Rwanda scheme is flawed, but what will work?

Daniel Hambury / Evening Standard
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

When Theresa May told MPs yesterday that she opposed Priti Patel’s plan to send migrants inadmissible for asylum in this country to Rwanda on the grounds of “legality, practicality and efficacy” she joined the barrage of criticism that has greeted the Home Secretary since she unveiled her scheme last week in Kigali.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said the idea was ungodly, migrant charities have condemned it, while Labour’s Yvette Cooper denounced it as “unworkable, unethical and extortionate”. But while there are obvious questions about Ms Patel’s plan, she’s right that there are problems with the asylum system that won’t be solved simply by making it work more efficiently.

It’s wrong that those — mostly men — able to pay crime gangs to bring them across Europe and the Channel jump the queue ahead of more vulnerable others unable to do the same. Lives are lost, criminals profit, and economic migrants as well as those fleeing danger benefit from the truth that once in Britain it’s hard to remove anyone regardless of which category they fall into.

There’s also the reality, as former minister Rory Stewart has pointed out, that Britain can’t accept all the people who might want to flee here and that a new way of admitting a generous, but limited number of the most needy is probably required. It’s true too that the principle of denying asylum to migrants who have arrived here via safe countries — the basis of the Rwanda scheme — has been long established and was part of the EU’s Dublin agreement used previously to return migrants to other European countries.

But there are big doubts about the Rwanda plan nonetheless which critics claim won’t see off the people smugglers and instead lead to more women and children, who won’t be ejected on arrival, being loaded onto boats instead of men.

There’s also the question of how screening to identify trafficking victims can take place in the rapid timescale envisaged and the prospect of court battles as migrants refused an asylum claim bring legal challenges. Rwanda’s human rights record is a major concern.

Nor are there enough of the safe legal routes to be claimed from afar that must form part of any plan to block Channel migrants. The onus remains on Priti Patel to prove the sceptics wrong.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in