The Government has been in talks with two other countries to which it hopes it will be able to deport asylum seekers, following the collapse of its Rwanda scheme, i can reveal.
This morning the Supreme Court ruled that ministers’ plan to send migrants to east African country was unlawful because of the risk that they would then forcibly be sent on to somewhere that was unsafe.
But the verdict leaves open the possibility of the UK sending migrants to another country if a deal can be reached with them.
Home Office sources have told i that officials had already been “working on deals with other countries” that could be used in place of Rwanda.
Two countries are understood to be part-way through a Government assessment process, but their identities are a closely-guarded secret known only by a low number of politicians and civil servants. And the deals are far from being closed, i understands.
“Neither of the options that remain potentially on the table are close to being workable, it has to go through a process,” a source said.
“One is barely a third of the way through that process, the other is about two-thirds of the way through. But they’re still being talked to.”
A third country, which was willing to receive asylum seekers from the UK up until last year, is believed to have dropped out amid the furore over the Rwanda scheme.
i understands that ministers still believe in the “concept” of transferring asylum seekers abroad and plan to continue pursuing it, in the belief it is a viable option to deter small boat crossings.
The Government had also been working on contingency plans to strengthen the Rwanda deal and to respond to any new concerns raised by judges, i understands.
i has however been told that the Government is not working on fresh plans to derogate from or quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a claim not denied by Downing Street.
This risks a backlash from right-wing MPs led by former home secretary Suella Braverman, who Rishi Sunak sacked on Monday.
One MP told i “the right has been completely ignored” in contingency planning, and questioned whether a new improved deal would take too long to mitigate any backlash at the next election.
Home Office civil servants believe legal hurdles and minimum standards that have emerged in the lengthy court process over the Rwanda policy mean that deals with other countries could take a significant amount of time.
This morning the president of the Supreme Court, Lord Robert Reed, dismissed the Government’s case over Rwanda and said that the had a poor human rights record, with concerns about media and political freedom. This raised questions about the country’s compliance with international obligations.
Lord Reed observed that Rwanda once had an agreement with Israel similar to that which it struck with the UK, between 2013 and 2018.
“Despite the terms of the agreement … asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled,” or sent back to their home country, he said.
He added that this raised concerns over whether Rwanda could be relied upon.
In the absence of any deal to transfer small boat migrants abroad, Home Office civil servants expect the Government to fall back on other attempted “deterrents” in the new Illegal Migration Act.
Officials are currently receiving training on how to enforce the laws, which attempt to bar anyone reaching the UK from obtaining British citizenship or other rights and entitlements.
The Home Office has been contacted for comment.
47 countries considered for deportation deal
A High Court hearing over the Rwanda deal last year heard that “several countries” had initially been considered for the scheme but Rwanda was the first to be selected.
Documents presented to the court showed that the selection process started in 2020, and that criteria included minimum standards on human rights, being party to the UN Refugee Convention and containing no conflict zones.
In January 2021, several shortlists had been drawn up as well as a “longlist” of 47 nations. The court heard that there was “debate in Whitehall on the legal criteria for country selection” and the weight that “functioning local asylum provisions” should be given – now a key point of argument in the Supreme Court case.
Rwanda was not on a final shortlist of seven countries recommended by the Foreign Office, but got added back into consideration – despite internal warnings over human rights abuses – after Boris Johnson’s Downing Street “continued to show interest”.
By late July 2021, there were still three countries under consideration alongside Rwanda that had “indicated appetite to pursue discussions”, Foreign Office documents said, but the Government has not publicly disclosed their identities or the outcome of the discussions.
