The scene on the French beach was chaotic. As a group of young men dragged an inflatable boat towards the sea, scores of would-be migrants ran towards it. Though police tried to intercept them, people clambered aboard until it was dangerously overloaded. But for some, the end had already arrived.   

As the boat headed for England, five bodies were found - one of them a child's. Two had drowned, while three appeared to have been trampled to death.

This happened on Monday night, just as Britain's Rwanda bill finally passed into law. According to the bill's supporters, the tragedy showed exactly why such measures were needed.

The Rwanda scheme was introduced two years ago. The idea was that asylum seekers and illegal immigrants arriving in Britain would be sent to the African country for their cases to be considered. But even those granted asylum would have to stay in Rwanda.

The government argued that if migrants knew that they might end up in Africa rather than Britain, they would not risk their lives trying to cross the Channel in small boats. People smugglers would lose their customers and their evil trade would come to a halt.

From the start, the plan faced legal challenges. Sending asylum seekers to another country was seen as an abrogationThe repeal or abolition of a law. of Britain's international responsibilities. The fact that Rwanda is a dictatorship, seemingly with little regard for human rights, made the situation even worse.

Under international law, people cannot be deported to countries where they will be at risk. At the end of last year, Britain's Supreme Court ruled that the scheme was illegal because Rwanda could not be trusted to treat migrants humanely.

To get around this, the government introduced a bill which ruled that Rwanda was a safe country, whatever anybody said. This is the bill that has just been passed, despite repeated rejections by the House of Lords.

According to one peer, Lord Anderson:¹ "The benefits of the Rwanda bill remain to be seen. Its costs will be measured not only in money but in principles debasedReduced in value or quality....

"Parliament is asked to declare that Rwanda will always be a safe country... we are asked to be complicit in a present-day untruth and a future fantasy... The Rwanda bill is a legal fiction that makes the law look like an ass, and those who make it, asses."

Is this a shameful moment in British history?

Yes: Britain has a responsibility to look after persecuted people. The bill defies both British and international law and is complete nonsense: you cannot make a country safe simply by saying that it is.

No: Illegal migration is a huge problem which requires radical solutions, and the bill will deter people smuggling. In 200 years people will realise that the Rwanda scheme was the obvious one to adopt.

Or... Britain is trashing its reputation for a scheme which will probably fail. Migrants who are prepared to risk their lives are not going to be put off; only a few will be deported, at enormous cost.  

Abrogation - The repeal or abolition of a law.

Debased - Reduced in value or quality.