Officials are trying to block Rishi Sunak’s legislation that would see Rwanda as a safe country to deport asylum seekers to, it is claimed.
Sources have claimed that Whitehall feels “institutionally bound” to raise concerns over proposals to exclude elements of the Human Rights Act from the Rwanda plan.
It comes amid heated debate in the government over how far the bill should go, with Conservative MPs on the right of the party claiming the legislation will fail unless it also disapplies the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). brings.
The Telegraph understands that Victoria Prentis, the attorney general, has opposed such a move, arguing that using ‘notwithstanding’ clauses to circumvent the ECHR would be unlawful.
After losing at the High Court last month, Sunak wants to get deportation flights off the ground by passing legislation that would declare Rwanda a safe country.
The government has also negotiated a treaty with Rwanda that obliges the country not to deport asylum seekers to third countries – one of the court’s main concerns.
The Telegraph understands the treaty could be finalized this week, with the Home Secretary on standby for a flight to Rwanda to sign the deal.
However, there is still debate over how comprehensive Mr Sunak’s legislation should be. Under one plan – dubbed the “semi-skimmed” option – the UK Human Rights Act would be officially disapplied in relation to Rwanda’s security.
Sources have claimed that ministers in Whitehall are facing resistance to such a policy in the form of questions being repeatedly asked around its legitimacy, conflicting advice and attempts to discourage 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 chooses the semi-skinny option, it may be too ‘restrictive’ to withstand legal claims against deportation.
Some MPs on the right of the party are pushing for a ‘full-fledged’ option – believed to be backed by Robert Jenrick, the Immigration Secretary – which, despite clauses, would involve overriding the entire Human Rights Act, the ECHR and other international treaties.
But this tough approach has been met with resistance from the attorney general and Tory centrists.
‘The most terrible side effect’
The Telegraph understands that Ms Prentice has argued that clauses would nevertheless be unlawful and previously blocked them when they were proposed by Suella Braverman, the former home secretary.
Ms Prentis is also strongly opposed to the idea of withdrawing from the ECHR entirely.
In talks with Conservative MPs, she has said that leaving the ECHR would require the government to reopen the Northern Ireland Protocol Brexit deal, with any new agreement with the EU requiring every member state to ratify it.
A former Tory right minister claimed Ms Prentice was “wrong in law” over the use of notwithstanding clauses.
The MP said there would be “major concerns” if Mr Sunak’s bill did not include these clauses.
“If we cannot use the Rwanda policy – and we will not be able to if we do not remove all obstacles through notwithstanding clauses – then there will be the most terrible negative reaction from conservative voters,” they said.
“When you consider that we are now on average more than twenty points behind in the polls, I think many MPs simply will not tolerate that.”
Another senior Tory warned that Sunak faced a leadership challenge if he presented weak legislation that was unlikely to solve the problem or reassure the public.
Concerned MPs on the right were generally more likely to be backbenchers than ministers and “more likely to do something” than centrist MPs nervous about changes to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, they said.
Writing for The Telegraph, veteran backbencher Sir Bill Cash – a proponent of notwithstanding clauses – said the issue was about “the will of the electorate and their confidence in the government” and that the public was “seeing the failure on illegal migration would not excuse in yet another country. Account”.
On Saturday evening, Labor said they believed activity in the Channel on Saturday meant the number of people crossing in small boats was likely to have reached or exceeded 2021’s 28,526, making it the second highest year on record.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said: “Rishi Sunak claimed he would stop small boats this year, but instead this weekend’s figures will make this the second highest year of crossings on record. broke another promise he made to the British people.
A source close to Ms Prentis said she was focused on making the policy work and getting flights to Rwanda off the ground.
They indicated that the attorney general would wait to see what a clause said before ruling on it.
‘That’s not resistance, that’s the task’
Dave Penman, the general secretary of the FDA civil servants’ union, pushed back on the claim that Whitehall mandarins had obstructed the Rwanda plan.
He said: “The job of a civil servant is to give fact-based, frank advice to ministers and if ministers have policies that are going to cause trouble, or legal challenges, then the job of a civil servant is to give that advice. to give.
“That is not resistance, that is the job they have to do there.”
He continued: “It is not the officials who have held Rwanda back. It’s the courts.
“There are just people pointing fingers and trying to blame officials for the fact that their policies have significant shortcomings.”
He said the idea that there was “some kind of resistance movement within the Home Office” was “nonsensical”. “You wouldn’t go to work at the Home Office unless you knew you were going to be dealing with some pretty controversial issues,” he said.
Mr Penman said briefing against civil servants by ministers was an “act of desperation”.
“What it shows is that their policies are failing and they want to blame someone for the failure of their policies,” he added.
“If an official resists – sincerely resists and does not do what he is asked or refuses to carry out a government decision – name him.”