Immigration has long been a toxic political issue. Recently, the rise of the National Front, and then the BNP, was mirrored across Europe. Today, in the UK, we have further controversy, this time over the Nationality and Borders Bill, currently facing deadlock between the Commons and the Lords.

Two related elements are creating the current conflict. Firstly, the change in definition of those entitled to even claim asylum. Under Government plans, only those with appropriate papers would be eligible. The second is the notion of transferring all those who do not have the right documentation to Rwanda. This small African country was caught up in a horrendous genocide in 1994. Successful claimants would, bizarrely, not be returned to the UK, but would be offered asylum in Rwanda.

At PMQs this week, Boris Johnson prayed-in-aid a statement allegedly made by me in 2004. Actually, it was 2003 when, in referring to an EU summit on a combined approach to asylum, I said: “We had a serious discussion of the challenges we all face in finding a 21st-century solution to asylum issues.” The question then, and now, is: What are we seeking to achieve? Is it reducing asylum claims, or stopping people from being exploited by criminals and taking dangerous routes to arrive in the UK?

We risk an even worse situation, as people making it to our shores disappear and become genuine illegal migrants. Why wouldn’t they, if faced with the option of spending the rest of their lives in Rwanda?

As Home Secretary, I examined every option, looking at our obligations under the Refugee Convention, the costs and practicalities. Let me be clear, there is still a problem. Those who once came in lorries, hanging under train carriages or secreting themselves in the car boots of unwitting tourists now take small boats on the perilous Channel crossing. This is where I agree with Priti Patel. We need to break the “business model” of organised criminals. We need collaboration across Europe through policing and the security services. It is the criminal gangs we should punish, not those seeking asylum.

One reason we are in this situation is that between 2013 and the start of 2020, the number of failed asylum seekers returned to their home country halved. But what we need now is consensus. A cross-party approach not only to send the necessary signals to criminals and would-be victims, but to develop long-term policies that, over time, would have some chance of working.

Of course, there are votes in tough policies on immigration and asylum. But, contrary to his allusions, the policy that Johnson referred to on Wednesday was very different. We had no proposal for a two-tier asylum system. But there was a belief that we should be dealing with asylum claims at the point where conflict and oppression have driven people out of their homeland. We did this with the UNHCR Gateway programme with Liberia. Claims were processed at refugee centres, and we agreed, with UNHCR, to take those with a legitimate claim. The Government today has “Resettlement Programmes” which, if operated effectively, would mirror our Gateway programme.

I acknowledge that the UK has played its part – providing resources for those who fled from Syria into neighbouring countries; we have, somewhat shambolically, helped those fleeing the Taliban, and the nation has embraced those fleeing the conflict in Ukraine. It is in this spirit that I appeal to Johnson and Patel to work out policies that would achieve the stated goal without abandoning our historic humanitarian role, adherence to international convention and legal obligations, and to avoid staggering into deeply controversial policies, which I honestly believe will never work.

Instead, working with the French, we can cut out the means by which people are crossing the Channel. Preventing access to small boats is the first imperative. Offering safe routes, such as the Gateway programme, is the corollary. Tough, sensible and humane: all three can, and must, go together.