The plane “to nowhere” — which never took off on Tuesday evening, intended for Rwanda — was just what the Government expected. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, could not be happier with a situation where lawyers and Strasbourg judges (not the EU) are the enemy, rather than the organised criminal traffickers she claims to target.
The Nationality and Borders Act has changed the definition of those entitled to claim asylum. Only those with appropriate papers are eligible; the rest are to be transferred to Rwanda. There, successful claimants will be offered asylum, not allowed to return to the UK.
While Parliament voted narrowly for this, there has never been approval to use Rwanda for outsourcing claims. The UNHCR is firmly opposed to the arrangements. On Monday, its chief, Filippo Gandi, denounced it as “all wrong, for so many different reasons”.
The question is: what are we seeking to achieve? Is it reducing asylum claims, or stopping people from being exploited by criminals and taking dangerous routes to arrive in the UK?
We risk an even worse situation, as people reaching our shores disappear then become illegal migrants, falling into the hands of the criminal gangs and subjected to modern slavery. Why wouldn’t they, faced with the option of spending their lives in Rwanda?
As Home Secretary, I examined every option, looking at our obligations under the Refugee Convention, the costs and practicalities. There is a problem. Those who once came in lorries or clinging to train carriages now take small boats on the Channel crossing. This is where I agree with Priti Patel. We need to break the “business model” of criminals. We need collaboration across Europe, working through policing and security services.
It is the criminal gangs we should punish, not those seeking asylum. We need a cross-party approach not only to send signals to criminals and victims, but to develop policies that, over time, would have some chance of working.
When Labour was in power we believed we should deal with asylum claims at the point where people have been driven from their homes. We did it with the UNHCR Gateway programme with Liberia. Claims were processed at refugee centres and we agreed to take those with a legitimate claim.
I appeal to Johnson and Patel to work out policies without abandoning our historic humanitarian role, adherence to international convention and legal obligations, and to avoid controversial policies, which I believe will never work.
Instead, working with the French, we can cut out the means of crossing the Channel. Preventing access to small boats is the first imperative. Offering safe routes, such as the Gateway programme, is the corollary. Tough, sensible and humane: all three can, and must, go together.
