The government’s loss in the court of appeal ought to mean the end of its unrealised – and awful – project to deport people to Rwanda. Under the terms of a deal between the two governments, asylum seekers’ claims would be processed there and they would be allowed to stay if successful. But in a case brought by asylum seekers and the charity Asylum Aid, judges ruled by two to one that Rwanda is not, as ministers insist, a “safe third country”.
It has been clear since Priti Patel announced the scheme that it was neither a humane nor a practical way of dealing with desperate people, including those who arrive in England on boats from France. But since Suella Braverman took over as home secretary, the government’s commitment appears only to have strengthened. Ms Braverman, bizarrely, has described the plan as her “dream” and “obsession”. In March she allowed only selected news organisations to accompany her on a trip to the central African nation, where she posed for photos with her thumbs up.
Earlier this week it was revealed that the cost per person deported is expected to be £169,000. The claim that the scheme could deter those considering a dangerous Channel crossing was shown to be unevidenced. Meanwhile, the Rwandan government is reported to have spent £140m in funding from the UK that was included in the deal. But having made “stopping the boats” one of five key pledges to voters, Rishi Sunak appears determined to press ahead with the policy. On hearing Thursday’s decision, he announced that the government will seek leave to appeal to the supreme court.
Last year the government was criticised in the high court for the way it dealt with individuals whose deportation flight was blocked. This week it lost because judges concluded there is a risk that asylum seekers in Rwanda could end up being sent home. The Rwandan government’s assurances had been given in good faith, they said, but were unreliable. A previous, similar deal between Israel and Rwanda had failed.
Offshoring the asylum process was pioneered by Australia. Starting in 2001, thousands of people who arrived there by sea were removed and detained in grim conditions on two Pacific islands, Manus and Nauru, where they suffered human rights abuses. Tirana Hassan, the head of Human Rights Watch, recently described the UK’s adoption of a similar policy as “scraping the bottom of the barrel”, and warned that other countries could follow suit. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) continues to raise concerns about the “externalisation” of asylum obligations from rich countries to poorer ones.
This week’s ruling exposes the asylum bill currently making its way through parliament as an ugly sham. Small-boat arrivals cannot be sent abroad, as Mr Sunak wants, if there is nowhere to send them. We already knew that the government’s plans were cruel, unworkable, expensive and unpopular. Now we know that they are also against the law.
At 89,000 last year, the number of asylum claimants in the UK is lower than in many other countries. The Home Office should concentrate on improving processes (including those criticised by judges) and tackling backlogs. To honour its legal and moral obligations, the UK needs a policy built on pragmatism and cooperation with EU partners. Ministers should scrap the idea of outsourcing refugees along with the anti-migrant slogans.