Rwanda law

Opponents of the Government’s controversial Rwanda policy have labelled it “immoral”, “indecent” even “evil”. They have maligned Rwanda itself, prompting its High Commissioner to write on these pages in defence of his country from the exaggerated criticism it has faced. They have impugned the motives of the Government ministers who are responsible for the policy. They have also launched a succession of legal challenges. What they have failed to provide is any alternative.

Successive governments have devised all sorts of schemes in their efforts to limit the numbers of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers coming to this country. But still thousands have kept arriving. Latterly, they have been attempting the dangerous Channel crossing, assisted by criminal gangs that profit from misery. This was always morally unsustainable, given the risk to life inherent in such journeys. It was politically unsustainable, too, given that the public quite justifiably expects ministers and officials to be able to control who has access to the country.

Now the Government has come out fighting against the lawyers that it has accused of abetting the work of the criminal gangs. Last night saw a dramatic intervention by the European Court of Human Rights, hours before the planned departure of a flight to Rwanda.

It is all very well blaming the lawyers, but if there are legal impediments to the proper operation of ministers’ desired approach, including the role of overseas courts, the Government has it within its power to address them. Perhaps it ought to do so, to stop its flagship migration policy becoming a fiasco.