As the full details emerged of the Government’s plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda the chorus of denunciation grew shriller. Opposition parties and campaigners called the policy “inhumane”, “chilling” and even “evil” as though the current regime for processing migrants could possibly be considered a paragon of compassion. More guff is talked about this issue than any other. As it currently operates, the system is a lottery that rewards those willing to pay people traffickers substantial amounts to bring them to Britain, often by the most risky means imaginable.

It is said to be common political ground that there should be controls on economic migration, for which legal routes are available, while those fleeing persecution can obtain asylum.

The issue, as it has always been, is distinguishing between genuine refugees and migrants trying to get to the UK where they hope a better life is on offer. Most are arriving from France, which is a safe country, and will have passed through two or more other EU member states en route to the Channel.

The ambition is not to seek sanctuary, since that was already available, but specifically to settle in Britain if possible. There are a variety of well-rehearsed reasons for this, including facility with the language, possible family connections already established here and access to welfare.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue that anyone who makes it to these shores by whatever means should be allowed to stay, but that is not what the Labour Party believes. It talks about the need for immigration control yet refuses to commit to anything practical to make it a reality.

Sir Keir Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, has the luxury of being able to throw brickbats at the Government; but if he is to be taken seriously as a potential prime minister he needs to recognise that you have to make tough decisions. When in office under Tony Blair, Labour had to grapple with this difficult problem and its approach was also condemned by the human rights lobby.

The likelihood must be that this plan will struggle to get off the ground in the teeth of legal challenges and a cynic might think that the optics matter more to the Government than any practical outcome. Boris Johnson and Priti Patel will at least be able to say they tried to do something. But what is Labour proposing as an alternative to control illegal immigration in a “humane” way?