LABOUR have said they would beef up the process for sending asylum seekers away from Britain – pledging the party would get rid of people with “no right to be here”.
It comes as the party comes under increasing scrutiny over its immigration policy as it criticises the Government’s Rwanda plans before a crunch vote on Tuesday.
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper was challenged on Labour’s plans as MPs debated a new Rwanda bill from the Government which seeks to circumvent the Supreme Court’s block on the scheme.
Responding to an intervention in which she was asked what Labour would do to reduce net migration, Cooper said: “What the next Labour government would do, if we’re elected, is set up a new major returns unit with a thousand new staff to increase the returns.
“To actually make sure – rather than the total returns collapsing and their failure to actually return people who have no right to be here – our party would introduce a new returns unit to make sure that we have proper enforcement.”
READ MORE: Keir Starmer: 'If you want fewer immigrants, vote Labour'
Keir Starmer earlier on Tuesday attacked the Rwanda plan, which has so far cost the taxpayer around £290 million, as ineffective and too expensive while adding it was “against our values”.
But he indicated if Labour formed the next government, he could consider other schemes which see asylum seekers having their claims assessed abroad.
Taking questions after a speech in Milton Keynes, Starmer said: “There are various schemes, as you know, around the world where individuals are processed, usually en route to their country of destination, elsewhere.
“The Rwanda scheme isn’t one of those. This is a straight deportation scheme in relation to people who’ve already arrived.
“Other countries around the world do have schemes where they divert people on the way and process them elsewhere. That’s a different kind of scheme. And look, I’ll look at any scheme that might work.”
Cooper later said there were around 40,000 asylum seekers in Britain who have had their claims rejected but due to Home Office inefficiency could not be removed from the country.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel