A Tory top dog has condemned the Labour Party’s alternative to the Government’s Rwanda plan and insisted it would lead to Britain “taking in more failed claimants than it removes”.
The scheme to deport refugees who make failed claims at asylum to Rwanda has been touted by PM Rishi Sunak as the “only way” to stop small boats making the dangerous journey across the Channel full of people looking to move to the UK, many of which are fleeing dangerous countries. But the controversial plan has been declared illegal by the UK’s highest court and faces widespread opposition from experts and politicians inside and outside of the Conservative Party.
Daniel Hannan, a Tory member of the House of Lords, conceded that the Rwanda plan was “expensive” and “cumbersome” – but claimed Labour’s alternative would only be worse. He said the Opposition’s “one concrete promise is a returns agreement with the EU which will result in Britain taking more failed claimants than it removes.”
Mr Hannan, writing for Conservative Home, added: “The figures here are telling. The last year that we had such a deal was as an EU member in 2020. That year, according to official figures, we tried to return 8,502 failed claimants to EU states, but they accepted only 105. They, by contrast, sought to send 2,331 failed claimants here, and we accepted 882.”
He said this was the “norm” when Britain was part of the bloc, adding: “No, talk of enhanced co-operation with Europe is as dishonest as talk of ‘breaking the gangs’. The only way to tackle the migration crisis is to make Britain a less attractive destination for people who have no right to enter.”
He suggested that the risk of being sent to Rwanda instead of staying in the UK is “bound to have a bearing on where you lodge your claim”.
Mr Hannan said: “They are choosing to leave a safe country, namely France. The prospect of swapping France, not for the UK, but for Rwanda, might well alter their calculations.”
But he also said there are severe drawbacks to the Rwanda plan. Mr Hannan wrote: “The drawbacks of the Rwanda plan are obvious. It is expensive. It is cumbersome. It will apply only to a minority of illegal entrants. It has taken up a huge amount of parliamentary time, and still has no certainty of success.
“There is, in any case, something distasteful about having to declare a foreign country safe by legislative fiat. There is, arguably, an aesthetic abjection to the whole notion of sending sans-papiers half way around the world.”
A Liberal Democrat-sponsored motion designed to block the bill was rejected in the Lords on Monday night, by 206 votes to 84, a majority of 122.
The draft legislation aims to contravene the supreme court’s finding that Rwanda was not a safe destination for asylum seekers due to the risk of them facing further persecution in the country.
There will be further votes on amendments to the legislation next month, with votes on the bill having already provoked a Tory rebellion against Mr Sunak from Conservatives looking to make the Bill stronger.
Several members of the House of Lords gave impassioned speeches against the legislation, saying it would destroy the UK’s reputation on the world stage.
Crossbench constitutional expert Lord Hennessy said: “By rushing this emergency legislation through parliament with the intention of getting the deportation flights to Kigali under way by late spring, the government has already secured for itself a special place in British political history,” he said.
“The day may not be far off when the Rwanda bill, having cleared all of its parliamentary stages, will be forwarded from the Cabinet Office to Buckingham Palace to receive Royal Assent.
“In the few minutes it takes to pass down the Mall and across the tip of St James’s Park and its return journey to Whitehall, our country will change, for the government will have removed us from the list of rule-of-law nations.”
While former Home Secretary Ken Clarke, who has supported previous Rwanda laws, said Sunak’s bill was a “step too far”, adding: “I don’t think I can possibly support this bill unless it is substantially amended as it goes through this House, and we should urge the Commons to revise it.”
Express.co.uk has contacted the Labour Party for comment.
