“False humanitarianism” is holding back plans to tackle small boat crossings, the interior minister has said.
Suella Braverman told MPs that the abuse of the UK asylum system was “stuffing the pockets of people traffickers” and “turning our seas into graveyards”.
It follows a decision by the Court of Appeal which ruled that the government’s plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda were illegal.
The charity that submitted the challenge welcomed the ruling, but the government says it will appeal.
A spokesman for Asylum Aid said the court’s decision on Thursday was a “vindication of the importance of the rule of law and basic justice”.
The plan to send people arriving in the UK illegally to Rwanda was first unveiled in April 2022 in an attempt to prevent small boat crossings across the English Channel.
It has been the subject of several legal challenges, including the latest in the Court of Appeal, where judges ruled that Rwanda had failed to provide sufficient guarantees to prove that it is a “safe third country”.
Two of the three judges considered that there was a risk that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be forced to return to the country from which they originally fled. This means that the UK government’s immigration policy contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against torture.
However, Ms Braverman said this did not mean that Rwanda itself was unsafe.
Addressing the House of Commons, the Home Secretary said she respected the ruling, but added that it was “disappointing” and the government would challenge it.
Braverman said the “abuse” of the asylum system was “unfair” to local communities, taxpayers and “those who follow the rules.”
He added that it “encourages massive flows of economic migration to Europe, lining the pockets of human traffickers and turning our seas into graveyards, all in the name of false humanitarianism.”
Shadow Secretary Yvette Cooper said the Rwandan government’s scheme was “completely broken down” describing it as “unfeasible, unethical and exorbitantly expensive”.
“This is their chaos, their Tory chaos, the chaos of their ships and their broken asylum system,” he said.
The Rwandan government insisted that it was “one of the safest countries in the world” and had been recognized for its “exemplary treatment of refugees”.
The case was brought by Asylum Aid, which argued the policy was illegal, as well as 10 people from countries including Syria, Iraq and Albania, who arrived in the UK on small boats.
The High Court had upheld the government’s policy at an earlier hearing, but that decision was closely scrutinized by Court of Appeal judges Lord Burnett, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill in this final stage of the proceedings.
While Lord Burnett sided with the UK government, the others concluded that the Rwandan government’s assurances were not “sufficient to ensure that there is no real risk that asylum seekers relocated under Rwanda’s policy will be returned.” improperly to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment”.
They said sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would be illegal “unless and until the deficiencies in (your government’s) asylum processes are corrected.”
The judges stressed that they all agreed that the Rwandan government’s assurances on the policy had been made “in good faith”.
Tessa Gregory, a partner at the Leigh Day law firm who represented Asylum Aid in the case, said: “We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has ruled that Rwanda’s removal proceedings are illegal on security grounds.”
He acknowledged that the court had not accepted all of the charity’s challenges, but said the ruling had stated that there are “clear deficiencies” in the policy.
Other human rights groups have welcomed the court’s decision, with Freedom From Torture describing it as a “victory for reason and compassion”.
The prime minister has made “stopping the ships” a key government priority
Rwanda’s policy has run into several obstacles since it was first announced last April.
The first deportation flight was stopped minutes before it was due to take off after a legal challenge was granted in June 2022.
In December, the High Court decided that the plan did not breach the UN Refugee Convention, which sets out the human rights of anyone seeking asylum, and ruled that it was legal.
But the following month it was decided that some of the parties in that case should be able to appeal against elements of that decision and have the case heard by the Court of Appeal.
This week the Home Office said it expects each person deported and processed under Rwanda’s scheme to cost £169,000, more than it currently costs to house an asylum seeker in the UK.
But the same analysis warned that rising accommodation costs could mean the cost of hosting an asylum seeker in the UK could be £165,000 per person four years from now.
The Home Office says it currently spends nearly £7m a day on hotel accommodation to house asylum seekers.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he respects the court’s decision but will do “whatever it takes” to crack down on criminal gangs operating small boat crossings.
Asked after the ruling whether the government was confident the first deportation flight would take off before the next general election, a Downing Street spokesman said he could not “put out a timetable”.
