Priti Patel claims UK’s Rwanda plan ‘not comparable’ to one struck with Israel

Home Secretary Priti Patel has defended the government’s Rwanda asylum plan claiming it is “not comparable” to the deal Israel struck with the African state.

In a statement in the Commons, Patel told MPs the plan will “deal a major blow to the people smugglers and their evil trade in human cargo”. She said: “Everyone who is considered for relocation will be screened and interviewed, including an age assessment, and have access to legal services.”

She added: “Change is needed because people are dying attempting to come to the UK on illegal and dangerous routes.“

But responding, Labour’s shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper labelled the plan “unworkable”.

Cooper then added: ”When Israel tried paying Rwanda to take refugees and asylum seekers a few years ago independent reports show it increased  people smuggling and increased the actions of criminal gangs.“

In 2014, Benjamin Netanyahu – then Israel’s PM – had attempted sending refugees to Rwanda.

Several thousand people were sent to Rwanda and Uganda under a contentious and secretive “voluntary” scheme between 2014 and 2017. Few are believed to have remained there, with many trying to reach Europe.

After a legal challenge, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in August 2017 that refugees who refused to leave could not be imprisoned indefinitely and that those who went to Rwanda had to go willingly. Netanyahu then agreed with Rwanda to accept unwilling refugees for high payments, meaning Israeli taxpayers were paying an extortionate sum for a failed policy

Later in an often stormy Commons debate on Tuesday, Patel was again asked by Labour MP Tony Lloyd if she had looked at Israel’s experience of using Rwanda to help ease its own asylum issues.

A policy the MP said Israel later “abandoned.”

Patel said the government’s plans were “not comparable” and were “a different partnership.”

In a significant intervention, former Prime Minister and Home Secretary Theresa May said: ”I do not support the removal to Rwanda policy, on the grounds of legality, practicality and efficacy.“

May also added: ” But I want to ask her about one very specific issue. I understand that those who will be removed will only be young men … If it is the case that families will not be broken up – and the home secretary is nodding – does she not believe, and where is her evidence, that this will not simply lead to an increase in the trafficking of women and children?“