Home Secretary Priti Patel’s pledge to send male migrants who arrive in the UK to Rwanda for processing has come under fire from human rights campaigners and MPs.
Ms Patel is expected to finalise a deal with the African nation on Thursday for a trial scheme which would see those coming illegally to the UK, including crossing the English Channel in small boats, flown 4,000 miles away to have their asylum claims processed.
It marks the culmination of years of tough talk from Ms Patel and her Brexit-supporting allies on immigration.
Tory MPs have claimed the issue of arrivals in small boats has been a source of anger on the doorstep, though refugee charities claim the move is a “cruel and nasty decision”.
The Standard looks at the details of the plan and what the response has been.
How will it work?
Anyone arriving in the UK on a small boat seeking sanctuary will be flown to Rwanda where their asylum claim will be processed.
An initial £120 million is expected to be given to the Rwandan government under a trial scheme, with costs likely to increase if both governments deem the trial to be a success.
The PM also said the Royal Navy would from Thursday take over “operational command” from Border Force in the Channel to ensure “no boat makes it to the UK undetected”.
Meanwhile, asylum seekers who are allowed to stay in the UK will stay in stricter reception centres.
The first will open in Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire where arrivals will need to obey strict protocol or lose their claim to asylum.
It is thought the asylum seekers will be encouraged to relocate and rebuild their lives in Rwanda, rather than the UK.
Further details will be set out later this week.
Where could it fall short?
The plan has been criticised as unethical and expensive – with critics pointing to its £120 million cost, likely to increase further.
It remains unclear how many migrants the Government believes it will send to Rwanda, making the price difficult to estimate.
Former Brexit minister David Davis last year calculated it would cost £4.3 billion to apply the Australian offshore processing system to 23,500 migrants.
Directly applying the cost of the Australian offshoring system to the 23,500 migrants who have crossed the Channel this year alone would leave the British taxpayer with an estimated £32.4 billion bill. That is 23 times higher than our current system.
— David Davis (@DavidDavisMP) November 19, 2021
In response, the Government claim the prospect of being flown to Rwanda will stop them from attempting to reach the UK in the first place – decreasing the costs in the long-term.
There are also considerable logistical hurdles for officials to overcome.
This includes a dillema for officials at the UK border who will need to assess arrivals are economic migrants or asylum seekers.
It is unclear as yet what criteria will be used to determine this and how long it will take but runs the risk of leaving migrants in limbo awaiting an assessment of their claim.
Already several nations had angrily rejected reports of a deal to process migrants offshore, including Albania who vowed never to work with “anti-immigration Britain”.
What has the response been?
MPs from both parties, refugee charities and human rights lawyers have reacted furiously to the Government’s plan.
Addressing the proposals on Twitter, Scottish First Minister Ms Sturgeon said: "A despicable policy on its own terms. But add the fact that it’s being set out today to distract from partygate and you see the utter moral bankruptcy of this Tory government laid bare. Shameful.”
Meanwhile, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper described the plans as “unworkable, unethical and extortionate”.
The chief executive of Refugee Action Tim Naor Hilton accused the Government of “offshoring its responsibilities onto Europe’s former colonies instead of doing our fair share to help some of the most vulnerable people on the planet”.
And Detention Action said the men sent to Rwanda would “likely face indefinite detention under a government notorious for violent persecution of dissent”.
British Red Cross executive director Zoe Abrams said, “Evidence from where offshoring has been implemented elsewhere shows it leads to profound human suffering, plus the bill that taxpayers will be asked to foot is likely to be huge”.
Fears over Rwanda’s human rights record
Rwanda’s human rights record has also frequently been criticised – including by the UK Government itself.
Last year, a document published on the Gov.uk website said ministers “regret” the country did not conduct “investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture”.
It added Rwanda “did not support the UK recommendation to screen, identify and provide support to trafficking victims, including those held in Government transit centres”.
Human Rights Watch have said the ruling Rwandan Patriotic front (RPF) “continues to target those perceived as a threat to the government”.
It added, “Arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and torture in official and unofficial detention facilities is commonplace”.
Boris Johnson has claimed the plan will help the UK “take back control of illegal immigration” and said the current asylum system is “unfair”.
Speaking at an airport in Kent, the Prime Minister said: "Our compassion may be infinite but our capacity to help people is not. We can’t ask the British taxpayer to write a blank cheque to cover the costs of anyone who might want to come and live here.”
What is the National and Borders Bill
Ministers claim the Nationality and Borders Bill will allow Britain to distinguish between people coming to the UK legally and illegally.
Mr Johnson said this distinction will determine how asylum claims are progressed and will “enable us to issue visa penalties against those countries that refuse to accept returns of foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers”.
He added, it “will clean up the abuse of our legal system, introducing a one-stop shop that will end the cycle of last minute and vexatious claims and appeals that so often thwart or delay removals”.
