Boris Johnson has defended the government’s plans to electronically label some asylum seekers arriving in the UK in small boats or trucks.
The Home Office is launching a 12-month pilot plan to determine whether this is an effective way to “improve and maintain contact” with complainants.
The documents also suggest that the government wants to get data on how often asylum seekers flee.
Activists have called the measures “draconian”, which could affect refugees crossing the Canal.
But the prime minister said it was essential that people could not simply “disappear” into the rest of the country.
“This is a very, very generous host country. Very successful too. I’m proud of that, but when people come here illegally, when they break the law, it’s important that we make that distinction,” he told the RAF. Brize Norton after returning from a trip to Kyiv.
“This is what we are doing with our Rwandan policy. This is what we are doing to make sure that asylum seekers cannot disappear in the rest of the country.”
Learn more about Migrant Crossings
It comes days after the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg issued a precautionary measure that stopped the deportation of asylum seekers from the United Kingdom to Rwanda.
The flight was scheduled to depart last Tuesday.
Rwanda’s policy to move forward
The prime minister also said the government would continue its policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, saying it was legal.
“All the courts in this country said there was no obstacle they could see. No court in this country declared the policy illegal, which was very, very encouraging,” he said.
“There was this weird last minute hiccup we had with Strasbourg. Let’s see where we get to with this.”
He added: “We are very confident in the legality of what we are doing and we will follow the policy.”
Read more: What is the European Court of Human Rights?
“Absolutely Outrageous”
Priti Patel described the landing of this first flight as an “absolutely outrageous” measure.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the interior minister promised to “find ways to overturn” the decision.
She said: “It could be argued that we have been a soft touch, and I think we have been frankly, in part because of our EU membership.
“You have to look at the motivation. How and why did they make that decision? Was it for political reasons? I think it is, absolutely.
“The opaque manner of this court is absolutely outrageous. That must be questioned.
“We don’t know who the judges are, we don’t know who the court is, we haven’t actually had a trial, just a press release and a letter saying we can’t move that person under Rule 39.
“They have not used this ruling before, which calls into question the motivation and lack of transparency.”
What is the ECHR?
The European Court of Human Rights is a Council of Europe court and has nothing to do with the European Union.
It ensures that council member states, such as the United Kingdom, respect the rights and guarantees set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The flight came to a halt after an ECHR intervention brought new challenges to the courts in the United Kingdom.
It was understood that the ECHR had granted an urgent interim measure blocking the deportation of an Iraqi detainee.
This ruling allowed the lawyers of the other six people who were to be on the flight to file successful last-minute applications.
Will the UK abandon the ECHR?
The Daily Telegraph claimed that Ms Patel’s allegations that the ECHR was “opaque” indicated her desire to leave its jurisdiction.
English judges at the Court of Appeal ruled on Monday that the robbery could continue after a legal challenge by activists who say the plan was inhumane.
Ministers have defended the policy, saying it is necessary to stop the illegal trafficking of people in small boats across the Canal.
The ECHR ruling called for some Conservative MPs to remove the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights, on which the court ruled.
Use the Chrome browser to get a more accessible video player
5:28 Patel accused of “trick” of Rwanda
Justice Secretary Dominic Raab has suggested that the UK stay within the convention, but new laws could ensure that the Strasbourg court’s interim measures can be ignored by the government.
The United Kingdom has continued to be a signatory to the ECHR, which upholds human rights obligations under international treaties, such as the Good Friday Agreement and the Brexit agreement.