Politics

Rwanda pilot scheme, incinerators… and the usual

Returning after the Easter recess, the bright new policy is a scheme for processing asylum claims in Rwanda.

Under the £120 million UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, people who enter the UK illegally, including by small boat across the Channel, may have their asylum claim considered in Rwanda rather than in the UK.

The policy is designed to disrupt the business model of people-smuggling gangs and I give credit to the Home Secretary for trying to grip this issue. More than 28,000 migrants crossed the Channel from France to the UK in small boats last year and at least 44 died or went missing. Creative solutions for saving lives and disrupting organised crime are very much needed.

It is important to emphasise that the UK still welcomes those in need. In the last year alone, the UK has provided sanctuary to over 97,000 Hong Kong British Nationals and over 13,000 Afghan nationals. More than 50,000 people have been granted visas under the Ukraine Family Scheme and Homes for Ukraine, though I regret it was not exactly fast off the blocks.

The Opposition has offered no alternative plan. They voted against the Nationality and Borders Bill and criticise this plan. Interestingly, it was Labour who introduced legislation permitting offshoring of asylum seekers in 2004. Then Home Secretary David

Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire Dr Andrew Murrison

Blunkett said it was a “21st century solution to asylum issues”. The governing centre-left party in Denmark last year legislated for asylum seekers to be processed in third countries and reports suggest that they too could partner with Rwanda.

Although wellintentioned, moral and politically defensible – notwithstanding a flurry of confected outrage from those with no alternative plan – my reservation would be that the scheme could very well fail in practice to reduce crossings and deaths. Although the plan is meant to act as a deterrent and kill off the traffickers’ business model, in the years following Australia’s implementation of a not dissimilar plan, illegal boat crossings actually went up. So, I’m comforted by assurances that the Rwanda scheme is a pilot.

Meanwhile, the Navy has been tasked to get a grip on the small boat situation in the Channel. Given that the fundamentals and rules of engagement have not changed, I really can’t see how this is going to make any difference despite the esteem in which I hold the Senior Service. I worry that it is being set up to fail, which is a pity.

More locally, Wiltshire Council has voted to defer its planning decision on the Westbury incinerator. This comes after attempts to have the decision ruled on by central government failed. I argued at County Hall on Wednesday that a new DEFRA consultation document on environmental – including incineration – targets should be considered, as should the impact of granting approval on the adjacent dairy factory, Arla. So, partial victory in this week’s battle, but the campaign goes on.

The usual? Partygate, of course! As I write it looks like an Opposition motion that Mr Johnson should be referred to the privileges committee to adjudicate on whether he lied to parliament will not be opposed. That means his case will, eventually, be heard by the committee.

In my view that’s right and proper given the circumstances but only in the light of all the evidence, including the outcome of the full Met investigation and Sue Gray’s report. In practice that means it’ll be some months before the committee opines – and that’s a very long time in politics.