UK

Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next

Spread the love
The Rwanda deal was signed when Priti Patel was home secretary. Rwanda visit April 14, 2022. Image: UK Home Office.
The Rwanda deal was signed when Priti Patel was home secretary. Rwanda visit April 14, 2022. Image: UK Home Office.

Before publishing this article unaltered, I draw your attention to these excerpts:

…

It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.


…


This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.

But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.

…

So it would appear that UK is not going to be sending refugees to Rwanda despite Rishi Sunak and Conservative claims that it will.

Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next

Devyani Prabhat, University of Bristol

The UK supreme court has unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.

Upholding an earlier decision by the court of appeal, the supreme court found that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda may be at risk of refoulement – being sent back to a country where they may be persecuted, tortured or killed.

The courts cited extensive evidence from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) that Rwanda does not respect the principle of non-refoulement – a legal obligation. The UNHCR’s evidence questioned the ability of Rwandan authorities to fairly assess asylum claims. It also raised concerns about human rights violations by Rwandan authorities, including not respecting non-refoulement with other asylum seekers.

It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.

The ruling is another blow to the government’s promise to “stop the boats”. And since the Rwanda plan is at the heart of its new Illegal Migration Act, the government will need to reconsider its asylum policies. This is further complicated by Conservative party infighting and the firing of home secretary Suella Braverman, just two days before the ruling.

How did we get here?

For years, the UK government has been seeking to reduce small boat arrivals to the UK. In April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed an agreement making it possible for the UK to deport some people seeking asylum in Britain to Rwanda, without their cases being heard in the UK. Instead, they would have their cases decided by Rwandan authorities, to be granted (or rejected) asylum in Rwanda.

While the Rwanda plan specifically was found to be unlawful, the government could, in theory, replicate this in other countries so long as they are considered “safe” for asylum seekers.

The government has not yet sent anyone to Rwanda. The first flight was prevented from taking off by the European court of human rights in June 2022, which said that British courts needed to consider all human rights issues before starting deportations.

A UK high court then decided in December 2022 that the Rwanda plan was lawful.

Catch up on our other coverage of the Rwanda plan:

• Why UK court ruled Rwanda isn’t a safe place to send refugees – and what this means for the government’s immigration plans

• Rwanda deportations: what is the European Court of Human Rights, and why did it stop the UK flight from taking off?

• Suella Braverman is wrong about the UN refugee convention being ‘not fit for purpose’ – here’s why

• The government passed a major immigration law last year – so why is it trying to pass another one?

• ‘A toxic policy with little returns’ – lessons for the UK-Rwanda deal from Australia and the US

Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania challenged the high court ruling, with the support of the charity Asylum Aid. Their claim was about whether Rwanda meets the legal threshold for being a safe country for asylum seekers.

The court of appeal said it was not and that asylum seekers risked being sent back to their home countries (where they could face persecution), when in fact they may have a good claim for asylum.

The government has since passed the Illegal Migration Act. The law now states that all asylum seekers arriving irregularly (for example, in small boats) must be removed to a safe third country. But now that the Rwanda deal has been ruled unlawful, there are no other countries that have said they would take asylum seekers from the UK.

What happens next?

Former Home Secretary Suella 'Sue-Ellen' Braverman
Former Home Secretary Suella ‘Sue-Ellen’ Braverman continued with the Rwanda policy.

It is clear that the government’s asylum policies will need rethinking. Should another country now be designated as a safe country and different arrangements put in place, these will probably be subject to further legal challenges, including in the European court of human rights and in British courts.

This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.

But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.

The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that he is working on a new treaty with Rwanda and is prepared to change domestic laws to “do whatever it takes to stop the boats”.

The UK is not the only country to attempt to off-shore asylum processing. Germany and Italy have recently been considering finding new safe third countries to accept asylum seekers as well.

But ensuring these measures comply with human rights obligations is complicated. International law requires states to provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution or risk to their lives. As this ruling shows, the UK is not going to find an easy way out of these obligations.The Conversation

Devyani Prabhat, Professor of Law, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingSupreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next

Offering oil and gas licences every year distracts from the challenge of winding down UK North Sea

Spread the love
North Sea oil rigs in Cromarty Firth, Scotland. Credit: joiseyshowaa (CC BY-SA 2.0)
North Sea oil rigs in Cromarty Firth, Scotland. Credit: joiseyshowaa (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Gavin Bridge, Durham University and Gisa Weszkalnys, London School of Economics and Political Science

New areas for oil and gas development on the UK’s North Sea continental shelf are to be made available through annual licensing rounds subject to net zero tests. These proposals by the UK government, outlined in the 2023 king’s speech to parliament, fly in the face of recommendations by the Climate Change Committee – the government’s own independent advisers.

The move should not be summarily dismissed as “political posturing” ahead of a general election, however. It may cause significant damage, not least because it distracts from critical questions surrounding how the UK will transition to low carbon energy.

Licences, under the 1998 Petroleum Act, are how the UK government grants companies exclusive rights “to search and bore for, and get, petroleum”. Companies are invited to bid for access to areas on the UK continental shelf which are pre-selected by the regulator (in consultation with industry).

The first such licensing round was held in 1964. Regular rounds have been held since – the 33rd and most recent licensing round opened in October 2022. Despite the government’s announcement that year that over 100 new licences would be issued, only 27 have been awarded at the time of writing. The government claims annual licensing rounds will encourage oil and gas production in UK waters.

A drilling flare in the North Sea.
The government plans to introduce a bill aimed at granting new oil and gas drilling licences in the North Sea.
Henk Honing/Shutterstock

Wrong answer, wrong question

The licensing system in place has arguably done the job of allocating access to the UK’s oil and gas. What’s questionable is whether, considering the climate emergency, annual licensing rounds will revive interest in what has long been a declining basin.

Handing out licences on its own is insufficient to attract investment. There is growing recognition among financial analysts of the risks of stranded assets in oil and gas. Shell’s withdrawal from the Cambo oil field northwest of Shetland in 2021 showed licence holders are willing to withhold their final investment decision if deemed economic or politically expedient.

The government’s focus on new licences is a red herring, as the bulk of remaining resources are in areas that are already licensed. It will be regulatory approval of field development plans, via a process known as consents, that will allow these existing licences to actually start producing oil or gas.

The recent decision to approve Rosebank (an oil field first licensed in 2001) is a case in point.

Annual licensing rounds will not ensure the UK’s energy security either. Recent licensing rounds have yielded relatively small volumes of gas that do not substantially add to UK reserves. Any oil and gas developed as a consequence of new licences is unlikely to come to market quickly and will be sold at international market prices. Producing oil and gas domestically has not insulated the UK from high prices.

The energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, has acknowledged that UK production “wouldn’t necessarily bring energy bills down”. The Skidmore Review of the UK’s net zero plans and the Climate Change Committee have made clear that the most effective method of helping households afford energy is to “cut fossil fuel consumption … improving energy efficiency, shifting to a renewables-based power system and electrifying end uses in transport, industry and heating”.

New licensing rounds are unlikely to restore offshore oil and gas jobs that have been steadily lost over the years, and which may no longer be seen as a desirable prospect by workers.

Workers in orange overalls and yellow hard hats stand with their backs to the camera.
Offshore workers need training and support to transition to green jobs.
Kichigin/Shutterstock

The government’s claim that two new “tests” will ensure the compatibility of new licences with the government’s net zero goal, too, does not bear scrutiny.

The first, whether oil and gas imports are projected to be larger than domestic production, is a very weak test as it captures the UK’s default position and will lock in dependence on fossil fuels rather than accelerate the transition.

The second, “that the carbon emissions associated with the production of UK gas [must be] lower than the equivalent emissions from imported liquefied natural gas (LNG)”, ignores the emissions associated with burning gas (known as scope 3 under the international accounting protocol for greenhouse gases).

These scope 3 emissions account for 65%-85% of the total emissions and are often omitted from statements about the lower carbon content of UK gas. Instead of comparing the carbon footprint of UK gas with imported LNG, pipeline gas from Norway would be a more appropriate (and lower-carbon) comparison.

In any case, the UK oil and gas industry’s targets for decarbonisation set out in the North Sea transition deal signed in 2021 have been criticised by the Climate Change Committee as insufficiently ambitious.

A large LNG tanker with 4 LNG tanks sailing along the sea.
The government plan proposes the carbon emissions of producing UK gas be compared with those of imported LNG.
The Mariner 4291/Shutterstock

The prominence of oil and gas licensing in the government’s legislative plans is striking. Fossil fuel licensing is a potent political symbol, and not only for campaigners who have worked for years to get licensing onto the agenda. Sunak and Starmer are now harnessing that symbolism for political ends.

A fixation on new licensing, however, is a distraction. It offers comfort in the possibility of conserving oil and gas production through developing new fields, rather than grasping the challenge of a rapid transition.

It leaves untouched the pressing issue of how to phase down oil and gas production from existing licences in a just and equitable way. It deflects from the enormous challenge of decommissioning offshore infrastructures, and the questions that need to be asked about what the North Sea is for and how it can sustain our collective future.

Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.The Conversation

Gavin Bridge, Professor of Geography and Fellow of the Durham Energy Institute, Durham University and Gisa Weszkalnys, Associate Professor of Anthropology, London School of Economics and Political Science

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingOffering oil and gas licences every year distracts from the challenge of winding down UK North Sea

UK government is ‘violating international law’ over poverty levels, says UN official

Spread the love
Image of a prepayment meter and banknotes

https://leftfootforward.org/2023/11/uk-government-is-violating-international-law-over-poverty-levels-says-un-official/

The UK government is in breach of international law over failing to tackle extreme levels of poverty and destitution in the country, according to a scathing assessment made by the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.

It comes after the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently released a report showing that almost 4 million people experienced destitution in 2022, including more than a million children.

Government data recently revealed that 14.4 million people lived in relative poverty in 2021-22 – a million more than the previous year.

With a cost of living crisis and soaring food and fuel prices as well as increasing housing costs, Olivier De Schutter, the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, slammed the UK’s woefully inadequate welfare system, citing research showing universal credit payments of £85 a week for single adults over 25 were “grossly insufficient” and described the UK’s main welfare system as “a leaking bucket”.

…

https://leftfootforward.org/2023/11/uk-government-is-violating-international-law-over-poverty-levels-says-un-official/

Continue ReadingUK government is ‘violating international law’ over poverty levels, says UN official

Why heating your home this winter may be even harder than last year

Spread the love
Daisy Daisy/Shutterstock

Aimee Ambrose, Sheffield Hallam University; Lucie Middlemiss, University of Leeds, and Neil Simcock, Liverpool John Moores University

Domestic energy prices more than doubled during 2022 compared with the year before. This meant that the number of UK households in fuel poverty who could not afford to heat their homes to a safe level rose from 4.5 million to 7.3 million.

The UK government attempted to alleviate the impact of rocketing bills with a package of support measures. This included capping the unit cost of electricity and gas, a £400 rebate to all households using mains gas for heating and £200 for those using alternative fuels, and a further £650 “cost of living payment” to claimants of means-tested benefits.

Many of these schemes ended in spring 2023. And with wholesale gas costs and the government’s energy price cap having come down somewhat, you could be forgiven for thinking that the worst of the energy crisis has passed.

But that’s not the case for many billpayers – in fact, this winter is likely to be worse than the last for many households.

The energy price cap, introduced in 2019 by market regulator Ofgem, limits how much people pay for each unit of gas and electricity. The latest price cap, set on October 1 2023, means that a typical household will pay £1,834 a year for energy – less than £2,000 for the first time in 18 months.

This might sound like good news, but it’s still a substantial increase on the pre-crisis cap. In August 2021, the most a typical household could expect to pay in a year for energy was £1,277.

Although the unit prices of electricity and gas have fallen, there has been a steep increase in standing charges. These are a levy on all energy bills which cover the costs associated with supplying energy to homes.

Standing charges have gone up from around £186 a year pre-crisis to just over £300 now – effectively adding £110 to bills.

An engineer atop of wooden electricity transmission pole.
Standing charges pay for the upkeep of the UK’s energy supply network.
KingTa/Shutterstock

Standing charges are regressive because they are the same for everyone, regardless of how much energy you consume. Poorer households often use much less energy than wealthier ones, so standing charges make up a larger proportion of their energy costs.

In fact, some low-income households use such small amounts of energy that they are paying little more than their standing charges.

Energy bill rebates ended

The £400 energy bill rebate paid to all households last winter has now ended. Meanwhile, cost of living payments to claimants of means-tested benefits have increased from £650 to £900 a year. This will be helpful to those who qualify, but one third of households eligible for means-tested welfare payments do not claim them due to stigma, lack of awareness or bad experiences with the assessment process, and so will receive no assistance.

Many households who do receive these cost of living payments will spend it on other expenses, such as food, rather than heating their home. This reflects the fact that energy is often seen by struggling households as something that can be rationed.

If you’re in a household that does not qualify for the cost of living payment then the savings of around £150 that resulted from the lowering of the cap will soon be more than cancelled out by the lack of a rebate.

Cold homes can kill

Despite the financial support offered last winter, average levels of energy debt for people contacting Citizens Advice in England and Wales have risen sharply over the last year, from around £1,400 per household on average in March 2022 to £1,711 in July 2023. One-third of UK energy customers are now in arrears.

So although energy bills have fallen slightly, many households are less resilient to financial shocks than they were in early 2022. Volatile energy prices are predicted to last until the end of the decade.

Research last winter found that households in fuel poverty were underheating their homes, causing damp and mould that can create serious health problems and exacerbating anguish and stress. The health risks of a cold home increase with repeated exposure.

A PVC window frame with black mould growing on it.
Poorly heated homes are at risk of damp.
Burdun Iliya/Shutterstock

As temperatures begin to fall again, a range of measures are urgently needed to prevent a crisis worse than that of last winter.

What can be done to help?

Since energy prices are expected to remain high for years, long-term solutions are vital. There must be increased investment in efforts to insulate the UK’s leaky housing stock. But with winter just weeks away, what can the government do right now?

To start, it could offer greater energy bill rebates. Given the scale of the fuel poverty problem, eligibility for these rebates must be wide enough for anyone on a below average income to receive help.

Alternatively, the government could make the rebates universal again, and potentially recoup the costs by increasing taxes on the most wealthy or energy company profits. At the very least, unclaimed energy bill support from last winter should be used to support those likely to struggle in the coming winter, rather than being returned to the treasury.

Cut funding for government-backed advice services could also be restored. And there are reforms to the retail energy market that could be implemented fairly quickly, such as bringing standing charges in line with levels of usage.

More fundamentally, there are a number of proposals that would be fairer than the current system and could be implemented together for maximum impact. These include a “green power pool”, which would ensure that the cheap power generated by renewables such as wind and solar benefits those most in need first and foremost, social tariffs (discounted energy bills for low-income households), or a national energy guarantee that would secure access to enough free energy to meet everyone’s basic needs.

The government’s forthcoming autumn statement must not sidestep these issues if people in fuel poverty are to stay safe and warm this winter.

Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.The Conversation

Aimee Ambrose, Professor of Energy Policy, Member of Fuel Poverty Evidence and Trustee of the Fuel Poverty Research Network, Sheffield Hallam University; Lucie Middlemiss, Professor in Environment and Society, University of Leeds, and Neil Simcock, Senior Lecturer in Geography, Liverpool John Moores University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingWhy heating your home this winter may be even harder than last year

Climate change could lead to food-related civil unrest in UK within 50 years, say experts

Spread the love
Baby-Spider/Shutterstock

Sarah Bridle, University of York and Aled Jones, Anglia Ruskin University

The emptying of supermarket shelves during the COVID pandemic demonstrated the chaos that disruption to the UK’s food supply can provoke. Could this type of disruption have a different cause in the future? And what might the impact on society be?

These are the questions we sought to answer in our new study, which involved surveying 58 leading UK food experts spanning academia, policy, charitable organisations and business.

Our findings indicate that food shortages stemming from extreme weather events could potentially lead to civil unrest in the UK within 50 years. Shortages of staple carbohydrates like wheat, bread, pasta and cereal appear to be the most likely triggers of such unrest.

The UK’s food system appears to be particularly vulnerable to significant disruption. This vulnerability can be attributed, in part, to its emphasis on efficiency at the expense of resilience (the ability to withstand and recover from shocks). This approach includes a heavy reliance on seasonal labour and practices like “just-in-time” supply chains, where products are delivered precisely when needed.

Our study emphasises the importance of developing plans to help the UK prepare for, and respond to, the risks associated with food shortages in the future.

Out of Stock sign on a supermarket shelf.
Customers emptied supermarket shelves in a panic during the COVID pandemic.
Kauka Jarvi/Shutterstock

Expert survey

We asked food experts to rate the likelihood of a scenario occurring in the UK in which more than 30,000 people suffered violent injury over the course of one year through events such as demonstrations or violent looting.

Just over 40% of these experts said they thought such a scenario was either “possible” or “more likely than not” in the next ten years. Over 50 years, nearly 80% of experts believed civil unrest was either possible, more likely than not, or “very likely”.

The experts were then asked about the potential causes of food system disruption that would lead to unrest. They were asked whether they thought this disruption would stem from an overall scarcity of food, or from issues related to food distribution, which could prevent food from reaching the right places and thus create isolated pockets of hunger.

Our results show that most experts (80%) hold the belief that, within the next ten years, logistical distribution issues leading to shortages are the most probable cause of food-related civil unrest.

However, when contemplating a 50-year timeframe, the majority (57%) said an insufficient food supply to sustain the UK population would be the most likely cause, potentially due to events such as a catastrophic harvest failure.

Extreme weather – including storm surges, flooding, snow and drought – was chosen as the leading cause of future food supply shortages and distribution issues over both the ten- and 50-year time frames.

UK already at risk

Just under half of the UK’s entire food supply is imported, including 80% of fruit, 50% of vegetables, and 20% of beef and poultry. Any disruption to imports and supply chains can thus have a significant impact on food availability in the UK. A fall in the availability of food can lead to rising prices and, potentially, social unrest.

COVID, Brexit and the cost of living crisis have highlighted the UK’s vulnerability to such a risk. Between April and August 2022, as inflation squeezed household incomes, over half of independent food banks in the UK reported that 25% or more of the people they supported hadn’t used their services before.

Extreme weather events are also occurring more frequently. Many of these events are driven by climate change. It’s entirely possible that extreme weather will cause major crop yield failures across “multiple breadbaskets” in the coming decades.

This scenario is not far-fetched. We have witnessed numerous instances of major shocks to food production in recent decades.

One notable example, in 2007, saw an 8% decline in global cereal production due to droughts, floods and heatwaves in Australia, India and the US. These events, combined with low global cereal stocks, financial speculation and high fertiliser prices, resulted in cereal prices more than doubling. The crisis sparked food riots in more than 30 countries.

To reduce the risk of civil unrest occurring in the UK as a result of food shortages, it’s crucial to address food poverty. By ensuring people can access and afford the food that is available, trust can be built between communities, government and food supply chains over time.

A field baked by drought.
A scenario where crops fail catastrophically is not far-fetched, say food experts.
Piyaset/Shutterstock

Redesigning the food system

The UK needs a food system designed not just for optimal efficiency, but also for resilience. Government agencies and businesses must explore and fund options to make the food system more robust to shocks.

This should include restoring degraded soils and the habitats used by pollinators, improving working conditions within the food supply chain, and prioritising sustainable farming practices.

Growing more robust crop varieties and species, using resources more efficiently, and establishing backup storage and distribution systems to move away from just-in-time delivery are all key aspects of a more resilient food system too.

Efforts to curb the harmful effects of climate change – the most probable cause of future food shortages and distribution issues – should also be ramped up.

The COVID pandemic saw major challenges with food distribution, from which lessons can be learned. Creating a food system that is both resilient and efficient will safeguard against future disruptions, ensuring that food is accessible and affordable while preventing the emergence of civil unrest.

Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.The Conversation

Sarah Bridle, Professor of Food, Climate and Society, University of York and Aled Jones, Professor & Director, Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingClimate change could lead to food-related civil unrest in UK within 50 years, say experts