UK politics: government to appeal against ruling that blocks Rwanda deportations in Northern Ireland – as it happened

A judge has ruled that provisions of the UK’s Illegal Migration Act should be disapplied in Northern Ireland, as they undermine human rights protections guaranteed in the region under post-Brexit arrangements, PA Media reports. PA says:

Mr Justice Humphreys also said aspects of the Act were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The post-Brexit Windsor framework jointly agreed by the UK and EU includes a stipulation that there can be no diminution of the rights provisions contained within Northern Ireland’s Good Friday peace agreement of 1998.

The Illegal Migration Act provides new powers for the government to detain and remove asylum seekers it deems to have arrived illegally in the UK. Central to the new laws is the scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Mr Justice Humphreys delivered judgment at Belfast high court today in two challenges against the Act that focused on the peace process human rights protections guaranteed by the Windsor framework.

The judge found that several elements of the Act do cause a “significant” diminution of the rights enjoyed by asylum seekers residing in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Good Friday agreement.

“I have found that there is a relevant diminution of right in each of the areas relied upon by the applicants,” he said.

He added: “The applicants’ primary submission therefore succeeds. Each of the statutory provisions under consideration infringes the protection afforded to RSE (Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity) in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.”

The judge ruled that the sections of the Act that were the subject of the legal challenges should be “disapplied” in Northern Ireland.

He also declared aspects of the Act incompatible with the ECHR.

One of the cases was taken by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the other by a 16-year-old asylum seeker from Iran who is living in Northern Ireland having arrived in the UK as an unaccompanied child.

The boy, who travelled from France by small boat and claimed asylum in July 2023, has said he would be killed or sent to prison if he returned to Iran.

The judge agreed to place a temporary stay on the disapplication ruling until another hearing at the end of May, when the applicants will have an opportunity to respond to the judgment.

Dr Tony McGleenan KC, representing the government, indicated that an appeal may be considered.

“We’ll be taking our instructions on the judgment and the position in terms of any further litigation will become clear, my Lord,” he said.

Outside court, solicitor Sinead Marmion, who represented the teenage Iranian asylum seeker applicant, said the judgment was “hugely significant”.

Marmion said the judgment would prevent the Rwanda scheme applying in Northern Ireland.

“This is a huge thorn in the government’s side and it has completely put a spanner in the works,” she told the PA news agency.

“There’s a huge obstacle in the way of them being able to actually implement that in Northern Ireland now, as it’s been found to be incompatible with the Windsor framework.”

24h ago08.27 EDT

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar accuses SNP of 'squandering opportunities' of Scottish parliament

Libby Brooks

Anas Sarwar made a speech marking the 25th anniversary of devolution in Glasgow on this morning, heavily quoting John Smith, accusing the SNP of “squandering the opportunities” of a Scottish parliament and promising that he was working with Keir Starmer to ensure proper representation for Scotland - including perhaps by having cross-departmental ministers, as suggested by his colleague Ian Murray this weekend.

Sarwar spoke about the need for a reset of devolution – “cooperation over conflict”, including reform of the Scottish parliament itself and giving more powers to the regions. He also spoke of the challenge of working constructively when politics is dominated by “bad faith actors” - the Tories “who never believed in devolution” and the SNP “who want to end it”.

More interesting than the content of the speech itself is the fact that Sarwar is doing more of these set-piece events as the general election gets nearer, making it clear to voters that he considers himself a voice they should be hearing on major political moment and that his party is the true opposition to the SNP. This speech was as much about signalling confidence as content.

View image in fullscreen

Keir Starmer has responded to Rishi Sunak’s speech, telling broadcasters that the PM was wrong to say the country would not be safe under a Labour government. He said:

We would not be less safe under a Labour government.

A Labour government has always understood, and I understand very well having worked on national security in my previous role when I was director of public prosecutions - I know firsthand the importance of national security, which is why I’ve made such a commitment to the national security of our country.

But in order to make that happen, you need a credible plan for the future.

This government talks about national security. But what’s its record? It’s hollowed out our armed forces, it is wasted billions of pounds on procurement and doesn’t have a credible plan for the future.

View image in fullscreen

The most interesting material in Rishi Sunak’s speech and Q&A related to what he said about Labour, and I will post a full round-up soon. But Sunak also used the Q&A to play down, but not entirely deny, a line about the government’s Ukraine policy reported yesterday.

In a Sunday Times article, Tim Shipman said that when David Cameron, the foreign secretary, met Donald Trump recently to urge him to supporting ongoing military support for Ukraine, Cameron put it to Trump that he should back sending arms to Kyiv now so that, if he becomes president next year, the two sides will be ready for the peace deal Trump claims he will negotiate. Shipman wrote:

British officials also credit Cameron’s visit to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida home, for helping him to look differently at the issue. Cameron’s initial approach, hectoring Republican congressmen that they had a duty to help defend Europe, was received badly. But Whitehall officials say that when the foreign secretary spoke to Trump he changed tack, making an argument about what would be best for him if he became president again

“What would be best for Trump, essentially, would be for the Ukrainians to be able to hold their front line,” a senior source said. “In order to do that, they needed more money for weapons. If Trump was to win in January, would Trump rather have Putin marching on Kyiv because the Ukrainians had collapsed? Or keep the Ukrainians in the fight so that if he does win in January, he inherits a stalemate.”

Cameron’s message was simple: “What are the best conditions in which you as president can make a deal in January? It’s both sides holding their lines and paying a price for that.” Trump is understood to have responded: “No one has set that out for me in these terms. And I’m glad we had the conversation.”

Sunak was twice asked about this claim. He claimed not to have read the article, and did not discuss what Cameron said to Trump. But, when asked to give an assurance that the west was not about to force Ukraine to accept a peace deal, Sunak said that the UK would provide military support to Ukraine “for as long as is necessary to repel Russian aggression”.

View image in fullscreen

Labour has issued its response to the PM’s speech. In a statement Jonathan Ashworth, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, said:

Rishi Sunak’s seventh reset in 18 months is just another desperate attempt to hide from the appalling record of this failed Tory government.

After 14 years of leaving the country less secure at home and abroad, the Tories have forfeited the right to talk about security.

Sam Freedman, the Prospect columnist, has posted a short thread on X highlighting one of the obvious contradictions in Rishi Sunak’s speech.

One of the many many problems with this Sunak pitch is that he’s trying to combine a classic negative Levido framing (you will not be safe under Labour), with what appears to be his own, um, optimistic framing (it’s about the future not the past). It’s incoherent.

You can’t both run a campaign about how you represent a positive future in the face of the naysayers and doomsters.

And a deeply negative campaign about how unsafe and scary the world is.

Well you can but it will make no sense.

Another, more basic, problem is that he campaigns with the emotional range of a bored HR director doing a training session for new starters.

In a response to Rishi Sunak’s speech, the Lib Dem leader Ed Davey says Sunak should just call an election. “Instead of talking at people, Rishi Sunak should be listening to the public by calling a general election now,” Davey says.

Q: Are you really proud of the Conservative party’s record? Not so long ago, you seemed worried the party would launch a coup against your leadership?

Sunak says he is not saying the past 14 years have been perfect. But he says he is proud of what the party has achieved, for example on education. He says the education reforms were in part introduced as a result of work done by Policy Exchange, the thintank hosting his speech.

And that’s the end of the Q&A.

I’ll post an analysis and summary soon.

Q: Is the UK now pushing for a truce in Ukraine, as the Sunday Times article implied?

Sunak says he did not see that article.

But he says the government is prepared to make sacrifices for national security.

Keir Starmer cannot say he is leading on national security, he says.

Q: Are you really saying Labour will be more dangerous for the country?

Sunak says he is arguing that. He says Keir Starmer has not committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. And he says Starmer wanted to make Jeremy Corbyn PM, not just once but twice.

Q: At the weekend it was reported that David Cameron told Donald Trump that the US should not abandon military support for Ukraine now, so that next year, if Trump is president, he can negotiate a truce. Are you no longer committed to Ukraine winning?

Sunak says the government will support Ukraine for as long as it’s necessary to repel Russian aggression.

And he claims Starmer cannot make that pledge because he has not committed to an increase in defence spending.