The Prime Minister has been told to scrap the Rwanda Bill as there are “so many holes in it” just a day before MPs are due to vote on it in Parliament.
Rishi Sunak has attempted to revive the Rwanda scheme in an attempt to stop asylum seekers entering the UK which is costing taxpayers billions.
The chairman of the European Research Group (ERG), Mark Francois said on Monday that the consensus from his wing of the Tory Party is to “pull the bill” and then enter a new “revised version that works better.”
They are known as the “five families” who are right wing Tories that represent around 100 MPs.
Read more related news:
Francois said, “The feeling very much in the meeting is that the government would be best advised to pull the bill and to come up with a revised version that works better than this one, which has so many holes in it.
“In as much as there was a consensus, that was the consensus.”
Francois thoughts have been echoed by the deputy chair of the ERG, and fellow Tory MP, David Jones, he said, “I don’t think the bill is easily amendable and really I think the government needs to review it and maybe consider a completely new piece of legislation.
“Because this leaves so many gaps in the legislation and so many ways that people could actually evade the legislation if they wanted to remain in this country.”
Francois confirmed that the right wing MPs will meet again on Monday evening to decide on what action to take on Tuesday in the House of Commons.
New Conservatives co-chairman Danny Kruger said that MPs will hold “further conversations with government over the course of the next 24 hours.”
The ERG said in a summary which was put together on Monday by a team of legal experts, “The bill overall 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 prime minister may well be right when he claims that this is the ‘toughest piece of migration legislation ever put forward by a UK government’, but we do not believe that it goes far enough to deliver the policy as intended.
“Resolving, comprehensively, the issues raised by this analysis would require very significant amendments, some of which would potentially be outside the current title’s scope, and the final bill would look very different.”