The capitulation of the House of Lords over the government’s Rwanda bill was predictable – even if some opponents had hoped against hope that peers might force a climbdown. As of now, UK law states that Rwanda is a “safe country”, making it possible for ministers to send asylum seekers there. The shameful course of action embarked on late last year, after the supreme court ruled the deportation policy unlawful, has thus concluded. Two years after Boris Johnson first announced the plan, Rishi Sunak is set to try again.
From parliament the focus now swings back to the courts, where lawyers will try to have individuals removed from flight lists. The law allows for this if they face “real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious irreversible harm” from being sent to Rwanda – which some undoubtedly will. Mr Sunak’s calculation is that the policy makes political sense despite this and the £1.8m estimated initial cost per deportee. Its appeal is two-pronged, and combines the fuelling of xenophobic sentiment among voters – by ensuring that irregular migration stays in the news – with papering over cracks in the Tory party between hard-right populists and what remains of the liberal centre-right.
Where will it end? The passage of the bill undoubtedly boosts the government’s chances of fulfilling what Suella Braverman, when she was home secretary, described as her “dream”. But given the small numbers and the logistical challenges – not only in the courts but also on arrival, where the arrangements for processing and resettlement have yet to be tested – one thing that can be asserted with confidence is that this scheme will not resolve the issue of irregular migration.
The reality is that there is no known means of preventing people from travelling to the UK either because they are desperate to escape persecution, or determined to improve on dismal prospects elsewhere. Ministers can denounce “evil people-smuggling gangs” all they like. This refrain was once again trotted out by the home secretary, James Cleverly, in response to Tuesday’s tragic news that five people including a child had died while attempting to cross the Channel.
It is true that unscrupulous and dangerous people are making money out of irregular migration. But there is no evidence that their networks will be either eradicated or diverted by a policy combining tough enforcement by the French – including regular destruction of the DIY refugee camps near Calais – with the deterrent effect that is meant to follow deportations to Rwanda. The only realistic approach is long-term and multilateral, involving cooperation with governments across Europe and beyond. Re-establishing safe and legal routes for people seeking refugee status is an essential first step, without which any claims to compassion – such as that made by the prime minister after the latest drownings – are empty. Already, around 52,000 people are stuck in limbo, having arrived in the UK since being barred from making asylum applications.
The Council of Europe’s human rights watchdog has condemned the bill. Filippo Grandi, the UN high commissioner for refugees, has described a “worrying global precedent”. Labour calls it an expensive gimmick. While accurate, this phrase misses something. In cutting the UK loose from more than 70 years of international norms regarding refugees, the Rwanda law is not just a wasteful gesture. It also marks a reckless and disgraceful lurch away from a hard-won system of institutional respect for human rights.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.