Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office
Tuesday 20th December 2022

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I have already noted to the House, there is no in principle position that children may not be removed under the scheme; it is simply not presently the intention of the Government to do so. As I made clear only recently at Questions, age assessment is something that the department is looking at very closely in light of the new provisions under the Nationality and Borders Act. As the noble Baroness will be aware, since 2016, in half of the cases where age was disputed, the age was ultimately found to be over 18, so we have to be very careful about people who maintain that they are children. Of course, it is very important that those under 18 are carefully protected from those who claim to be under 18 but are not. As I say, it is the intention of the Government to remove families at a point in future when the Rwanda scheme is ready for that purpose.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Portrait Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this Statement could have been written by Dr Pangloss? I pray in aid the paragraph which says that:

“Being relocated to Rwanda is not a punishment but an innovative way of addressing a major problem to redress the imbalance between illegal and legal migration routes.”


No one has asked a potential migrant whether they think it is not a punishment. I would be very surprised indeed if those faced with such a decision did not take exactly the view that it is. It is true that the Court of Appeal has held that the scheme is legal, but I doubt very much that the legal consideration of this proposal will rest with the Court of Appeal. Finally, the Government seem to say that it is not only legal but moral. We all have to define our own moral compass; I have to tell the Minister that I do not define mine in any way that supports this Government or this proposal.

Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I reassure the noble Lord that it is not a punishment. The purpose of the policy is to remove the incentive to make dangerous and illegal journeys into this country, under the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, whom I hope will forgive me. I must have been focusing so intently on his question about costs that I did not hear this. My apologies. The court considered all the allegations made by the UNHCR and the parties in the litigation concerning the safety of Rwanda and concluded that the Secretary of State was correct that Rwanda was a safe country, including for LGBT people.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Portrait Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
- Hansard - -

That is not an answer.

Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

With respect, I think that it is an answer, so there it is.