Rebecca McQuillan: Britain will be judged now by how much it does to save Afghans

And there are already reports of women being prevented from working or studying. They fear their rights are leaching away and the appalling abuse they once faced is about to be unleashed once again.

The desperate plight of the Afghan people was the dominant theme of the agonised eight-hour debate in the House of Commons on Afghanistan. Britain’s role in the events that led to such a horrifying denouement raised a painful question, namely: what does Britain stand for, if we allow this to happen?

READ MORE: Time to end child marriage

The UK’s disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan brought forth cold fury on the green benches, some of the strongest criticism coming from the government’s own side. Former military personnel like Tom Tugendhat and Tobias Ellwood did not hide their disdain. MPs were scathing about the US president but were not inclined to buy the line that the UK did all it could in the wake of America’s decision to leave.

Britain knew what was coming for 18 months and the lack of planning – for instance, to get the vulnerable out – was unforgivable. The government had badly miscalculated the speed at which the Taliban would take over. It could have done more, with allies, to keep the Taliban at bay, to help the desperate population and to uphold the gains made through so much sacrifice, argued MP after MP.

The Home Secretary Priti Patel has announced that 20,000 Afghans will be brought to the UK over five years in a programme mirroring the Syrian resettlement scheme. This is in addition to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) launched in April to get interpreters and others who worked for the UK out of Afghanistan, though only 2000 of the 5000 target for this year have so far been resettled and there must be a question mark now over the ability of the others to leave.

READ MORE: Brexit-indy crossover

But the new resettlement scheme is being bolted onto a British immigration policy that is bristling with belligerent new defences. For years, the government’s antipathy to immigration has been palpable. Its habit has been to lump together everyone, including refugees, as “migrants”, and to paint migration as a threat. Priti Patel has built upon Theresa May’s “hostile environment”, calling on the Royal Navy last summer to block the supposed menace of men, women and children in dinghies and appointing a so-called “Channel threat commander” to tackle “illegals”.

Such language plays well with certain new Tory voters upon whom the government now heavily relies.

But the Afghanistan crisis exposes just how woefully inadequate and damaging that narrative it is. “Migrants” are very often refugees. “Migrants” are people like the Afghan interpreters who regarded British soldiers as their brothers and now fear summary execution at the hands of the Taliban. “Migrants” are people like their spouses and children, who face an unknown fate. “Migrants” could be Afghan aid workers. "Migrants” could be women who fear reprisals for taking advantage of the opportunities the British and American-backed regime gave them to learn and to work.

If these people get out of Afghanistan and come to Britain by unofficial means, as desperate people do, are we to intimidate them with the Royal Navy?

Is that what Britain stands for?

Resettling a further 20,000 Afghans is a lot better than nothing, but the sad inadequacies of the scheme have been pitilessly exposed by critics. Only 5000 will come in the first year. How does an application-based five-year scheme with constricted qualifying criteria, help those fearing violent reprisals right now?

The resettlement scheme model is designed to bring people to Britain from refugee communities in safe third countries, not those facing imminent danger. Are we to believe that the Taliban will allow those who helped the British military to sit tight until next year and then send them merrily on their way to the UK? Labour MP Chris Bryant put it starkly when he asked what they were to do: “Hang around and wait to be executed?”

Those that can flee will try to get to Europe by any means possible. But the government is in the process of making it an offence to arrive in Britain without permission – by irregular means – in order to claim asylum and Ms Patel has hinted that Afghans coming to the UK this way will not be treated as exceptions.

Is that now the British way?

And where does the 20,000 figure come from? Is it based on assessing those at risk, the prime minister was asked by Keir Starmer, or is it just an arbitrary figure? A scheme is needed that meets the scale of the enormous challenge, he said.

(Perhaps, he might have added, it was just the minimum the government thought it could get away with.)

Given Britain’s part in the crisis that is unfolding, “we should take anyone who can make a case,” as Theresa May’s former deputy, Damian Green, put it.

But the government has seemed reluctant to do so. It has created an immigration system that it designed to repel, and in spite of the crying need in Afghanistan, has seemed intent on applying its rules. Some scholars and interpreters were reportedly being denied visas very recently and those employed indirectly by British forces or the British embassy are not eligible.

Britain’s history as a sanctuary, for instance for Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, is a matter of pride, across the liberal-conservative divide. As Wednesday’s debate made clear, there are many Conservatives as well as Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs who are desperate to rescue as many Afghans as possible. And it’s not just MPs, for many Tory voters in post-Brexit Britain, their patriotism draws heavily on such totems of British righteousness.

This is Britain. We do everything we can to help the vulnerable in their hour of greatest need.

Don’t we?

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.