Liz Truss to ask Turkey to join Rwanda deportation plan

Liz Truss will try to expand the Rwanda migrant removal scheme to countries such as Turkey if she becomes prime minister, The Times has learnt.

The foreign secretary has told MPs in private that she would like to emulate the deal struck with Rwanda in an effort to combat the Channel migrant crisis.

She said she would like to open negotiations with Turkey, though it already has the largest refugee population in the world with almost four million Syrians under temporary protection status.

A source close to Truss confirmed that Turkey was the “sort of country that Liz would potentially look at”. The ally added: “Whether the Turks are up for that is another question.”

Christopher Chope, a Conservative MP, said Truss had told him in recent days that she intended to seek similar deals with other countries, naming Turkey and Spain. Her campaign dismissed the prospect of signing a deal with Spain but Turkey was cited as a realistic possibility.

Truss’s rival Penny Mordaunt, the trade minister, has told The Times that she would keep the Rwanda policy but it would be part of a four-point plan to combat illegal immigration.

Channel crossings continued for an eighth consecutive day yesterday, with more than 130 people arriving, taking this year’s total to more than 14,300.

Mordaunt said she would seek an agreement with the French to cut off fuel supplies in its north region to prevent smugglers getting petrol. She said that she would offer the French help to patrol their coastline. Boris Johnson made the same offer last year but was snubbed by President Macron.

She also promised to stop housing asylum seekers in hotels, with almost 40,000 people running up a bill of nearly £5 million a day.

Mordaunt said: “I pay full tribute to the work of Priti Patel who has been making real progress with the Rwanda scheme. However, we have to recog-nise that the international framework, the rules governing all of this, is completely unfit for the world we live in today.

“We need a new, diplomatic narrative on this to try and get those rules to work so that wealthy nations such as ourselves can use our resources to . . . help those in need but not be wasting money housing people who really should be back in the country.”

All the remaining candidates in the leadership contest have committed themselves to keeping the arrangement to send migrants to Rwanda. Research by the More in Common think tank, the public opinion specialists, has revealed, however, that the policy risks splitting Conservative voters and presents the next party leader with a dilemma over whether to keep it before the next general election.

Combating the record numbers of migrants crossing the Channel is the second most important issue after the cost of living for voters in red wall seats, where the Tories are vying with Labour for floating voters described by pollsters as “loyal nationals”.

The issue ranked 15th out of 16 issues for voters in blue wall seats, where the Conservatives are competing with the Liberal Democrats for floating voters described as “established liberals”.

The research came from in-depth polling and focus groups in red wall and blue wall seats. In a 17-page report it concludes that while the Rwanda policy is overwhelmingly popular with red wall voters, it is “toxic” to voters in key southern marginal seats.

 “What’s more it is clear . . . that this segment is more likely than not to disapprove of the Rwanda policy and to find it unpalatable,” the think tank said.

The research contradicts the Tory party strategy, championed by David Canzini, the prime minister’s deputy chief of staff, who regards the policy as a “wedge” issue that will win votes by distinguishing the party from Labour. Instead it suggests that the policy is a “wedge” issue that splits Conservative voters.

The research team said: “The danger for the Conservatives is that while the Rwanda policy may be successful in regaining lost ground among loyal nationals, the other side of their voter base could end up on the wrong side of the wedge.

“The policy may not even prove to be a slam dunk among more socially conservative voters, if for instance the policy proves ineffective at deterring small boats — or if it is seen as a distraction from tackling the cost of living crisis, which is by far the top issue for every segment of the population.”

Luke Tryl, the director of More in Common, said: “Our research shows that when it comes to immigration, simply proposing ever more punitive measures won’t hold the Tory coalition together.

 “While the Rwanda plan might resonate with some parts of the Tory base it is toxic to others. Instead, a policy that could reach across both blue and red walls needs to balance tough action against people smugglers and a deterrent to small boats with compassion and humane treatment for those fleeing persecution.”