Bring back Rwanda scheme to end small boats crisis, says architect of Australia's successful migrant crackdown
The mastermind behind Australia's migrant crackdown has called on Keir Starmer to 'reinstitute' the Rwanda scheme.
Alexander Downer called on the Prime Minister to 'eat a bit of political humble pie' and resurrect the scheme, which was scrapped last year in one of Starmer's first acts after being elected into No 10.
Sir Keir insisted the deportation scheme was a £700million 'gimmick' which did nothing to cut migrant Channel crossings.
But Mr Downer, who was Australia's minister for foreign affairs from 1996 to 2007, claimed the move was a 'tragedy' and believes it could have worked if the legal issues surrounding it 'could be properly addressed'.
'It would have worked assuming the legal issues could be properly addressed — and they were being,' he told the Sun.
'So the easiest thing for them to do would be to eat a bit of political humble pie and reinstitute the Rwanda scheme.'
Just earlier this week, Downing Street admitted the situation in the Channel was 'deteriorating' as the number of migrants reaching the UK topped 2,000 in a week for the first time in 21 months.
The 2,222 arrivals over seven days meant an average of one migrant reached Britain every four-and-a-half minutes.
Mr Downer has previously expressed his belief in having a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to illegal migration.
The former foreign minister was one of the masterminds behind Australia's crackdown on illegal immigration in the early 2000s, which sought to punish migrants who arrived on the country's shores by boat.
This meant sending them by boat to detention centres in Papua New Guinea and the Pacific island of Nauru, where migrants would be offered to return to their home countries and refugees were told they could resettle in another.
'Once word got round that if you tried to get into Australia by boat you would not be allowed in and would be sent to Papua New Guinea instead, they ran out of customers. The smugglers' businesses closed down,' he previously said.
The Tony Abbott government claimed a 90 per cent reduction in maritime arrivals of asylum seekers once the policy was introduced in 2013. There were 207 arrivals in November that year, opposed to 2,629 in November 2012.
Starmer has pledged to crack down on smuggling gangs that bring people into the UK in small boats, including by targeting criminal networks overseas.
Last month he said the Government would start talks with other countries on 'return hubs' for failed asylum seekers, which would see failed asylum seekers sent for processing in third countries prior to deportation.
The PM admitted these would not be a 'silver bullet' for halting the crossings, but the proposal is expected to act as a deterrent.
Last week's crossing total was the most since September 2023, when the former Tory government's Rwanda policy was still in legal limbo.
It tipped the total since Labour came to power at last July's general election past the 40,000 mark, hitting 40,276.
Since the start of this year, 17,034 migrants have reached Britain, up 38 per cent on the same period last year. The figure does not include hundreds more who reached Dover yesterday.
Reform leader Nigel Farage said it was 'about time' Britain faced up to the fact it was 'our fault' – rather than France's – that so many migrants head here. 'We will never stop the boats from leaving France,' he told broadcaster Talk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Starmer could allow Trump use of British bases to attack Iran, says Harriet Harman
Sir Keir Starmer could end up allowing Donald Trump to use British bases to launch strikes on Iran, Harriet Harman has said. Speaking to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Baroness Harman said this was despite the prime minister being part of a generation "shaped" by opposition to the Iraq War. Baroness Harman was solicitor general when Sir Tony Blair decided to take Britain to war in Iraq alongside the United States in 2003. She said the decisions made by Sir Tony would be "burning bright" in Sir Keir 's mind. "He's part of the political generation of the Labour Party that grew up, which was shaped by its opposition to what Tony Blair was doing in relation to Iraq," Baroness Harman said. "So it would be a massive change for him." Asked if the UK could end up giving permission for US aircraft to use British military bases on Cyprus and Diego Garcia, but not go any further than that, Baroness Harman said: "Exactly". Sky News reported on Thursday that Attorney General Richard Hermer has raised questions over whether Israel's actions in Iran are lawful, potentially limiting what support he believes the UK could offer the US. Baroness Harman said that for Sir Keir, the "rules-based international order is the most important thing". "If the attorney general says that the government can't do something because it's illegal, it can't do it. So he's in a very crucial position," she added. But Baroness Harman said it would be difficult for Sir Keir to say "thank you for the trade deal" to Mr Trump and then deny the president use of the airbases.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Will Starmer have to agree to war?
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 Is Donald Trump about to join Israel in attacks on Iran, and will he ask Keir Starmer to help him out? If he does - would it even be legal? A lot has happened since Beth, Ruth and Harriet last got together, with further significant developments expected before a big NATO summit next week - a gathering we don't even know if the US president will turn up to. So how did we get to the point where we're asking whether the UK will allow its ally - the US - to use its airbases? And how does the current situation compare to the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US weighs in with concerns over China's proposed ‘super-embassy' in London
A US intervention over China's proposed new embassy in London has thrown a potential resolution 'up in the air', campaigners have said, amid concerns over the site's proximity to a sensitive hub of critical communication cables. The furore over a new 'super-embassy' on the edge of London's financial district was reignited last week when the White House said it was 'deeply concerned' over potential Chinese access to 'the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies'. The Dutch parliament has also raised concerns about Beijing's ideal location of Royal Mint Court, on the edge of the City of London, which has so far failed to gain planning permission. The ultimate decision lies with the government, which has taken control over the stalled decision after permission was initially rejected on security grounds two years ago. Labour is expected to make a decision over the proposed 2-hectare (5-acre) site opposite the Tower of London after an inquiry was held earlier this year. Those who have long campaigned against the move over security concerns have criticised the row's revival, saying it has sidelined their views. 'They seem to be struggling to make the right decision,' said Dave Lake, the chair of the local residents' association and lead of the local campaign. 'It's got too political now. It was a straightforward inquiry but because of this, that and the other, particularly the Americans getting involved, it's made it all up in the air.' The intervention comes after the signing of a US-UK trade deal with Donald Trump at the G7 summit in Canada this week. Before the deal was signed, a US official told the Sunday Times: 'The United States is deeply concerned about providing China with potential access to the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies.' In the Netherlands, MPs have raised similar security concerns. A state department official said they had full faith in the UK to ensure the safety and security of their diplomatic mission in London. Nevertheless, for those who have long opposed the embassy site, what was once a campaign focused on security concerns from local residents and communities in exile has been overtaken by geopolitics. Lake has lived near the proposed site, bought by the Chinese government in 2018 for £255m, for 35 years. On Saturday he attended the latest demonstration there, fearing that building an embassy could attract further demonstrations and political attacks. Recent concerns have shifted to cables underneath the sites, which serve as an arterial link between the City of London and Canary Wharf, London's two financial centres. Lake said: 'We know there are cables running underground, and we know the capabilities of the Chinese. In the early conversations it was never part of it, it was just completely our security.' Charles Parton, who spent 22 years working in and on China as a UK diplomat and has advised the UK parliament's foreign affairs committee, said it was 'a big problem' if there were very sensitive cables running directly under the site. He said: 'There are two ways to be seen with it: one way is to say, well, you can't use the site; the other is to say reroute the cables. How difficult is it to reroute the cables? I don't know the answer to that question.' Parton said the British embassy had been wanting to rebuild its Beijing site for as long as he could remember. The building had not been fit for purpose for several decades, he said, and the wishes of both countries for newer embassies was 'normal diplomatic business' as relations had greatly expanded. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'There are many things we should worry about with the Chinese,' said Parton, mentioning Beijing's geopolitical agenda and strangle on rare earth exports. 'But we need to choose the important ones and not the unimportant ones. And all goes back to the nature of these cables. What is crucial is the security issue. If that is resolved satisfactory, then why shouldn't we both go ahead and build new embassies?' The government, which has said it is committed to 'robust' and 'evidence-based' decision-making, is expected to issue its verdict by 9 September. Among those worried that the embassy plans will go ahead is Rahima Mahmut, a leading Uyghur activist. 'It is really unbelievable when not only the US government but also the Dutch government express their concerns,' said Mahmut, who lives in exile in the UK. Also concerned over increased surveillance and espionage is Simon Cheng, the founder of Hongkongers in Britain and a former Hong Kong consulate worker. Cheng, who in 2023 had a bounty issued for his arrest, said: 'The UK government need to think twice because it's not only just the closest ally that has given a warning and grave concern, but also that to many other people, especially us as part of the exile community … we have concerns about our security here.' A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy said the planning application had taken UK policy into consideration as well as the views of all relevant parties. Building a new embassy would help them 'better perform' the responsibilities of 'mutual beneficial cooperation' between the two countries, they added. The spokesperson said: 'Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government's consideration over this planning application. This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.'
