Migration and Economic Development Partnership

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the UK’s migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda.

This Government fundamentally believe that it is only by removing the incentive for people to take dangerous and unnecessary journeys that we will stop the boats and end the vicious cycle of people smuggling on to UK shores. That is why my right honourable friend the Member for Witham signed our ground-breaking migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda in April last year. That agreement allows individuals who arrive in the UK through dangerous, unnecessary and illegal routes to be relocated to Rwanda for the consideration of their asylum claims and to build a new life there.

I visited Kigali in March, meeting with Rwanda’s President and Foreign Minister and signing an update to our memorandum of understanding that would bring it in line with our Illegal Migration Bill. Rwanda has reiterated its commitment and capacity to receive thousands of individuals, process their claims and provide them with excellent care before they are transitioned to longer-term accommodation, with all the necessary support and services.

That is why, under the terms of that agreement, we attempted our first relocation flight to Rwanda—to demonstrate that if you come here illegally, you will be removed to a safe third country for your claim to be processed. We did so under a far-reaching and innovative agreement with Rwanda, a country where the UNHCR itself operates an emergency transit scheme for migrants from Libya and with which we have a robust agreement to protect asylum seekers from risk of harm. That first relocation flight was unfortunately frustrated by last-minute measures from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which had the effect of pausing flights while our domestic legal proceedings are ongoing.

In December, the High Court comprehensively upheld the lawfulness of the partnership, confirming that Rwanda was a safe country. That judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which heard the appeal in April and handed down its judgment earlier today. I respect the court and welcome the fact that it unanimously found in the Government’s favour on the vast majority of the appeals brought against the policy.

Unanimously, the Court of Appeal confirmed that removing asylum seekers to a safe country is entirely consistent with the refugee convention, including Article 31. Indeed, the court found that it is lawful in principle for the Government to relocate people who come to the UK illegally to a safe third country; that the Government can designate countries as safe; and that our processes for determining eligibility for relocation were fair.

Unfortunately, two of the judges were of the view that there were deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system that risked there being a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR. Importantly, their concerns were not that conditions for individuals while in Rwanda would be unsafe but that there was a possibility that they could be returned to other countries from Rwanda where they may suffer ill-treatment. It is therefore simply incorrect to say that the court has found that conditions in Rwanda make it unsafe for individuals there. The Court of Appeal has merely ruled that there is a risk of refoulement from Rwanda to other countries.

The Lord Chief Justice took a different view. Agreeing with the High Court, he held that there was no real risk of individuals being sent to unsafe countries. He cited the strong assurances given by the Rwandan Government, the fact that Rwanda does not have returns agreements with those countries and the powerful protections provided by monitoring arrangements that would be in place.

The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country for the purposes of asylum relocation is reversed. We have a strong relationship with Rwanda and both sides remain committed to the policy. Rwanda is a signatory to the United Nations conventions and has a strong track record of supporting refugees—including for the UNHCR.

This is a disappointing judgment, and we will seek permission to appeal it. We hope that the process can be swift. I am glad that the Court of Appeal has recognised, in paragraph 16 of its summary of the judgment, that it is important that consideration of this should be timely. It is a disappointing judgment for the majority of the British public that has repeatedly voted for controlled migration; and for all those who want to see us deliver on our moral and democratic imperative to stop the boats.

I am sure that all Members of this House would agree that the British public are compassionate, reasonable and fair minded. Since 2015, they have welcomed half a million people in need from all over the world via our global safe and legal routes, as well as via our country-specific routes encompassing Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Syria.

But they are not naive. While our compassion to help people may be infinite, the public understand that our capacity to do so is finite and therefore precious. The British people will no longer indulge the polite fiction that we have a duty or infinite capacity to support everyone in the world who is fleeing persecution, nor anyone who would simply like to come here to improve their lot and succeeds in making it to our shores.

That abuse is unfair on local communities forced to absorb thousands of illegal arrivals and the pressure on public services and social cohesion that this entails. It is unfair on taxpayers who foot the hotel bill currently running to £6 million a day—that could rise to £32 million a day by 2026—for people who have broken into this country. It is unfair on those who play by the rules and who want to see an asylum system that is fit for purpose that our current system is exploited and turned against us by those with no right to be in the UK to thwart their removal. It is unfair on those most in need of protection—in particular women, children and those without the money to pay people smugglers—that our asylum system is overwhelmed by fit young men who have paid criminals thousands of pounds to smuggle them into the UK. It is unfair on people and our partners in the developing world that we in the West continue to maintain an asylum system so open to abuse that it incentivises mass flows of economic migration into Europe, lining the pockets of people smugglers and turning our seas into graveyards, all in the name of a phony humanitarianism.

This is madness. It must end. That is why we on this side of the House are committed to doing whatever it takes to stop the boats. The Government remain resolute that we will do exactly that, in partnership with Rwanda, and through changes to our law. That is the only way we will break the business model of the people smugglers, save lives and stop the boats. I commend this Statement to the House.”

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement made earlier today.

We have said throughout the discussions on the Illegal Migration Bill that the Government need to accept reality. The Bill ignores many of our international obligations, abandons many of our long-held traditions and principles, and is unworkable. The costs are enormous and growing, stretching into the billions of pounds, and are based on a theory of deterrence that even its own impact statement, published at last on Monday this week, says may not work.

Of course there is a problem that needs dealing with. We have said that should be done by speeding up decision-making, clearing the asylum backlog, getting proper international agreements, including returns agreements, and tackling the problem at source and cracking down on the criminal gangs. But the Government seem to say that we just have to carry on—an “It will be all right on the night” approach, flying in the face of reality, the evidence and the facts.

The number of people crossing the channel in small boats in June 2023 is already more than crossed in June 2022, despite the fact that measures in the Bill apply to them because of its retrospective start date. Then we have today’s Court of Appeal judgment, which shows that the Government’s Rwanda policy regarding small boats is unravelling before our own eyes. There is chaos regarding small boats, and one of its main policy planks is falling apart.

What are the Government going to do? What are the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment for the Illegal Migration Bill? What are the Government going to do in light of that decision that the Rwanda policy is unlawful? It cannot just be wished away, can it? Will they bring forward amendments? What does it actually mean for those to be detained under the Bill? Is it not now even more unworkable, as detained asylum seekers are supposed to be sent to Rwanda or to other safe countries but, as I say, will be left in limbo. Ministers were forced to admit this week that it will cost up to £169,000 to send each person to Rwanda, on top of the £140 million already spent. Now this judgment has said that Ministers did not even do the basic work to make sure that the scheme was either legal or safe. Why not?

As we have learned, the Government are to appeal, and the Home Secretary has said that we need to deal with the challenge of small boats. I repeat that we all agree with that, but it has to be done lawfully. Does the Minister agree with that statement? If he does, are the Government still prepared to deliver their policy based on the assumption that they will be able to do so? In other words, if they receive permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and the decision of the Court of Appeal is upheld, what then? Is there a plan B, and what changes are the Government proposing to take account of today’s ruling? As one of the judges said:

“Our conclusion on the safety of Rwanda issue means that the Rwanda policy must be declared unlawful”.


How on earth has it come to this? Appeal and carry on regardless—is that the Minister’s policy?

Is it not the stark reality that carrying on regardless will mean a huge backlog of people on top of those we have already, as I said, left in limbo? Thousands upon thousands will be waiting to be deported in detention centres or other government accommodation, such as military camps, barges, ex-liners or even, as we have read this week, big marquees. Time and again Ministers have chased headlines and slogans instead of getting a grip in the way that I outlined earlier.

The Court of Appeal judgment today is just the latest blow. The Rwanda scheme is unworkable, unethical and extortionate. It is a costly diversion from the urgent action the Government should be taking to deal with this issue. As my noble friend Lady Hayter’s International Agreements Committee said, much of this could have been avoided if it had been done by a treaty not a memorandum of understanding.

Finally, does the Minister, as a barrister, agree with me that we must have no talk—as I expect we are bound to hear—that judges are the enemies of the people or that the Government are being thwarted by trendy lawyers or tofu-eaters? We all want the challenge of the boats dealt with, but done so practically and lawfully. That is not too much to ask, is it?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid that however eloquent the address and questions of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the reality is that the Labour Party still has no answer to the difficulty of the boats crossing the channel. The five-point plan that the Labour Party propose would not stop people crossing the channel.

The programme set out in the Illegal Migration Bill will continue—I reassure the noble Lord that we are 100% behind the Bill. The decision of the Court of Appeal was not that the procedure in the Bill was unlawful; the very opposite is the case. The Court of Appeal has endorsed the key principle of the scheme: that a signatory of the refugee convention can remove people to a safe third country for the determination of their asylum claims.

The only point on which the Court of Appeal found against the Government was on whether Rwanda would be a safe country. Even that, of itself, was not a finding that Rwanda was unsafe for refugees; it was a finding that there was a potential risk that Rwanda would allow those refugees to be returned to their original country, and even that decision was disagreed with by the Lord Chief Justice himself. I suggest that this is no indication that this scheme is unlawful in itself. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government will very much be continuing with the Bill.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, does not the fact that the Appeal Court has disagreed with the High Court, and within the Appeal Court the Chief Justice has disagreed with two of his colleagues, illustrate that essentially we have handed over to the judiciary subjective political decisions? I submit that that is bad for the judiciary and a derogation of the obligations of this Parliament. I appreciate that the Minister cannot suggest any change in that legal status from his position at the Dispatch Box, but will he recognise that there will be growing calls, not just from me, for Parliament to take back the right to make these decisions and relieve the judiciary of an unwelcome role which politicises it?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. As the Lord Chief Justice made clear in his summary of the judgment which he gave earlier today, the decision taken by the court was founded on a perception of a possible breach of Article 3 of the European convention. Under the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998, that meant that the decision was unlawful. It is unquestionably right that that was the basis for the Court of Appeal’s decision today. Be that as it may, the point remains that even that thin basis for the decision was made by only two of the three judges. For that reason, it is entirely appropriate that the Government appeal the decision.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no desire to relitigate the Court of Appeal here today, not least because of the late night that the Minister had again last night, and there are no doubt more to come. I am grateful to him for repeating the Statement, and I am relieved that it is relatively mild and respectful of the court, which I think is appropriate. The words “respect the court” are even used in the Statement. However, we then have the Home Secretary taking to the airwaves and suggesting that our judicial system is somehow rigged against the British people. Is that really helpful to the rule of law in our country? How can any youngster on any council estate learn to respect the local magistrate if senior Cabinet Ministers will not respect the Court of Appeal?

I agree with the noble Lord that you win some and you lose some. Welcome to being a Home Office Minister. The Government have won in the High Court and lost in a majority decision in the Court of Appeal. No doubt, the Government will appeal to the Supreme Court, but no doubt, the appellants will cross-appeal on the matters that the Minister is happy with. In the meantime, shall we leave the referees alone and maintain respect, at least in this House? I suggest this to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. Shall we still maintain a modicum of respect for the rule of law that is a precursor even to democracy, let alone civilisation itself?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid I disagree with the noble Baroness. The Home Secretary certainly has the greatest respect for the judicial system, as you would expect of a former Attorney-General. All she observed is that the legislation under which the decision was made is a topic of legitimate comment and she is entitled to reach a different view. Just because the Government appeal against a decision does not mean there is an attack on what the noble Baroness calls the rule of law. In this case, as the noble Baroness rightly observes, you win some and you lose some. The Government are confident that at the end of the day the correct decision will be reached.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Statement refers to public opinion, and I am sure the Minister is aware that polls show that the public is very strongly of the view that the Government will never send any refugees to Rwanda. More than that, a YouGov poll found that 58% of the public believe that Ministers should arrange safe and orderly routes for refugees to be able to come to the UK. Should the Government not stop pursuing this obviously failed and unworkable policy and follow public opinion by arranging those safe and orderly routes? Is that not the way to stop the boats?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

This Government already have a very considerable number of safe and legal routes. I need only remind the noble Baroness that we have had more than half a million people arriving on safe and legal routes in the past five years. We are one of the most generous countries in the world. The noble Baroness and those who sit on the Benches opposite never adequately explain why it is said that more safe and legal routes would stop people crossing the channel. The point is, as even the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury accepted, that if you impose a cap, the people who want to come here who are not accepted via a safe and legal route will simply take to the boats. It is no answer to say that safe and legal routes will stop the dangerous channel crossings. Our imperative is to save lives.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for taking the time. I cannot imagine that anyone in this House likes the Rwanda scheme from first principles. It is cumbersome, it is expensive. I have listened to a lot of the criticism from various Benches, and a lot of it hit home, but what I have not heard is a credible alternative. We are in this situation because there has been this steady policy of overturning every deportation order from the Bench. We have therefore run out of alternatives. Will the Minister tell me what kind of legal changes might be necessary in order to ensure that we get the policy that was promised and whether those changes will include looking again at some of the international associations and agreements into which we have entered?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. He is absolutely right: we realised that, unfortunately, institutional changes were required. That is why we brought forward the innovative scheme set out in the Illegal Migration Bill. The changes brought forward by that Bill will ensure that a removal system that acts as an effective deterrent to illegal entrants will be fully operational and stop the dangerous channel crossings. My noble friend is entirely right to highlight that, to date, it has been all too easy for removals of those who should not be in our country to be thwarted—not least, I regret to say, by the activities of representations at the last minute relating to foreign national offenders, for example, from Members of the other place sitting on the Opposition Benches.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak as there is still time. The Minister mentioned foreign national offenders. Was today really the appropriate day to slip out the really rather damning report from the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration into the handling—or non-handling—of the removal of foreign national offenders, who can in law be removed from United Kingdom? It seems that that has been slipped out on Rwanda day. It is a pretty damning report. I have not had time to read it properly yet. Can the Minister promise that it was just a total coincidence that the report was slipped out today? Will he and his colleagues make sure that noble Lords have the opportunity to debate that report into the failure on data and casework and this being no way to run a department? We should remember that these people that the Home Office is not getting a grip on are not asylum seekers and refugees but foreign national offenders. Can we have the opportunity in due course to debate that matter?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Baroness amply demonstrates the problem identified by my noble friend a moment ago: the difficulty with removing people is the overenthusiasm of our overdefensive decision-making, which frustrates removal in all too many cases. It is not helped by the fact that regular representations have been made to prevent the deportation of foreign national offenders by Members of the opposition parties. The Bill will address the problems that surround the removal of those who should not be in our country. I should add that among that cohort of foreign national offenders are those who have entered the country illegally and those who have claimed asylum. So, the noble Baroness cannot draw a clear distinction between foreign national offenders, asylum seekers and those who enter the country illegally.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I follow on from the noble Baroness’s question. Like her, I am afraid that I have not had time to read the full report, but some reports around it stress that there are huge problems with the management and reporting of data, the Home Office’s inability to provide reliable and consistent data, and management of information of particular concern. Can the Minister say that there are plans in place in the Home Office to improve the clear problem with its procedures?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Obviously, this is a Statement on the Rwanda judgment, but I reassure the noble Baroness that, in general principle, the Home Office is always evolving and studying its processes in relation to removals—needless to say, all the more so because preparations to operationalise the scheme in the Bill will involve consideration of these issues, as the noble Baroness would expect. I reassure her that all recommendations made by the independent inspector are taken very seriously, and the vast majority are in fact adopted by the department.

House adjourned at 6.49 pm.