Foreign Secretary Liz Truss vowed the first aircraft will leave today even if there was only one asylum seeker on board to demonstrate the ‘concept,’ as a Tory MP complained about ‘lefty lawyers’ preventing deportations.
Only seven of the initial 130 passengers alerted that they would be on the first flight are still expected to be on board, according to activists. Peter Bone gave a forceful statement in the Commons.
‘We understand that a number of people who were supposed to be on the trip tomorrow have mysteriously gotten some lefty lawyer to intercede and halt it,’ Wellingborough told MPs.
‘Can I recommend that instead of scheduling 50 people on each journey to Rwanda, you book 250 people on each flight so that if they cancel half of them, you still have a full flight – come on, get on and send them.’
Meanwhile, Liz Truss claimed that the first flight would take off, but she couldn’t predict how many passengers would be on board.
‘We intend to deploy the flight later today,’ she told Sky News. I can’t estimate how many people will be on the trip, but what matters is that we establish the concept and begin to disrupt the economic model of these heinous human traffickers who profit from pain.
‘That is why we are implementing this policy, and it is critical that we get the flight out today.’
‘There will be people on the flight, and if they are not on this flight, they will be on the next flight,’ she answered when asked whether there might be no one on this trip.
‘I don’t have a figure,’ she responded when asked if it could be just seven people. The principle is the most essential thing.’
Despite the government’s victory in a major court case, a government source said the prospects of the first flight taking off were’very, very poor.’
‘All the attorneys who have been battling in the courts will now focus all of their energies on the remaining individuals who are expected to be on board,’ the insider told The New York Times.
‘They’ll take advantage of every available loophole and use every trick in the book to get those remaining passengers off the plane.’
[The chances of it happening as planned] are quite remote.’
Last night, judges declined to halt the first trip to the offshore processing center, which is set to take place today.
Conservative MPs rejoiced in the Commons last week after the Court of Appeal upheld a verdict in the Home Secretary’s favor, allowing the program to go forward.
Yesterday, a separate High Court attempt to halt the flight failed when the charity Asylum Aid was refused an injunction.
In cases launched against the government by left-wing organisations, the Home Secretary has already secured three victories.
However, there is still a minimal probability that any migrants, particularly those who crossed the Channel in small boats, will be on today’s Rwanda aircraft.
After attorneys filed a series of objections, only seven names survived from the initial passenger list of 130.
In the hours leading up to the flight, these seven, who include Iranians, Iraqis, and Albanians, were anticipated to make more individual requests.
At least six more cases are scheduled to be heard today at the High Court under the European Convention on Human Rights and other legal rules.
But, thanks to the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Miss Patel’s plan to give Channel migrants and other “irregular visitors” a one-way ticket to the east African country has gotten off to a good start.
The strategy, according to the Home Secretary, is vital to prevent additional drownings in the English Channel.
‘People will view this as a win for the Home Office, but now that the policy isn’t facing a blanket prohibition, well-resourced attorneys will try to get their clients hauled off the aircraft one by one,’ a government source said.
‘They’ll attempt every trick and exploit any flaw they can think of, most likely waiting until the last possible moment.’
The Church of England’s hierarchy yesterday denounced the Rwanda operation as a “immoral strategy” that “shames Britain.”
‘Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should embarrass us as a nation,’ wrote Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and 24 other bishops in a letter to The Times.
Yesterday, Lord Justice Singh, who presided over a three-judge bench in the Court of Appeal, refused to ‘interfere with the findings’ reached by a High Court judge on Friday.
When Mr Justice Swift declined to give an interim injunction that would have prevented the flight from taking off, he declared he “did not mistake in principle.”
Lord Justice Singh created Matrix Chambers with Cherie Blair, a famous human rights barrister.
The Public and Commercial Services union, which represents the bulk of UK Border Force employees, as well as the charities Care 4 Calais and Detention Action, filed the appeal.
The petitioners were denied permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, although they may still file a direct appeal.
The petitioners’ lawyer, Raza Husain QC, told the court that the Rwanda policy included “a significant interference with basic dignity” and that the High Court had misjudged the strength of their claim.
He went on to say that if migrants were transferred to Rwanda and a judicial review ruled the scheme unconstitutional in July, the Home Office would be compelled to repatriate them to the UK.
According to the QC, migrants might have’significant claims’ for damages.
‘The flight tomorrow is significant,’ said Rory Dunlop QC for the Home Office. This is a strategy aimed at preventing dangerous and unnecessary travels, such as those made from safe third countries by those who do not need to make the journey and may claim safety in France or elsewhere.
‘This is a regulation that, if implemented properly, has the potential to save lives while also disrupting the traffickers’ business model.’
In the meantime, Boris Johnson has implied that Prince Charles’ stated reservations of the Rwanda proposal are unfounded.
Mr Johnson declined to say if the prince was correct in calling it ‘appalling,’ but added: ‘This is about making sure that we undermine the economic model of criminal gangs who are not only endangering people’s lives but also eroding public trust in lawful migration.’
Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, called the plan “shameful,” “totally impossible, horribly immoral, and extortionately costly.”
The Church of England’s senior leaders have slammed the Home Office’s ‘immoral’ plan to deport migrants to Rwanda.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are among those who have signed a strongly worded letter denouncing the policy as “shameful” to the United Kingdom.
The top leaders, together with 23 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, signed a letter criticizing the plan for lacking morality, which was signed by the Most Rev Justin Welby and the Most Rev Stephen Cottrell.
‘Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should embarrass us as a nation,’ the co-signed letter to the Times adds.
‘Our guilt is our own, since our Christian tradition should lead us, as it has for generations, to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness, and justice.’
It comes only hours after three Court of Appeal justices dismissed the latest attempt by attorneys, NGOs, and activists to sabotage the first Kigali-bound flight scheduled to depart on Tuesday.
On Friday, the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), which represents more than 80% of Border Force employees, as well as the charities Care4Calais and Detention Action, challenged the refusal to grant an injunction, allowing the first flight to the east African country to take place on Tuesday.
However, three senior judges denied the appeal at an urgent hearing in London on Monday, saying Mr Justice Swift’s ruling was correct.
The bishops of London, Durham, Exeter, Birmingham, and Manchester have also signed the letter.
Proposals by the Home Office to fly migrants who entered the UK unlawfully to Rwanda have divided opinion and enraged a number of high-profile personalities.
Rev. Welby had earlier used his Easter sermon to discuss the intention to transfer asylum seekers to the East African country, citing “severe ethical problems.”
After everyone who entered the UK unlawfully since January 1 might be moved to Rwanda under a new arrangement, the Archbishop warned his Canterbury audience that the UK had a duty as a “Christian country” to not “sub-contract our obligations.”
He subsequently said that not speaking out against the idea would have been “cowardly.” After Mr Welby’s forceful involvement in April, cabinet ministers retaliated.
Mr Welby’s scathing intervention over the government’s proposal to send thousands of migrants to Rwanda on a one-way ticket was subsequently dubbed ‘clumsy’ by MPs.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, a devout Catholic, said the government is not “abandoning” refugees, but rather taking on a “very onerous job” with the “intention” of doing good, which he believes is crucial in Christianity.
Other Conservative MPs, including John Redwood, Mike Wood, and Tom Hunt, slammed Mr Welby’s remarks, with Mr Hunt saying the Archbishop should avoid ‘clumsily meddling’ in political matters.
After The Mail disclosed that Prince Charles had privately criticised the Rwanda asylum scheme, stating that handing Channel migrants a one-way ticket to Africa was ‘appalling,’ the Archbishop’s remarks were repeated by Prince Charles.
Later, Downing Street attempted to defuse the situation by stating that Mr Johnson had “nothing but respect and affection” for the Prince of Wales.
‘The Prime Minister has nothing but respect and admiration for the Prince of Wales, who has spoken out on a variety of subjects, not least the environment,’ said the PM’s official spokeswoman.
The acrimonious discussions with Mr Johnson erupted amid worries that ministers may be prevented from boarding the first aircraft to Rwanda for Channel migrants.
Mr Johnson said the senior cleric had’misconstrued the policy,’ according to people who attended a secret meeting between the Prime Minister and Tory MPs following Easter.
Mr Johnson told LBC that the government had anticipated’very busy lawyers’ attempting to overturn Rwanda’s policy.
‘We’ve always stated we understood this policy will be attacked by those who want a fully open-doors attitude to immigration, who want people to be allowed to cross the Channel without permission or hindrance,’ he added.
‘There are a lot of attorneys working in this industry. I have the deepest regard for the legal profession, but it is equally critical that criminal gangs be brought to justice.’
‘I believe it’s really vital that the criminal gangs who are putting people’s lives at danger in the Channel are broken – is being broken – by this Government,’ Mr Johnson said when asked if the strategy will be worth it if only one person is removed.
‘Those undertaking risky, needless, and unlawful travels to the UK will be moved there to have their claims reviewed and rebuild their lives,’ according to a government official.
‘While there is no one answer to the global migration issue, doing nothing is not an option, and our alliance will assist in disrupting criminal gangs’ economic models and preventing deaths.
‘Rwanda is a fundamentally safe and secure country with a history of assisting asylum seekers, and we are sure that the agreement complies fully with all national and international legislation.’
It comes only months after Dr Rowan William, the former archbishop of Canterbury, was embroiled in a verbal spat with the government over a £120 million plan to stem an increase of Channel crossings.
He joined Archbishop Justin Welby, his successor, and Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell in challenging the plan’s morality, calling it “sinful.”