The Rwanda ruling is a sign of worse to come

In forming their judgment on the legality of the government’s Rwanda refugee deportation scheme, the High Court was not asked to decide whether it was humane or practical or value for money.

If judges had decided on those questions, then they might have agreed it is none of those things. But that’s not their job, of course. Their job is to judge the plan against the law. Not so surprisingly, on the evidence before them, they found that the government’s policy was lawful.

There may be appeals to higher courts by human rights groups, and the High Court did find against the then-home secretary, Priti Patel, for not considering properly the individual circumstances of eight individuals who were due to be flown to Kigali. That said, the courts have given a clear indication that the government can get on with implementing its policy in theory (though several judicial review hearings and anticipated appeals lie ahead, so no flights will be taking place just yet).

It remains, though, inhumane, impractical and poor value for money. For all Rwanda’s efforts to develop its economy, and its record post the regional civil war and genocide, it has no tradition of welcoming refugees from, say, the Middle East or Uighur Muslims.

There are reasons why refugees wish to come to the UK and they are connected to the English language, existing communities and family links. These are not illegitimate reasons to seek a new life in Britain, and to be sent to Rwanda instead may make many genuine asylum seekers feel suicidal. In any case, the number that can be taken to Rwanda are tiny, and nowhere near enough to make an impact on the statistics.

As for practicality, the Rwanda plan is meant to be a deterrent, but it hasn’t worked thus far. All it is ever likely to do is merely discourage people from seeking asylum from Border Force, and instead to encourage people to evade the authorities and enter the country surreptitiously. The coastline and the Channel are simply too big to patrol comprehensively, and the people in the dinghies will also take more risks to evade the authorities.

At present, large sums of taxpayers’ money are being wasted in the asylum system. The Rwanda scheme has cost some £140m, but not a single person has landed in Kigali. Even when they do, it will represent a disproportionate cost per migrant. Almost £7m a day is being spent on hotel accommodation for unprocessed refugees – something like £2bn a year. Instead, the funds would be much better spent on reducing the huge backlog of claims, and on more specialist squads to target the criminals running the people smuggling business.

The government might also reflect on how increasing the supply of labour might help cure inflation – and allow refugees and indeed economic migrants to work and settle in the UK. It is rare in public policy for the answer to a problem (inflation) to be so painfully evident, and itself a cause for considerable debate (migration).

Soon, though, the Rwanda asylum plan will be overtaken by the much more far-reaching plans announced by the prime minister last week. Rishi Sunak, with surprisingly little backlash so far, has effectively announced the abolition of the automatic right to claim asylum in the UK, at least under British law.

It will be replaced by a limited scheme, or series of schemes, as determined in consultation with the UN High Commission for Refugees. Anyone else who arrives in the UK without paperwork or via a small boat seeking asylum will not only have their right to have their case heard in the UK overruled but even if their case turns out to be genuine, they will be banned from the UK indefinitely.

No doubt, the courts will again be asked to adjudicate on the matter, but this latest ruling by the High Court suggests they are an unreliable line of defence. As has sometimes been said, a government treats refugees in the way it would the rest of us if we didn’t have human rights. The High Court ruling is a cause for deep concern, and not just for the refugees.