UK

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailSacked home secretary Suella Braverman has hit out at Rishi Sunak‘s Rwanda plans in a speech to the House of Commons as a Tory revolt over the controversial policy grows. The prime minister has been warned of rebellion by Tory MPs on both sides over his party, as well as possible resignations, over plans to get around human rights law. Ms Braverman branded the prime minister a failure and accused him of betraying a secret deal on small boats in an incendiary letter, after she was ousted in a reshuffle last month. In an excoriating criticism, she also accused him of “magical thinking” over his approach to stopping migrants crossing the English Channely, of which Rwanda is a major plank.In what was seen as a future leadership pitch, she also said she would support “authentic Conservative” government policies.Her speech comes as the government prepares to publish emergency legislation designed to save the prime minister Rwanda plan, after it was branded unlawful by the Supreme Court. Mr Sunak is thought to have ruled out a radical move to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – despite a rebellion by the Tory right, including Ms Braverman’s allies. He also faced a revolt from a powerful group of Tory moderates that they could not support the legislation if he did try to flout the ECHR – arguing it was a “red line”.But one senior MP told the Independent there would be “no purpose” in the bill if it failed to address the use of human rights law to block the policy. Former home secretary Suella Braverman has added to pressure on Rishi Sunak (Justin Tallis/PA)Ms Braverman is making a personal statement to the Commons following her bitter exit last month. A similar speech by Geoffrey Howe in 1990 following his resignation in the House of Commons in 1990. Lord Howe’s resignation is often credited with ending Margaret Thatcher’s political career. Mr Sunak was not expected to watch the speech, as it clashed with a phone call between leaders of the G7 nations on a number of issues including Ukraine and the war in Gaza.MPs were asked to leave the chamber if they felt they could not abide by convention that Ms Braverman’s speech was heard in silence and without interruption. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailRishi Sunak is said to have ruled out a radical move to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – despite a rebellion by the Tory right that threatens his ‘plan B’ Rwanda legislation.It comes as the leading right-winger Suella Braverman, sacked by Mr Sunak as home secretary last month, is set to question the PM’s immigration policies in a dramatic statement in the Commons.Mr Sunak is facing revolt by Ms Braverman and other hardliners who are pushing him go for “full fat” legislation by “disapplying” the ECHR in a bid to stop judges from blocking deportations.But the PM has also been warned by a powerful group of Tory moderates that they cannot support his legislation if he does try to flout the ECHR – arguing that it would be “red line” that cannot be crossed.Mr Sunak will try to appease the Tory right by disapplying parts of the UK Human Rights Act in the legislation, according to The Times – a move described as a “middle way” option.The PM has also been warned he faces up to 10 moderate ministers quitting government if he uses emergency legislation to get around ECHR, according to The Telegraph.Tory MPs on right – including members of the New Conservatives, Commons Sense Group and European Research Group – will convene a “star chamber” of legal experts to decide with the upcoming Rwanda legislation is tough enough to support.Mark Francois, chair of the ERG, said Mr Sunak’s plan B bill must “fully respect the sovereignty of parliament” and put their wishes to get flights in the air above international law.However, Tory moderates in the ‘One Nation’ caucus – which boasts around 100 MPs – have urged Mr Sunak to remain committed to both the ECHR and the UK Human Rights Act.They too have warned of rebellion over the legislation expected to be set out on Thursday. Its chair Damian Green said Mr Sunak “should think twice before overriding both the ECHR and HRA”.Rishi Sunak is under huge pressure to get flights to Rwanda under way Stephen Hammond, deputy chair, said moderate MPs would “struggle to support a so-called full-fat” option of flouting the ECHR, while fellow moderate Matt Warman MP said overriding the ECHR would be a “red line”.As the Tory rift deepened, right-winger Simon Clarke, who wants to opt out of the ECHR, fired back at the moderates by tweeting: “Failing to stop the boats would be a red line for a number of Conservatives – namely our voters.”Home secretary James Cleverly is thought to have met ‘One Nation’ before his trip to Rwanda this week – angering the right-wing groups.The Independent understands there has been no attempt by No 10 or ministers to reach out to Tories on the right. One senior MP said there would be “no purpose” in the bill if it fails to address human rights law to block legal challenges.Suella Braverman set to add to pressure on Sunak in Commons speech Ms Braverman is expected to make a formal resignation statment in the Commons this afternoon following her bitter exit last month. She could join calls for an ECHR opt-out, or push for Mr Sunak to show he is willing to quit the convention. Some Tory MPs on the right submitted letters of no confidence in Mr Sunak on Wednesday, according to ITV presenter Robert Peston.Conservatives from the Common Sense Group, New Conservatives and the ERG are set to meet again at 6pm this evening to discuss Mr Sunak’s government Rwanda bill. Immigration minister Robert Jenrick – an ally of Ms Braverman – is still pushing for the hardline, “full fat” approach, according to The Telegraph.One option said to be under consideration is considered is giving ministers reserve powers in the legislation to ignore ECHR rulings if the court attempted to block the Rwanda policy – although opting out of the convention for asylum cases would not be automatic.Mr Sunak could try to ward off a Tory rebellion against the bill by suggesting he is willing to consider pulling the UK out of the ECHR altogether if the courts again block Rwanda flights.The row follow’s Mr Cleverly’s move to sign another treaty with Rwanda. But Mr Cleverly still could not guarantee flights would leave by next spring, as Mr Sunak hopes – as he became the third minister in less than two years to sign an agreement with the African nation.James Cleverly and Rwandan foreign minister Vincent Biruta sign the new treatyMr Cleverly promised that the “emergency” legislation would come before parliament “soon”. He also said that he could see “no reason” why migrants could not be sent from the UK to Rwanda in the coming months.Emergency legislation aimed at saving the Rwanda plan will do “whatever it takes” to protect the deal from further setbacks in the courts, a Home Office minister Chris Philp said on Wednesday. He said the bill will ensure the Rwanda deal is “legally watertight”.But former Labour home secretary David Blunkett said the government’s Rwanda deal was “stupid and impractical”. He told The House magazine that Labour should not engage in a “bidding war” with the Tories with deportation promises. The UK’s top court last month blocked the Rwanda policy over concerns that genuine refugees could be wrongly sent back to their countries of origin where they would face persecution.In an attempt to rectify this, the new treaty means British and Commonwealth judges will preside over a newly established appeals process within Rwanda’s high court for exceptional cases.Another key measure is a commitment that no-one will be removed by Rwanda to any other country except the UK. Experts from the UK will also be seconded to Rwanda to assist with the processing of asylum decisions. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster email The outgoing Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, told delegates at the COP28 United Nations climate conference his country is “committed to accelerating our efforts” to tackle climate change.Whether that happens in this nation — large parts of which are under sea level and protected by dikes — depends on talks that are underway to form a new ruling coalition.Rutte’s potential successor wants to trash the country’s climate policies.One of far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders’ pledges ahead of the Nov. 22 election his PVV party won set alarm bells ringing at environmental groups.“The climate law, the climate deal and all other climate measures will go straight into the shredder,” his PVV party’s election manifesto said. “No wasting billions on useless climate hobbies, but more money for our people,” it added.“Wilders really denies climate change as something that the Netherlands should worry about. Which is interesting given that a large part of the country is below sea level,” Rem Korteweg, a senior research fellow at the Clingendael Institute think tank, said after the election.Greenpeace agrees. A day after the election, activists hoisted banners outside the prime minister’s office in The Hague that read: “No climate denier as our prime minister.”“He is a climate denier,” said Greenpeace campaigner Meike Rijksen. “He wants to take all climate policy and put it through the shredder. That’s climate denial. He’s denying the urgency of the climate crisis and what we need to do in the Netherlands.”She fears that such messages are spreading across Europe as the continent puts in place plans like the Green Deal and Fit for 55, aimed at tackling climate change head on.“We do see this trend of populist, far right political parties on the rise. And … we’re worried by that because they often are climate deniers. They’re not telling the truth. And that’s … very unhelpful in this crucial decade for climate action.”Wilders’ party beat a center-left alliance led by former European Union climate czar Frans Timmermans into second place.In April, the Dutch government unveiled a package of measures to slash carbon emissions by promoting clean energy, sustainable homes and industry and the use of electric cars.Climate and Energy Minister Rob Jetten said the package would cost a total of 28 billion euros in coming years and lead to a 55%-60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 benchmark levels.Wilders is advocating an end to the package, but he may have to tone down his climate policy and other pledges in his election manifesto if he wants to secure the support of other parties to form a coalition.The process of forming a new government after the election has only just begun, but as the largest party, Wilders’ PVV is in pole position to lead the next coalition with other right-leaning parties, including one that was born out of massive protests by farmers against government plans to slash nitrogen emissions.That could also mean that plans to reduce farm pollution get scrapped or watered down. The Netherlands began moves to clamp down on nitrogen after Dutch courts ruled that the country needed to do more to meet European Union rules on protected nature areas.Wilders’ sweeping election victory — his party won 37 seats in the 150-seat lower house of parliament, more than double its previous total — came days after tens of thousands of people marched through Amsterdam in the biggest climate march ever seen in the Netherlands calling for more action to tackle global warming.And less than a week after the election, the country’s official statistics agency reported that 76% of adults in the low-lying Netherlands are concerned about the impact of climate change on future generations.But despite climate activism and concerns, Wilders won the election and now gets to call the shots in coalition talks. What stays of his climate policies after talks with potential partners remains to be seen. The last Dutch coalition talks took nine months.“If Wilders was the only party in the Netherlands, it would be very disastrous for the climate,” said Greenpeace’s Rijksen.” But fortunately, we live in a coalition country, which means that Wilders needs other parties to form a government and to take those kinds of steps. We don’t think that will happen. There are a lot of parties who do want to continue with climate action.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailThe three-year public inquiry looking into the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic – has already seen damning revelations, WhatsApp messages and statements which have exposed the government and its failings.Former prime minister Boris Johnson is at the centre of all of this, with a two-day hearing set to commence on Wednesday 6 December.The team leading the Covid-19 inquiry includes Baroness Heather Hallet, a former Court of Appeal judge – who is chair of the inquiry. Ben Connah, inquiry Secretary and Martin Smith who works as a Solicitor to the inquiry.Hugo Keith is currently leading as Counsel to the inquiry and plays a significant role in the investigation. So far, Mr Keigh has by no means made the probe an easy ride for those in the hot seat.Here’s everything you need to know about Hugo Keith and the Covid-19 inquiryWho is Mr Keith and what are some of his key moments?Hugo Keith KC’s role is to give independent legal advice to Baroness Hallet, present the evidence, question the witnesses and lead the wider counsel.In November, Michael Gove was shut down during his Covid inquiry hearing for suggesting the virus may have been man-made.Michael Gove apologises for Government mistakes during pandemic.When Mr Gove was asked about the government’s lack of preparation for Covid as the pandemic unfolded, he admitted the government was “not as well prepared as we should have been”.“The nature of our preparation was for a flu pandemic,” he told the inquiry.He then went on to suggest the virus may be man-made adding: “It turned out that we were not as well prepared as we should have been, ideally.“The nature of the fact the virus was novel … and this probably goes beyond the remit of the inquiry, but there is a significant body of judgment that believes the virus itself was man-made. And that presents a set of challenges as well.”Mr Keith stepped in and told Mr Gove it was not the place to discuss the matter.“It forms no part of the terms of reference of this inquiry Mr Gove, to address that somewhat divisive issue, so we are not going to go there,” he said.Lead counsel KC also grilled Mr Gove about WhatsApp messages sent by Cabinet Secretary Simon Case saying working with Mr Johnson’s team was like “taming wild animals”.Matt Hancock’s Covid hearing Former health secretary Matt Hancock giving evidence to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry In another hearing, Mr Keith questioned former health secretary Matt Hancock on his claim that he first told the then PM, Mr Johnson to call a nationwide lockdown on 13 March 2020.Mr Keith then showed Mr Hancock his own book, Pandemic Diaries, and asked why he had not made a note of the intervention at the time.Mr Keith said: “It’s not in your diary, so-called, I should say, Mr Hancock. The entry for March 13 makes no reference to you telling the prime minister this vital piece of information that he should lock down immediately.”“Telling the prime minister of this country, for the first time, that he had to call an immediate lockdown, is surely worthy of some recollection, is it not?,” he asked.Mr Hancock responded and said: “I didn’t have full access to my papers for the writing of that, and this came to light in researching the papers ahead of this inquiry.”He also referenced an email from himself to Mr Johnson which he said was a “suppression strategy” to tackle coronavirus.Mr Keith, highly unimpressed by Mr Hancock’s reply, said: “The inquiry is well aware of that email… Do you use the word immediate or lockdown?”.In response to Mr Keith, Mr Hancock said he was unable to answer the question as he did not have the email in front of him.Matt Hancock Vs Dominic CummingsDuring his hearing, Mr Hancock was also shown a WhatsApp message he sent to then-Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings in which he said the Government needed to “up a gear on winning the public argument”.This included telling the public that “we are better prepared than other countries” and that the UK’s “contain phase” had been “better than other countries”.Mr Hancock also accused Mr Cummings of creating a “culture of fear” in government which undermined the pandemic response.The former health secretary also said Mr Cummings was a “malign actor” who subjected his staff to abuse during the pandemic.“Was it unpleasant? Yes, it was unpleasant for a whole load of my staff as well who were subject to this sort of abuse from the chief adviser,” Mr Hancock told the inquiry.“It went further, wider than I thought at the time, but my job was to lead the health and care system, the whole thing.”Mr Hancock further rejected claims he lied to colleagues about having a plan for the outbreak, describing these as “false allegations”.Instead, he pointed the finger at Mr Cummings for, he suggested, presiding over an atmosphere in which blame was attributed rather than allowing people to “spend all of their effort solving the problems”.“It was deeply, deeply frustrating… we’ve discussed the structural problem which was essentially an adviser trying to take executive authority away from the prime minister for a period until the cabinet secretary stopped it and put in place the MIG (Ministerial Implementation Group) process,” Mr Hancock said.Mr Cummings later rebuked Mr Hancock’s account on X/Twitter, accusing him of “flat out lying” by claiming to have pushed for a lockdown on March 13.The former aide wrote: “Hancock flat out lying to Inquiry claiming he privately pushed for lockdown on 13th with PM – but admits there’s no evidence for it – and again on 14th in mtngs – when evidence from ALL others & paper trail is that he was still pushing Plan A herd immunity 13-15th – and his Perm Sec was still pushing Plan A on 18/3 to Cabinet Secretary (email uncovered by media) – the reason I physically stopped him coming to the second mtng on 14/3 was cos he was arguing AGAINST a change of plan & bullshitting everybody about herd immunity & ‘best prepared in the world’ (see evidence from multiple witnesses).” Additional reporting from PA agency More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster email Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who led Britain through the coronavirus pandemic before being ousted by scandal, is set to defend his record on Wednesday at a public inquiry into the country’s handling of COVID-19.Johnson will be grilled under oath by lawyers for the judge-led inquiry about his initial reluctance to impose a national lockdown in early 2020 and other fateful decisions.Johnson arrived at the inquiry venue at daybreak, several hours before he was due to take the stand, avoiding a protest by relatives of COVID-19 victims.Among those wanting answers from the inquiry are families of some of the more than 200,000 people in the U.K. who died after contracting the virus. A group gathered outside the office building where the inquiry was set, some holding pictures of their loved ones. A banner declared: “Let the bodies pile high” — a statement attributed to Johnson by an aide. Another sign said: “Johnson partied while people died.” Johnson was pushed out of office by his own Conservative Party in mid-2022 after multiple ethics scandals, including the revelation that he and staff members held parties in the prime minister’s Downing Street offices in 2020 and 2021, flouting the government’s lockdown restrictions.Former colleagues, aides and advisers have painted an unflattering picture of Johnson over weeks of testimony at the inquiry.Former Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance said Johnson was “bamboozled” by science. In diaries that have been seen as evidence, Vallance also said Johnson was “obsessed with older people accepting their fate.” Former adviser Dominic Cummings, now a fierce opponent of Johnson, said the then-prime minister asked scientists whether blowing a hair dryer up his nose could kill the virus.The U.K. has one of the highest COVID-19 death tolls in Europe, with the virus recorded as a cause of death for more than 232,000 people.Johnson agreed in late 2021 to hold a public inquiry after heavy pressure from bereaved families. The probe, led by retired Judge Heather Hallett, is expected to take three years to complete, though interim reports will be issued starting next year.The inquiry is divided into four sections modules, with the current phase focusing on political decision-making. The first stage, which concluded in July, looked at the country’s preparedness for the pandemic. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailSir Keir Starmer would be welcomed into the Conservative Party with “open arms”, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.The top Tory and arch-Brexiteer said the Labour leader’s recent article in the Telegraph, in which Sir Keir praised Margaret Thatcher, sounded like a Conservative minister launching a leadership bid.Sir Keir’s article, under the headline “voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration”, read like something by “the most ardent of Eurosceptics” or a “Trussite”, Sir Jacob added.He added: “As a Tory member, I would like to extend a welcome to the Leader of the Opposition with open arms.”The Tory former minister was commenting after Rishi Sunak suggested Nigel Farage would be welcome to join the Conservatives – insisting his party was a “broad church”.“The more pressing question is not whether Nigel Farage will join the Tory Party, but whether Keir Starmer is planning to defect and launch a Tory leadership bid,” he told GB News.A Labour spokesman said: “What Jacob Rees-Mogg knows is that the travel is all in the opposite direction with former Tory voters backing Keir Starmer’s changed Labour Party to end thirteen years of Tory decline and give Britain its future back.”The Labour leader sparked a backlash with his article, in which he said Mrs Thatcher had effected “meaningful change” and “set loose Britain’s natural entrepreneurialism”.He also sought to outflank Mr Sunak by appealing to Tory voters on Brexit and migration.In a shift from his staunch opposition to Britain leaving the EU, Sir Keir said the Tories have “failed to realise the possibilities of Brexit”.He said  he “profoundly disagrees” with the idea Labour should duck topics such as small boat crossings and immigration.And he added: “This is a government that was elected on a promise that immigration would ‘come down’ and the British people would ‘always [be] in control’. For immigration to then triple is more than just yet another failure – it is a betrayal of their promises.”Sir Jacob, who served as business secretary under Lizz Truss, said: “A man wrote an article for The Telegraph last week entitled ‘Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and Immigration.’“This reads as if it were vintage Farage. The man in question went on to hail Margaret Thatcher, as the leader who dragged Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism.“He then went on to criticise the wasted money, the high debt and the record-high tax burden. He sounds as if he could be a member of the ERG!”Sir Jacob added: ““So, who is this man? This great Conservative-sounding figure? Is he a cabinet minister waiting in the wings for a Tory Party leadership bid? One setting out his stall – along with a number of other ministers who seem to be circling.“He must be among the most ardent of Eurosceptics, a member of the ‘Go for Growth’ movement, a Thatcherite – a Trussite even – a capitalist, a sensible, free market Conservative.“But – the man I’m referring to is not Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss or even me, for that matter.“I’m of course talking about the leader of the Labour party – the socialist party – Sir Keir Starmer.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailNew laws designed to slash the number of migrants by 300,000 a year risk splitting up families already living in the UK. Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said.The move is part of plans to cut net migration after it soared to nearly three-quarters of a million in 2022.Experts, however, warned the planned crackdown was causing distress for many. Downing Street defended the policy, saying it was right that “if you are bringing someone into the country you are able to support them”. Under the plans unveiled on Monday those wishing to bring their spouse to the UK will now have to earn £38,700, a significant increase on the current figure of £18,600, and what has been described as a tax on love. Former Tory minister Gavin Barwell said it was “both morally wrong and unconservative to say that only the wealthiest can fall in love, marry someone and then bring them to the UK”.As well as applying to those yet to come to the UK, No 10 confirmed the new higher figure risks affecting those already here. Asked if it would apply to partners when they came to renew their visas, No 10 said the change was “not retrospective, but it would apply to renewals in the future”. At that point, people would be expected to “meet the visa requirements of the day”. The prime minister’s official spokesperson added: “People always have a set length of time for their visas and will be aware at the conclusion of that visa time that they don’t have a guarantee that they will obviously remain in the country.” The income level had not been updated for 10 years, No 10 said. There are exemptions, but these will be on a case-by-case basis, and it stressed that the amount could be spread across the household. Madeleine Sumption, the director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said the changes would make the UK an outlier among western nations. “This is definitely completely different to what any other high-income country does,” she said. Josephine Whitaker-Yilmaz, from migrant rights organisation Praxis, said she was concerned for families who feel “forced to make horrible decisions” due to the changes.The changes are due to come into effect in spring and will apply when existing visas for foreign spouses come up for renewal. The prime minister’s spokesperson said on Tuesday: “The family immigration rules contain a provision for exceptional circumstances where there would be unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member if their application were to be refused.”No examples were given and the spokesperson said applications would be considered on a “case-by-case basis”.Official figures from April show the median gross annual earnings for full-time employees in the UK was £34,963. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailHome secretary James Cleverly has hailed yet another deal with Rwanda as the way to rescue the government’s thwarted plan to stop the boats – only for it to be denounced as a “gross political fantasy”. The embattled cabinet minister said there was now no credible legal reason for the policy to continue to be blocked after he flew to Kigali to sign a new treaty.But Mr Cleverly still could not guarantee flights will depart next spring, as Rishi Sunak hopes, as he became the third minister in less than two years to sign an agreement with the African nation.Tory MPs warned they would examine new emergency legislation on Rwanda – due to be published within days to determine the country is a safe destination – to ensure planes carrying asylum seekers take off. It came as the prime minister faces a major Commons revolt from two sides of his party over the planned new law. MPs on the right of the party are pushing the PM to use it to opt out of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) – warning he must go for the “full fat” version to stop judges intervening. Home secretary James Cleverly arrives at Kigali International AirportBut senior Tory moderates are also warning Mr Sunak they may not support his legislation if he does try to flout the ECHR, arguing that it would be “a mistake” that doesn’t command public support. As the treaty was unveiled, it emerged that: Asylum seekers sent to Rwanda who go on to commit serious crimes while there could end up back in the UK UK taxpayers will have to pay more on top of the £140m already spent on a scheme which has yet to send a single asylum seeker to the east-central African country The UK will take some of Rwanda’s refugees under the plans, a measure contained in the original agreementRwanda will still have a veto over which asylum seekers it accepts Those sent there will be offered support and accommodation by the UK for five years Under the treaty, they will not be sent on to a third country, such as the one from which they fled – the main criticism of the Supreme Court – and will stay in Rwanda Mr Sunak announced the new treaty – and the emergency legislation – in the wake of a damning Supreme Court judgment which ruled his plans unlawful.In the Rwandan capital, Mr Cleverly praised the new deal, saying: “We feel very strongly this treaty addresses all of the issues of their lordships in the Supreme Court.”But he could not guarantee when the first flight of asylum seekers would take off.The home secretary added: “We want to see this part of our wider migration plan up and running as quickly as possible.” James Cleverly during Tuesday’s press conference in Kigali Under the treaty, those sent to Rwanda will stay there, no matter the outcome of their asylum application. The Supreme Court had warned that under the previous system, vulnerable refugees risked being erroneously sent back to the countries from which they had fled, where they would face persecution. But the court also questioned whether undertakings given by Rwanda could be relied upon. Also included in the treaty are plans for UK lawyers to be sent to Rwanda to help process claims and ensure appeals are granted correctly. An independent monitoring committee will assess the processing of asylum claims and the treatment and support for individuals for up to five years. It will also establish a new whistleblowing system to allow asylum seekers sent to Rwanda to lodge confidential complaints.Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused Mr Cleverly of being the third home secretary in 18 months to take a trip to Rwanda “for a photo op”. Priti Patel signed the initial deal last April while his predecessor, Suella Braverman, visited Kigali earlier this year. “More home secretaries than asylum seekers have been sent there and the scheme is badly failing,” Ms Cooper said. “We know … even if it ever does get off the ground, it will only cover a very small number of people when over 1,000 people arrived in small boats last week alone.”The government’s former top lawyer Jonathan Jones questioned whether ministers were really as confident as they suggested.He said: “If the government were really confident that the treaty did the trick and Rwanda will now be “safe”, it could be confident of winning any further court challenge and wouldn’t need to change the law as well.But the government has said it will table a Bill which will likely tell the courts that Rwanda is now to be treated as “safe” for the purposes of asylum claims.”Lib Dem home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said: “It was obvious that this policy was destined to fail from the beginning, and this couldn’t have been made any clearer than the Supreme Court ruling.“The Conservatives have already spent far too much time, energy and money on this failing policy. It’s time for James Cleverly to get serious and get on with fixing the broken asylum system. “Tackling the sky-high asylum backlog and creating safe and legal routes for sanctuary will make far more progress towards that than this pet project policy ever could.”Prime minister Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda plans are being closely watched by his MPsThe Law Society of England and Wales was sceptical about Mr Cleverly’s assurances, saying it “remains unclear” how the treaty will overcome the Supreme Court ruling based on a “well-established principle of international law”.Nick Emmerson, the president of the professional association representing solicitors, argued that neither the deal nor new legislation “can overnight provide adequate means of safeguarding the rights of people removed to Rwanda”.Steve Valdez-Symonds, from Amnesty International, said: “With this treaty, ministers are once again doubling down on a fundamentally reckless policy of not processing asylum claims made in the UK – even while expecting other countries to deal with the asylum claims they receive. “The policy of not processing claims has already created a massive, costly and inhuman backlog, in which tens of thousands of people are now simply stuck in limbo.“The gross political fantasy that Rwanda can simply receive these people from the UK is utterly immoral, wholly impractical and sets a terrible example on the world stage.” Enver Solomon, from the Refugee Council, said: “It’s time for the government to admit that the Rwanda plan just isn’t the right way forward. Instead, we need to develop a fair and compassionate approach to refugee protection that focuses on providing safe routes and a fair hearing for those seeking safety in the UK.”Last month, former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption accused the government of trying to “change the facts by law” by declaring Rwanda safe. He also said the scheme was “probably dead”. More