This is the best summary I could come up with:
A key parliamentary committee says the government’s plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda is “fundamentally incompatible” with the UK’s human rights safeguards.
Under the scheme, which has cost £290m so far, the UK would block claims for asylum from anyone arriving over the English Channel and instead send them on a one-way trip to Rwanda.
While Rwanda had promised in a new treaty with the UK to improve its human rights safeguards, there was no guarantee it would work in practice, said the committee.
Joanna Cherry KC, the SNP MP who chairs the cross-party committee, said the bill was so flawed that it risked “untold damage” to the UK’s reputation for upholding human rights.
A Home Office spokesperson said: "We are committed to tackling this major global challenge with bold and innovative solutions, and the Rwanda scheme is doing just that.
While the prime minister said his plan to “stop the boats” was one of his five key pledges, public documents showed the Home Office was projecting to spend £700m on arrivals by 2030.
The original article contains 549 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
“Rwanda is clearly a safe country” - so how come we granted asylum to people fleeing political violence there?
