THE BLOB VS THE PEOPLE

Amid all the hysteria on Channel migrants, two voices of experience and wisdom We faced the same crisis in Australia — and fixed it. If Rishi has the courage to do the same, he could win the next election

TACKLING Britain’s migrant crisis means answering one simple question. Who do you want to control immigration policy: the Government or people smugglers?

It is as basic as that. If Britain is not to be at the mercy of criminal gangs, firm action is needed.

I know, because 26 years ago, when I became Australia’s foreign minister, we faced the same crisis. And we fixed it.

It was tough: we needed a policy that was unbending yet humane. But it proved popular with voters. They too wanted immigration controlled fairly and firmly.

If Rishi Sunak’s government can learn from our experience, they could turn the polls around and reap the benefits at the next General Election.

Daily Mail readers do not need me to tell them Britain’s borders are out of control. In the past 20 years, Office for National Statistics figures show uncapped immigration has seen the UK population rise by 9 million to more than 67 million — a 15 per cent increase in less than a generation. So far this year, criminal gangs have brought 40,000 people across the Channel in boats. That’s five times the number in 2020 — and this is set to hit 50,000 by 2023.

Illegal immigration is placing huge pressure on almost every aspect of British life. The NHS, housing, social services, schools and the police are struggling to cope. Everyone suffers, except for organised criminals who have a limitless opportunity to make money.

Clearly, this is an astonishingly lucrative business. you can expect the number of Channel asylum seekers to increase exponentially unless the Government gets a grip.

So what did we do in Australia? In our well- run immigration programme, new visas are capped at 160,000 annually, with our population of about 26 million.

This brings us a managed influx of skilled workers, plus people with money to invest in our country and others who are joining their families (usually people who have married Australian residents).

We also have a humane quota for resettling genuine refugees: about 20,000 each year.

Once all the visas are allocated, that’s it. Anyone caught trying to break the rules is permanently denied entry.

When these rules came in, people smugglers tried their damnedest to break them. We had to be tough and vigilant.

That did not mean turning back boats (except rarely). That would not have been safe. Instead, when illegal immigrants arrived on Australian shores, we put them on a ship and sent them to another country — the island of Nauru in the Pacific Ocean.

This stopped illegal immigration stone dead. The gangs quickly found they couldn’t make money, as they were unable to guarantee entry into Australia to their ‘clients’.

Let’s compare that to Britain’s unsustainable, uncapped and frankly chaotic policy. There’s no doubt many businesses benefit from a skilled, willing migrant workforce.

But that’s a world away from allowing people ashore in huge numbers, to be put up in hotels at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £6 million a day — with some being criminals.

What is stopping Britain from copying the Australian model? Former Home Secretary Priti Patel tried to send migrants to Rwanda while applications were processed.

But that bold idea was thwarted by political opponents, many within her own party, who protested it was unthinkable. They’re wrong. I know from experience in government it does work well.

It is not racist or barbaric or any of those inflammatory terms thrown by people who offer no alternatives. It’s safe, civilised and sensible.

To anyone opposing the Rwanda plan, I ask: how many more migrants should Britain take? If nine million is workable, why not 19 million, 90 million? Where does it stop?

Current Home Secretary Suella Braverman has used emphatic language to describe the problem, calling it ‘an invasion on our southern coast’.

And she has been pilloried. This happened in Australia, when one politician talked about ‘a swarm of migrants’.

To listen to the BBC, anyone might assume, foremost in people’s minds is the need to avoid strong language, rather than flinging open Britain’s borders to a social crisis.

Confected outrage about the words we use is a deliberate distraction. The real outrage should be reserved for the damage done to people’s lives as hospitals and schools groan under the strain of uncontrolled immigration.

Australia had one big advantage. Unlike the UK, we have not signed the European Convention of Human Rights [ECHR]. This has enabled political opponents to stymie the Government’s efforts to send migrants to Rwanda.

After Brexit, Britain needs to find a lasting legal basis for exemption from European Court of Human Rights diktats. The nation has to be free to control its own borders.

Exiting the ECHR should be a last resort. Britain could draw up its own human rights legislation, but it could set a dangerous precedent for other countries to ditch their commitment to human rights.

Instead, the UK must find a legal way to bypass 11th-hour interventions from Strasbourg, and restart Rwanda flights.

This would be popular with Conservative voters and Red Wall supporters. Ordinary Brits — not the chattering classes — whose taxes keep the country running, have no illusions about the problem of uncontrolled immigration.

Voters want to see bold action from politicians to keep this country’s essential services safe. If Labour and some in her own party keep attacking Suella Braverman for trying to solve the crisis, voters will remember and won’t forgive.

And if the Tories have the courage to fix immigration, this could be the single most important vote-winning issue, right across the country.

■ ALEXANDER DOWNER was Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, 1996-2007.

Illegal immigrants were sent to a Pacific island — and the traffickers’ trade was thwarted