increasing direct debits beyond what is required” – and said some could face “substantial fines”.He said: “Some energy suppliers have been increasing direct debits beyond what is required.“I can confirm Ofgem has today issued compliance reviews. Suppliers have three weeks to respond. The regulator will not hesitate to swiftly enforce compliance, including issuing substantial fines.”Dozens of energy suppliers have collapsed in the UK in the space of little more than a year, leaving behind millions of customers, and potentially adding billions of pounds to the cost of energy bills.But Mr Brearley claimed last month that “one of the root causes of the failures of many of those suppliers” is related to the way that they have managed the money paid to them by customers.The Ofgem chief accused some firms of using customer credit balances “to prop up their finances, enabling them to follow more risky business models with reduced financial resilience and higher likelihood of failure”.A spokesperson for Energy UK, which represents energy companies, told the BBC on Tuesday: “Suppliers are required to set [direct debits] at a fair and reasonable level based on the customer’s individual circumstances, taking into account factors like previous energy use or record with previous payments.“It is right that the regulator is looking to ensure that suppliers are complying with those requirements. Customers who do have concerns with the level of their direct debit payments should contact their supplier.”Inflation and the cost of living crisis have emerged as the top issues in local elections across the UK on Thursday, and Boris Johnson has faced increasing calls from opposition parties to impose a windfall tax on energy giants to ease the burden of household bills.But Cabinet divisions over such a move were exposed this week, as Mr Kwarteng argued firmly against an “arbitrary” windfall tax, just days after the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, indicated he was ready to consider the move.Pressed repeatedly over the idea in interviews on Tuesday, Mr Johnson rejected the move, saying: “If you start whacking huge taxes on business, in the end you deter investment and you slow down growth.”“If BP wants to pay a windfall tax then that’s another matter but the clear advice we have is that we need those big companies to invest,” he told Times Radio, adding: “We are in constant discussion with them.” More

Ministers have abandoned plans to send the first asylum-seekers to Rwanda this month as promised, prompting accusations that they are blaming legal challenges rather than admit that the idea is “unworkable”. When the multi-million pound deal was announced last month, Boris Johnson said the first flights would take off within “weeks” – but his spokesperson on Tuesday said it would now be “a matter of months”.No 10 has blamed legal challenges against the policy but also insisted court action would not put the controversial project “on hold”.Charities and lawyers said the delay indicated that ministers had accepted that the challenges of implementing the policy were “far greater than it had anticipated”, and that there was now a likelihood that it could “easily unravel” because the logistics have “simply not been thought through”. Meanwhile, one Home Office source believes the government “actually wants” legal challenges so that ministers can “point to their frustration at being blocked by the courts and push for more power over court decisions.”The source told The Independent that the current policy “will be difficult” to implement, but added: “I don’t think politically they will abandon the idea though, it will carry into the next election manifesto I would guess.”Experts had questioned Mr Johnson’s claim that the scheme – which he has said will see tens of thousands of people deported there after arriving in the UK via irregular means – could start almost immediately, with some doubting whether any refugees would ever be sent to Rwanda.The prime minister’s spokesman acknowledged that the legal action was not “unexpected” and described it as only “one of the variables” affecting hopes for the scheme.“We are working to get the first flights moving – I don’t know definitely what timescale that will be,” he added.An analysis by the Refugee Council last month found that fewer than 200 asylum seekers would be deported to the east African country under existing immigration rules, casting doubt over the prime minister’s claims.Enver Solomon, chief executive of the charity, said: “The government’s desire to treat people as human cargo and expelling them to Rwanda is not only appallingly and unprincipled – it also unworkable.“The government now seems to be accepting that the challenges of making it a reality are far greater than it had anticipated. There’s a likelihood that it could now easily unravel and certainly never be on a scale the prime minister said it could be.”Sonya Sceats, chief executive at Freedom from Torture, a charity bringing one of the legal challenges, said: “It is obvious that ministers are hiding behind court cases rather than admit that this inhumane plan is unworkable.“Critical operational considerations have simply not been thought through, including the risks of sharing sensitive data about refugees with a repressive state known to practice torture.”Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said the “cruel” plan was “rapidly turning into yet another expensive mess”, adding: “It isn’t deterring people from crossing the Channel, and it’s already mired in predictable delays. “Everything the Conservatives have done has only made this problem worse. It’s time they realised that the best way to prevent the crossings, and combat the smuggling and trafficking gangs, is to provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary for refugees.”Around 550 people have crossed from France in small boats in the last two days following an 11-day pause, casting doubts over claims by some Conservative MPs that the Rwanda threat is already acting as a deterrent.The government has argued legal powers already exist to allow asylum-seekers to be sent to Rwanda, but critics argue it breaches both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Geneva Convention.Toufique Hossain, director of public law at Duncan Lewis, which is representing the civil service union (Public and Commercial Services Union) and two charities in a court challenge against the policy, said the delay “could suggest that the home secretary has finally worked out what most people already know – the plans are unworkable, unlawful and a huge waste of tax payers’ money”. Immigration lawyer Alasdair Mackenzie echoed his remarks, saying: “Legal challenges will undoubtedly – and rightly – happen, but they’d be a convenient smokescreen for the fact that the practical mechanics of the Rwanda plan – who qualifies, where will they live, how do you stop them coming back, etc – have blatantly not been thought through.”A Home Office spokesperson said: “This world-leading Migration Partnership will overhaul our broken asylum system, which is currently costing the UK taxpayer £1.5bn a year – the highest amount in two decades.“It means those arriving dangerously, illegally or unnecessarily can be relocated to have their asylum claims considered and, if recognised as refugees, build their lives there.“Our new Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda fully complies with international and national law. We will defend any legal challenge robustly.” More

Most asylum seekers in Calais are still hoping to make it to the UK despite plans that could see them sent to Rwanda, according to a new survey. A charity polled those waiting in migrant camps in northern France in the days since the British government passed a law making it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive without permission.Care4Calais found most had heard of the deal with Rwanda, which will see people who arrive “illegally” in the UK under new immigration rules sent to the east African country to apply for asylum there instead.Three quarters of those polled said the plans would not put them off making the Channel crossing, the charity said.Care4Calais said it did not find the results surprising. “Rwanda is getting headlines but at its core it’s really just another in a long line of deterrence policies announced by this government over the last few years. And let’s face it – they’ve all failed,” it said in a tweet.Around 350 were found crossing the Channel in small boats on Sunday. More people thought to be migrants were seen being brought in to Dover on Monday.It came after what is believed to have been an 11-day break in activity, when no crossings were recorded amid reports of strong winds and choppy seas.The Home Office is facing two legal challenges – including one involving Care4Calais – over its plans to send asylum seekers overseas to have their claims decided.The proposal has been met with criticisms from the United Nations refugee agency, the Church of England, charities and Home Office staff since it was revealed last month.Care4Calais said they wanted to see safe and legal routes for those fleeing dangerous situations instead.“The answer to many problems in Calais is to let refugees apply for visas to cross the Channel safely, because now – unless you’re Ukrainian – there’s no safe way for a refugee to get to the UK and claim asylum,” it said. “That would put people smugglers out of business and save lives.”The Home Office has been approached for comment. More