Michael Settle: 'Rot in hell' Summer heat fires up Westminster

Passions will run high. Very high.

Indeed, there has already been a political prelude with James Dornan, the SNP’s MSP for Glasgow Cathcart, unleashing his emotions towards Jacob Rees-Mogg after the Commons Leader declared in an alliterative tweet: “The bands of blighters bringing illegal entrants to Blighty will be broken up by this brilliant borders bill.”

In his response, Mr Dornan did not mince his words, saying Mr Rees-Mogg and his cronies were responsible for the deaths of thousands, adding: “If your god exists, you will undoubtedly rot in hell.”

Conservative colleagues of the North East Somerset MP were outraged, branding the SNP MSP’s words “poisonous and beyond the pale”. Mr Dornan, who is not unaccustomed to making controversial remarks, has been reported to the Standards Commission for Scotland, the watchdog for ethical standards in public life.

His party, however, preferred not to criticise its Nationalist colleague but focus on the Conservative legislation, branding it “offensive” and “callous”.

The bill’s context is one of rising numbers of asylum-seekers over recent years, only halted in the past 18 months by the spread of the coronavirus and the restrictions placed on travel.

This has meant people seeking refuge haven taken to small boats rather than big planes. Last year as Covid struck, at least 8,400 people took the risk of crossing the waters of the English Channel.

By last month, the numbers had hit record levels with almost 6,000 asylum-seekers having braved the often perilous strait. If this rate continues, then by December 2021 12,000 people will have made the 21-mile journey from the continent in often nothing more than a dinghy; that’s 1,000 a month.

Across Europe, the peak was reached in 2015 when a staggering 1.3 million people sought asylum. Last year, due to Covid and the travel restrictions, the number was down to around 470,000; a sizeable drop but still amounting to more than 1,300 refugees every day.

Syrians, Afghans and Venezuelans form the highest proportions with Germany, Spain and Italy being among the most popular destinations.

In Britain last year, 29% of asylum-seekers came from the Middle East, 28% from Africa, 23% from Asia and 13% from Europe.

In the last seven years, the total asylum caseload in this country has doubled in size; driven by applicants waiting longer for an initial decision and a growth in the number of people subject to removal action following a negative ruling.

As of this March, the total number of pending asylum applications was 109,000; these included 52,000 cases awaiting an initial decision, 5,000 the outcome of an appeal and 42,000 removal.

Between 2004 and 2019, around three-quarters of applicants, refused asylum at initial decision, lodged an appeal and almost one third were allowed.

Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, used a Brexit theme to defend the legislation, saying how it would deliver what the British people had voted for: taking back control of the UK’s border.

“For too long,” she declared, “our broken asylum system has lined the pockets of the vile criminal gangs who cheat the system. This isn’t fair to the vulnerable people who need protection or the British public who pay for it. It’s time to act.”

She added the bill “paves the way for a fair but firm system that will break the business model of the gangs that facilitate dangerous and illegal journeys to the UK while speeding up the removal of those with no right to be here”.

Among other things, the legislation will enable the authorities to remove asylum seekers to offshore centres while their claims or appeals are processed. Suggested potential destinations for this off-shoring include disused ferries, abandoned oil rigs and even Rwanda or Ascension Island in the south Atlantic.

Border Force officers could use “reasonable force, if necessary” and intervene at sea to tackle people-smugglers, turning migrant boats away from the UK although they would need agreement from other countries to push them back into foreign waters.

People-smuggling would attract tougher sentencing, up to life imprisonment, and there is the prospect of up to four years in jail for those “arriving in the UK without a valid entry clearance”.

However, within two days of last week’s unveiling of the bill, Ms Patel suffered a rather embarrassing rebuff from England’s Crown Prosecution Service no less, which made clear it would no longer prosecute refugees, who were not involved in any criminal activity other than simply entering Britain illegally.

It explained how asylum-seekers “often have no choice in how they travel and face exploitation by organised crime groups…[They] should instead be dealt with by administrative removal channels”. A penny for Ms Patel’s thoughts.

Earlier this year 31-year-old migrant Fouad Kakaei, who was fleeing persecution in Iran and had helped pilot a packed dinghy across the Channel, had his conviction for breaching immigration law quashed.

Critics of the legislation have dubbed it the “anti-refugee bill,” claiming the Government is trying to criminalise asylum-seekers.

Amnesty International UK branded it “legislative vandalism”, saying it could “fatally undermine the right to asylum” and would “bring shame on Britain’s international reputation”.

Freedom from Torture said the bill was “dripping with cruelty” while Refugee Action described it as “extreme and nasty,” adding: “Seventy years ago, British people were helping draft the first Refugee Convention; today, our ministers plan to tear it up.”

The UN’s refugee agency likened some proposals to an “almost neo-colonial approach” with an aim to “shift burden” rather than share responsibility for providing support to asylum-seekers.

Expect the Commons debate to hear references to “hostile environment” and the “nasty party” while Ms Patel and her colleagues will insist compassion has to sit alongside toughness and control.

As Freedom Day arrives a deal of summer heat will finally descend on Westminster.