Can the government expand the Rwanda scheme to deport migrants to other countries?

From Armenia to Ivory Coast, the government is trying to persuade more countries to take our migrants, says Andrew Grice. But will it work?

A Boeing 767 that was scheduled to depart for Rwanda stands grounded at Boscombe Down airbase on 14 June 2022 following the last-minute intervention of the European Court of Human Rights (Getty)

Britain has begun talks with several other countries about replicating the government’s controversial scheme to deport migrants to Rwanda. The disclosure raised eyebrows because ministers are still awaiting parliamentary approval for legislation to declare Rwanda a safe country after its two-year-old plan was blocked by the Supreme Court.  After a further round of ping-pong between the Commons and the Lords, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill should finally become law later this week.

Which other countries is Britain talking to?

Negotiations are said to be underway with Armenia, Botswana, Costa Rica and Ivory Coast, which are judged most likely to sign such a “third country asylum processing deal”.

Other nations were also approached, but Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil and Colombia were seen as less interested in going ahead. African countries including Cape Verde, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Angola and Sierra Leone are on a reserve list to be approached if the government fails to find enough participants. Morocco, Gambia, Namibia and Tunisia declined to enter talks on joining the scheme.

Whose idea was it?

The Home Office began talking to other countries when Suella Braverman was home secretary and Robert Jenrick immigration minister. They have both since departed. However, Rishi Sunak is believed to have set a deadline of securing two further agreements by autumn 2023 – and that was missed. When he was foreign secretary, James Cleverly, the current home secretary, told officials that talks with other third countries should continue while the legal wrangling over Rwanda played out.

Will other countries sign up before the Rwanda plan is implemented?

That looks unlikely; it seems they want to wait until it has begun. Although ministers hope the first flights to Kigali will take off this spring, the bill’s passage will not necessarily allow that, as further challenges in the courts are very likely.

Would agreements with other countries increase the ‘deterrent factor’ for migrants planning to cross the Channel?

In theory, it might. But the government has yet to prove its claim that the Rwanda plan will help to “stop the boats” by dissuading people from crossing the Channel. There are doubts among Home Office officials about the deterrent effect. Some 534 asylum seekers crossed on Sunday, the highest daily figure this year, taking the number to 6,265 since 1 January – a 28 per cent increase on last year.

How much would a wider programme cost taxpayers?

No figures are available. But we know that the Rwanda programme will cost at least £370m. The figure could rise to £4.5bn over five years if 30,000 migrants were deported to the country – £150,874 per migrant for a five-year processing and integration package including housing, food, education and medical services.

The Home Office said: “The UK is continuing to work with a range of international partners to tackle global illegal migration challenges. Our focus right now is passing the Safety of Rwanda Bill ... and putting plans in place to get flights off the ground.”

What do the government’s critics say?

They view the plan to expand the Rwanda scheme as an attempt to distract from its failure. Sunder Katwala, director of the British Future think tank, said: “There is going to be so much made-up fantasy political theatre about expanded Rwanda-type schemes that don’t exist and won’t exist, to try to pretend sending a flight is more than a gimmick.”

What would a Labour government do?

Labour would scrap the Rwanda scheme if it wins this year’s general election, even if it is up and running by then. It says the plan is too costly. However, Keir Starmer has suggested that some asylum seekers could have their claims processed abroad to discourage them from crossing the Channel. A Labour spokesperson said: “We’ll look at anything that works, but our priority is smashing the gangs and stopping people getting here in the first place rather than working out how to process claims.”