A NEW UK Government scheme is set to offer thousands of pounds to failed asylum seekers to voluntarily move to Rwanda.
According to The Times newspaper, a new deal – different to the initial deportation scheme – has been struck with the Rwandan government.
The scheme looks to target those who legally can’t stay in the UK but also can’t return to their home country – which is estimated to be in the tens of thousands.
The scheme will be open to anyone who has had their asylum application rejected, and will form part of current voluntary returns schemes, whereby migrants can receive up to £3000 to aid their return to their “country of origin”.
READ MORE: The crucial life-saving work in Gaza your donations go towards
Those who refuse the offer of £3000 and support upon arrival in Rwanda will remain in limbo – unable to officially work or claim benefits and without accommodation.
A Home Office spokesman said: “In the last year, 19,000 people were removed voluntarily from the UK and this is an important part of our efforts to tackle illegal migration.
“We are exploring voluntary relocations for those who have no right to be here to Rwanda, who stand ready to accept people who wish to rebuild their lives and cannot stay in the UK.
“This is in addition to our Safety of Rwanda Bill and Treaty which, when passed, will ensure people who come to the UK illegally are removed to Rwanda.”
Labour accused ministers of “resorting to paying people” to go Rwanda upon realising their deportation scheme “has no chance of succeeding.”
Shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock MP said: “We know from the treaty that capacity in Rwanda is very limited, so ministers should now explain what this new idea means for the scheme as it was originally conceived, and they should also make clear how many people they expect to send on this basis, and what the cost will be.
“There have been so many confused briefings around the Rwanda policy that the public will be forgiven for treating this latest wheeze with a degree of scepticism.
“It seems that the Home Secretary is trying to find a way out of this hare-brained scheme that he himself has described as ‘batshit’.”
It comes as Rishi Sunak’s legislation to revive the grounded plan to deport some asylum seekers to Kigali heads back to the Commons where the Government will seek to overturn a string of amendments agreed by the Lords.
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which suffered 10 defeats in the unelected chamber, received an unopposed third reading – although critics made clear their reservations about the “stinker” legislation.
Changes backed by the Lords include overturning the Government’s bid to oust the courts from the process.
The move effectively blows a hole in the bill, which is intended to prevent continued legal challenges to the stalled deportation scheme after the Supreme Court ruled the plan was unlawful.
The proposed legislation seeks to compel judges to regard the east African country as safe in a bid to clear the way to send asylum seekers who cross the Channel in small boats on a one-way flight to Rwanda.
But the amendment agreed by peers restores the jurisdiction of domestic courts in relation to the safety of the east African country and enables them to intervene.
Other changes supported by peers include safeguards to reduce the risk of unaccompanied children being sent to Rwanda, a block on the removal of victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, as well as those who worked with the UK military or Government overseas.
The Lords also approved amendments designed to ensure the legislation complies with the rule of law and that Parliament cannot declare Rwanda to be safe until the treaty with its promised safeguards is fully implemented.
Green Party peer, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, branded the bill a “stinker” while Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker urged “proper consideration” of the proposed changes to the “difficult and controversial” legislation.
Home Office minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said it was “not an option for us to not act” and “without an alternative approach, more lives will be tragically lost at sea and the financial burden on the British taxpayer will grow”.
It sets the stage for an extended stand-off between the Commons and Lords during “ping-pong”, where legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached.
The Prime Minister had previously warned the Lords against frustrating “the will of the people” by hampering the passage of the Bill, which has already been approved by MPs.
Sunak has defended the stalled plan to send migrants to Rwanda as a “worthwhile investment”, despite the public spending watchdog revealing the cost of the policy could soar to half a billion pounds.
The scheme, which is yet to see a flight take off after a series of legal setbacks, could cost taxpayers nearly £2 million for each of the first 300 asylum seekers sent to the east African nation, according to the National Audit Office (NAO).
The Commons will get a chance to debate and vote on the amendments on March 18.
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