Sunak’s Rwanda law doesn’t go far enough

A group of Eurosceptic Tory MPs have said the bill at the centre of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda asylum plan will not work as it stands.

The European Research Group (ERG) said a new law aimed at overcoming legal hurdles does not go “far enough to deliver the policy”.

But the group has not decided whether to back the bill in a vote on Tuesday.

Tory MPs from different factions are divided and are considering whether to vote for the bill at its first stage.

A rebellion by Tory MPs could sink this central policy of Mr Sunak’s and seriously weaken his authority.

The ERG commissioned a so-called star chamber of lawyers to analyse the Safety of Rwanda Bill and held a meeting to present their findings ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

In a setback for Mr Sunak, the group said the bill “provides a partial and incomplete solution to the problem of legal challenges in the UK courts being used as stratagems to delay or defeat the removal of illegal migrants to Rwanda”.

The group said resolving the issues raised by their lawyers “would require very significant amendments”.

ERG chairman Mark Francois said: “The feeling very much in the meeting is that the government would be best advised to pull the bill and come up with a revised version that works better than this one which has so many holes in it.”

The meeting also included other groups on the right of the Tory Party.

Downing Street said the government would continue to listen to the views of MPs but it believed the bill was “strong enough to achieve its aims”.

The ERG’s legal analysis argues the bill still allows individuals to challenge their removal to Rwanda if their specific personal circumstances mean this would put them at risk of serious harm.

It says this represents “a significant risk to delivery of the scheme”.

In an attempt to win over critics, the government has published a summary of its legal position on the scheme.

The document says the bill allows for “an exceptionally narrow route to individual challenge”.

It gives examples such as people in the late stages of pregnancy who are unfit to fly or with very rare medical conditions that could not be cared for in Rwanda.

The document adds: “In any case, completely blocking any court challenges would be a breach of international law and alien to the UK’s constitutional tradition of liberty and justice.”

It concludes that “the government’s approach is tough but fair and lawful” and “seeks to uphold our international obligations”.

The Rwanda bill has split Conservative MPs, with some more moderate Tories arguing the bill risks breaching the UK’s international legal obligations towards refugees.

The centrist One Nation Conservatives will hold a separate evening meeting in Parliament before releasing a statement on their judgment.

Earlier, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps urged MPs to support the bill and denied Mr Sunak’s leadership was in “chaos” over the Rwanda policy.

The defence secretary said he had “no doubt at all” the legislation would pass in the House of Commons.

It is very rare for a bill to be defeated at its first Commons hurdle as there are opportunities for MPs to propose changes at later stages.

However, Labour and opposition parties have already said they will try and vote it down, meaning the government needs to ensure enough Tory MPs vote for it to allow it to pass.

Tory critics of the bill could decide to allow it to pass at this stage, possibly by abstaining, in the hope of securing concessions from the government as it goes through the Commons.

Last week, the government introduced the legislation which would see people seeking UK asylum sent to Rwanda, after the policy was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court last month.

The legislation seeks to declare in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country, with a view to stopping flights being grounded on legal grounds.

The Rwanda policy is part of the government’s plan to deter migrants from crossing the Channel in small boats.

Mr Sunak has said “stopping the boats” is one of five main priorities, after a record 45,774 people made the journey last year.

Ahead of the vote, the government has been circulating modelling showing the projected effects of the Rwanda bill.

According to Home Office modelling conducted earlier this year, 90% of those appealing against deportation to Rwanda would see their appeals rejected by the government between 10 and 12 days after arriving in the UK because they would fail to provide evidence they face serious harm if deported to the African country.

Of the 10% given permission to appeal to an immigration tribunal, only 5% would be expected to have their appeals accepted, with the rest sent to Rwanda, the model claims.

The projections are part of a document prepared in March during discussions about the illegal migration bill when Suella Braverman was home secretary and Robert Jenrick was immigration minister.

Both Mrs Braverman and Mr Jenrick now argue the emergency legislation does not go far enough, with Mr Jenrick resigning from his government role last week over the issue.

The modelling, which has been seen by the BBC, was first reported by The Times.

The government will use the document to try to win over Conservative MPs concerned that there would be too many successful appeals.

But Mr Sunak’s critics argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling last month that Rwanda is an unsafe country for asylum seekers means the context has changed since the modelling was conducted, and more appeals would be successful.

One sceptical senior Tory source said the model was “outdated and analytically flawed”.

“There was never any modelling done for the new Rwanda bill because they failed to plan,” the source said. “Even this old, optimistic model says it could take more than two months to remove a migrant. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.”

Last week, the Home Office’s top civil servant Sir Matthew Rycroft revealed the UK had given Rwanda a further £100m this year to deliver the scheme.

The figure was on top of the £140m already paid to the country and a further £50m expected next year.

Appearing in front of the Commons Public Accounts Committee earlier on Monday, Sir Matthew said the figure had been published after the government discovered it had been “inadvertently” disclosed to the International Monetary Fund by someone in Rwanda.

However, he refused to say how much more money the UK had already agreed to pay Rwanda for subsequent years of the initial five-year deal.

— Reports /TrainViral/