22
Examination of witnesses
Michael Tomlinson KC, Joanna Rowland and Simon Ridley.
Q145 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to today’s meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We are a cross-party committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and a Joint Committee of both. Today we are taking evidence from Michael Tomlinson, the Minister of State for Countering Illegal Migration. This is the concluding part of our inquiry into the human rights of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. We are grateful to the Minister and his two officials—Simon Ridley, Second Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, and Joanna Rowland, director-general of the Customer Services Group at the Home Office—for joining us.
Our questioning today will focus on key issues such as the UK-Rwanda partnership, the provision of accommodation to asylum seekers, and the placing of unaccompanied children in asylum hotels. We only have an hour due to timetable constraints today, Minister, so if we do not cover all the ground that we are hoping to cover, we might follow up with written questions at the end of the session. I hope that will be all right.
Michael Tomlinson MP: I will do my best to answer them in writing as well, if not better than I might have done in person.
Q146 Chair: Excellent. Thanks very much. Minister, can I ask you to give us an overview of the role human rights play in the formulation, delivery, and monitoring of the United Kingdom’s asylum policy?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Perhaps I may start by thanking you for extending a warm welcome to me and my officials from the Home Office. I understand the time constraints that you are under, so I hope to strike the right balance between giving sufficient detail and not giving too lengthy an answer.
Let me answer your question in a very straightforward way. In my view, the Government and the Home Office treat this in the same way any other department would in relation to human rights. It is important, of course it is: we are dealing with human beings, and every day when I wake up I remind myself of that fact and the importance of doing so. So I neither understate it nor overstate it. It is important. It is part of the system.
Q147 Chair: In our reports on the Illegal Migration Act, the safety of Rwanda Act, and the Rwanda policy in general, this committee has repeatedly warned that many aspects of the Government’s asylum policy risk breaching the European Convention on Human Rights and, therefore, the Human Rights Act. We have said, because it is true, that that is the overwhelming weight of expert evidence that we have heard. In fact, it has been quite hard to find anyone with legal expertise who disagreed with that conclusion. Can I ask how seriously you take that?
Michael Tomlinson MP: I take the committee’s reports incredibly seriously. I know your personal diligence and I know the committee’s diligence, so I know you will have examined my responses to the committee’s report on the safety of Rwanda Bill. I do not think it is right to say that everybody, either on the committee or witnesses appearing in front of the committee, accepted or adopted the same position. I think that, actually, it was quite nuanced and quite fair. In some of the paragraphs in bold, some conclusions that were drawn were nuanced, if I may say so, and rightly so. As a lawyer—there are a number of lawyers in the room—you will know that there is often room for argument. Differing opinions can be perfectly legitimately held and legitimately argued, but a dispute can still remain, and I suspect that when it comes to the end of this session, that may well be where we end up.
Chair: There may have been nuance, but I want to be clear that it was the overwhelming weight of the evidence we heard that the policy itself, and the Illegal Migration Act and the safety of Rwanda Act, were in breach of international human rights law.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Let us take a specific example, rather than speaking in generalities. Your report quite rightly tackled the question of Section 19(1)(b), and I know you will have seen my response to that. There is a dispute. You will have seen my reference to the Communications Act back in 2003. It is not new, it is not novel, for there to be a 19(1)(b) statement. In fact, dare I say it, although I was not in Parliament and neither were you at the time, that is why Section 19 was drafted in the way it was: because it was envisaged that we may well end up in a scenario like this.
I know you want to hurry me on, and I understand why, but in relation to the 2003 Act, it is worth noting that the United Kingdom was successful in arguing that that case fell on the right side of the line, even though at the time the Bill was published the Secretary of State was not in a position to give it a 19(1)(a) statement. Dare I say it, that is where we will end up in relation to this Act as well.
Chair: Let us take another specific example that is perhaps a bit closer to home. We had the decision of the Northern Irish High Court earlier this week. In addition to matters pertaining specifically to the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor agreement, it also made declarations of incompatibility between aspects of the Illegal Migration Act and the Human Rights Act. Does that not rather vindicate the position that this committee has taken and the overwhelming weight of our evidence?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Respectfully, no, because we are at the first stage of the litigation. You will know as well if not better than anyone in this room that that was a High Court decision. That was the first stage. You will have seen the Prime Minister’s response, and I know that you have engaged in this and followed it very closely. This is not the end of the story; it is much more likely to be the very beginning of the story. The Government in general, and I personally, are firmly of the view that in the exchanges we had during the passage of the Bill, our position is right. But there will be further stages through the court process.
Chair: So will the Government respect the rule of law and not take any steps to deport anyone under the Rwanda scheme until the relevant avenues of appeal in these cases are exhausted and it is clarified that such removals would be lawful?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Respectfully, we are dealing with two separate things. First, the court case you are referring to deals with the Illegal Migration Act. What we are dealing with at the moment is ensuring that flights can get off the ground before the IMA has come into force, as part of the Prime Minister’s mission and my mission to stop the boats.
So the short answer to your question is yes: at the moment, the Home Secretary’s duty to remove in Section 2 of the Illegal Migration Act is not yet in force and, to that extent, until that duty is in force and the scheme is up and running, there will be no deportations under that Act. But let me be crystal clear: we are preparing to make sure that flights will get off the ground. The Prime Minister’s timetable has stayed the same, and nothing in Monday’s court case changes that position.
Chair: Under what authority will the removals take place, then, if not under the Illegal Migration Act?
Michael Tomlinson MP: They will take place under the Nationality and Borders Act and the safety of Rwanda Act.
Q148 Chair: If there were to be a legal challenge to the safety of Rwanda Act and if there were to be a finding, at first instance, that the safety of Rwanda Act was incompatible with the Human Rights Act, would you respect the rule of law and halt any removals under the safety of Rwanda Act until you had been through the appeals process and exhausted it?
Michael Tomlinson MP: We would respect the judicial process, as of course the Government always do and have done repeatedly. You mentioned Monday’s court ruling. Actually, the formal handing down of the judgment will be two weeks hence, as you know. That is when an appeal can be lodged, that is the proper process, and the Government will go through the proper process. I am an optimist. I am glass-half-full. I believe firmly that this legislation is on the right side of the line. It has been carefully drafted to ensure that we fulfil our international obligations while fulfilling the aims of the Prime Minister—and, I believe, of the British public—that we need to stop the boats coming off the channel. Part of that is getting the deterrent effect up and running, and that is the Rwanda scheme.
I know there is a political difference; there inevitably will be in a cross-party committee such as this. Of course the legal process will be followed. I suspect you are right, that there will be a challenge, but I firmly anticipate that robust arguments will be made that this legislation has been drafted on the right side of the line.
Chair: Please do not misunderstand me. At this point, I am not making a political point. I am making a legal point about the overwhelming weight of evidence.
Michael Tomlinson MP: No, I agree. I widened it. I expanded it a little.
Chair: My point was that the overwhelming weight of the evidence that this committee heard from legal experts was that the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act fell on the wrong side of the Human Rights Act. We have been vindicated in our view on that and on the Illegal Migration Act by the finding of the court in Northern Ireland on Monday.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Well, thus far.
Q149 Chair: Thus far. Can I ask you about the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday? He said, “If the Strasbourg Court make me choose between the ECHR and this country’s security, I will choose our country’s security every single time”. Can you explain what he meant by that?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Let me not put words into the Prime Minister’s mouth yet. Let me use my own language. I have used similar language in the past. What I would mean by that is that we have drafted legislation, as you know, in the safety of Rwanda Act. Section 5 of the Act means that it is for a Minister of State to make and take that decision. I believe that is constitutionally proper, I think that is perfectly appropriate, and it is part of the parliamentary sovereignty aspect of the law that we debated so much during the passage of that Bill at Second Reading and in Committee. So, in my view, the choice will be very clear. That is what the Prime Minister has said as well, and I agree entirely with him.
Chair: I am not putting words into his mouth, because those were his words.
Michael Tomlinson MP: You are reading them out very clearly.
Chair: He said: “If the Strasbourg Court make me choose between the ECHR and this country’s security, I will choose our country’s security every … time”. That seems to me to go a little beyond what you are saying, and I just wonder whether it signals that it will be government policy to derogate from the ECHR if necessary, or that the Government are contemplating leaving the ECHR, if that is necessary, to deliver the Government’s asylum policy.
Michael Tomlinson MP: I think it signals the Prime Minister’s determination, and my determination, to make sure that planes get off the ground and to make sure that this Act works in the way that it is intended to work, that the deterrent will be up and running, and that the European court, the ECHR, will not get in the way. That is why the legislation was drafted in that way. That was the whole purpose of putting Clause 5 into the Bill in the first place. I know there are commentators—in fact, during the debate—saying that it is not unorthodox to have that. That is the straightforward constitutional position: that it will be for a Minister to decide. You may have heard that it will be this Minister who will be part of that decision-making process, and I am very clear about how I will go about that process.
Chair: So we should not read anything more into the Prime Minister’s words than what you have said just now. It is not indicating that the policy has moved on to derogation or leaving the ECHR.
Michael Tomlinson MP: You should read nothing more or nothing less into it. It is a determination that this will work; that we will make this work regardless of whatever may come flying at us. Clause 5 has been drafted, so it will be for Ministers to decide, not anyone in Strasbourg. The Prime Minister has been clear, and I am very clear as well.
Q150 Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I would like to press you a little. A great deal of concern has been expressed, not just domestically and not just in one political party—it has been expressed even among leading Conservative lawyers—not just about the constitutionality of the Rwanda safety Act, but about interfering with our international treaty obligations. That concern has been directed at the ways in which statements, a bit like the one from the Prime Minister that we have just heard, are playing a game of doublespeak—on the one hand, throwing a bone to those who do not like human rights and do not like the European Convention on Human Rights, and indeed do not much like any of our international obligations that might involve protecting the humanity that you spoke of when you first entered the room as being one of the things that you wake every day to think about.
One thing that doublespeak does is send the message: “We’re not going to be taking any instructions from the Strasbourg Court”. What will you do, what are you expecting to happen, if someone makes an individual application to the courts, saying, “I will face harm if I’m sent to Rwanda. I will not be safe because of the particular issues affecting me”, the court thinks there is a prima facie case there that it would like to hear, but the Home Secretary wants to put that person straight on to a plane and shunt them off to Rwanda? If the European court decides that this is precisely the sort of case where there could be irredeemable, irreparable harm to the individual, what is the answer to that? Do you just ignore the European court, and, if so, what would the consequences be?
Michael Tomlinson MP: As you know, my previous role was as His Majesty’s Solicitor-General, and I saw cases that came in front of my desk on a daily basis, sometimes on an hourly basis. The way that I conduct myself and have always conducted myself as a lawyer—sometimes I am criticised for it—is by looking at the evidence, looking at the facts, and looking at the case that comes before me.
I see no contradiction between adopting that approach and the Prime Minister quite rightly indicating a determination that we will get planes off the ground, that this policy is law—it is passed, it is an Act of Parliament, it is on the statute book—and our determination to make sure that it works and that planes get off the ground. I see no conflict. I understand the tension that you are highlighting, but I personally see no conflict in that whatever.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: It is more than a tension. If an application is made to a British court, that court still has to decide whether this person is going to be unsafe if they are sent to Rwanda, and therefore Europe puts a stay on the person being put on a plane, and says, “We’re putting in special measures to prevent that person being deported to Rwanda”. That means that a choice is being placed before the Minister. Do you ignore the courts, and therefore just ignore law, and send out a message to the world that you are prepared to ignore law? Or do you just say, “Put them on the plane and send them there”? What do you do?
Michael Tomlinson MP: There are two stages to that. The first part of your question relates, I think, to Section 4 of the Act, which is incredibly tightly drafted. The wording in the judgment of this committee was that there were only very narrow exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Forgive me, I do not have the precise wording from this committee’s report, but several witnesses emphasised quite how high the test is, how high the bar is, how high the barrier to overcome in order to succeed on an individual—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Do not kid yourself that there will not be cases that reach that barrier.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Let me finish. It has also been drafted in such a way as to mirror the words, the tests, that the European court itself will be grappling with when determining whether to give an interim indication or not—namely, on the question of serious and irreversible harm, as you quite rightly outlined, almost mirroring the words. In the last few weeks, we have seen the European court, in response in part to what has happened recently, moving closer to our position. I think that is right, that is healthy, that is a good thing, but it does not take away from the Prime Minister’s determination or from my determination to make sure that we get planes off the ground. I see it all as part of the same package, as part of the same Act.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: That is rhetoric, Mr Tomlinson—“Our determination to get things off the ground”. We know that you are determined to do that, but what are you going to do if a court, the European court in particular, is still determining the issue here in Britain, an effort is being made to get that plane off the ground with that person on it, and the European court says, “We’re going to make an interim measure in this case, because we’re persuaded that that high bar has been reached”?
Michael Tomlinson MP: What am I going to do?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: What is your answer?
Michael Tomlinson MP: My answer is that I will look at it on a case by case basis, as I have done throughout my career.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: We look forward to it.
Chair: You will retain the right, as a member of the Executive, to override a court decision.
Michael Tomlinson MP: I will retain the rights and the powers and the authority given to me by Parliament and as passed in Section 5 of the Act of Parliament.
Q151 Chair: Does it not sit just a little bit uncomfortably with you as, like me, a member of the Bar, a KC, and an officer of the court, that you will substitute your judgment for a court’s judgment?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Not at all, quite the opposite. We are fulfilling the will of Parliament. We have an Act of Parliament. We are following precisely the legislative steps that have been set out by our sovereign Parliament. It is the exact opposite. We grapple with these things in practice. We grapple with these things in Parliament. This is exactly the constitutional position that we find ourselves in. A Bill is presented, the Bill is debated at Second Reading and in Committee. It is an Act of Parliament, and the Act will be followed to the letter.
Chair: So Parliament is always supreme. Even if Parliament legislated to say a cat was a dog, that would be the case.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Respectfully, I never liked that metaphor that a cat is a dog. That seems to me to be taking it a stage too far, adding a bit too much colour, a bit too much rhetoric, even for Baroness Kennedy, perhaps. In this case, the legislation was responding to the situation as it had been after the summer of 2022, so quite the opposite of the analogy that you tried to draw.
Q152 Lord Murray of Blidworth: There are many instances, are there not, Minister, where Ministers have to exercise a view on matters that may otherwise fall within the purview of the courts? One could say that returning the power to you and the Administration under the provisions of the safety of Rwanda Act to ignore Rule 39 indications and similar powers in the Illegal Migration Act simply returns the position to that which prevailed when the European Convention on Human Rights was signed—in other words, that Rule 39 indications were just that: indications to contracting parties to decide whether or not they wished to implement the decisions. So in many ways it is more of a purist view of the convention, but it seems to me that it is entirely proper that you should be able to take that decision. Would you agree?
Michael Tomlinson MP: I think that is a very strong argument, and you can broaden that out and say that Ministers more generally make quasi-judicial decisions all the time. As I say, perhaps uniquely in the law officers’ departments, that is done on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Not taking a specific example, other Ministers take quasi-judicial decisions regularly, and this will be no different from that. Lord Murray, you make a very astute observation about the history and how we got to where we are in relation to Rule 39.
Chair: Equally, you could say that a court that is not in a position to issue interim orders to preserve the status quo while a determination of the facts is made is not much of a court.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Respectfully, that is not what the legislation says.
Chair: The courts of my jurisdiction in Scotland would cease to function if they could not issue interim interdicts. The courts of your jurisdiction here in England would cease to function if they could not issue interim injunctions that people actually took cognisance of. You seem to be quite comfortable with the European Court of Human Rights, a court we are signed up to, being rendered really impotent by you giving yourself the right to decide whether or not you personally decide to override its interim orders.
Michael Tomlinson MP: To use your word “comfortable”, I am extremely comfortable with the constitutional position that we have introduced a Bill, that we have passed an Act of Parliament, that Parliament is sovereign, that it says in Section 5 that it will be for a Minister to decide. That is if we get to what at the moment is a theoretical position. If we do, it will be for a Minister to decide, exactly as it says on the statute book, and that is constitutionally robust and proper.
Q153 Chair: Okay. Moving on but staying with the Rwanda policy, we saw a significant fall in the number of small boat crossings in 2023 compared to 2022. But, as of 21 April this year, 6,000 people had crossed the Channel, and as of 7 May it is 8,700, I think. That is up more than a quarter compared to the same period last year, and it is the highest ever figure registered for this period of the year, as I understand it. This is happening despite enormous publicity across the world about the Rwanda policy over the period of the last two years, and intense publicity during the passage of the Bill. Does this really unprecedented increase not suggest that the Rwanda policy is not the deterrent you hoped it would be?
Michael Tomlinson MP: No, not at all. You are absolutely right to highlight the success last year—the reduction by a third despite the increase across Europe of between 60% and 80%, depending on which point you take in particular. That was absolutely a significant success to those who were exercising those decisions 12 months ago. I returned from Albania at 1 o’clock this morning, so let me just highlight the Albania scheme as a particular success—
Chair: Hang on, Minister. We do not have much time. I know the Albania scheme.
Michael Tomlinson MP: No, you are right.
Chair: I am not going to quibble with you that the Albanian scheme has been a success—
Michael Tomlinson MP: No, very good.
Chair: I am interested in this significant increase in the number of people crossing the channel this year, which suggests that the Rwanda policy, despite the huge international publicity about it, is not acting as a deterrent. Can you dissuade me of that?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Okay. Let me dissuade you in this way. We are early on in the year, so it is too soon to say definitively that this year’s figures will be X or Y, because we simply do not know. They could in fact be Z, and neither X nor Y, so let us wait until the end of the year and see where we are.
In terms of the deterrent effect, two weeks ago, or perhaps ten days ago, we saw what happened there with Ireland and our Irish friends. There is the deterrent effect in action. Within hours of the Bill coming into force, there is the deterrent effect in action. We heard evidence during Second Reading, and beyond in Committee, from those from the Home Affairs Committee who spoke to people in France and said, “Do you know that if you come across, you could be sent to Rwanda?” “No, we don’t want to do that”. This is all evidence that was put before Parliament in relation to this Bill and how the deterrent effect would work.
Let me agree with you in part: the whole purpose of the Act is to ensure that we can get planes off the ground, not just one plane but a series of planes. That is when the full impact of the deterrent effect will kick in.
Q154 Chair: When this committee visited Rwanda earlier this year in February, I asked one of the government interlocutors how many people they thought they could take. They said that they could take up to 2,000 this year and up to 10,000 over five years. Now, 97,000 asylum seekers arrived in the UK in the year ending June 2023. When you bring the Illegal Migration Act into force, tens of thousands of people will be left in limbo, because you cannot send them all to Rwanda. What are you going to do with these tens of thousands of people who will be left in limbo?
Michael Tomlinson MP: There are several aspects to your question. Thank you for mentioning that the committee has visited. I heard from a number of you who visited the different responses and reactions that you had on the ground. That was very valuable to me as a the Minister who has not been in the luxurious position that you have been in of visiting recently, although I visited a little while ago.
In terms of the capacity, let me make a political point. I know that this is a cross-party committee, so I will move on from this very swiftly. The accusation was that Rwanda could only take 100 or 200. What nonsense, completely scotched by this committee’s diligence in finding out—
Chair: Hang on a minute, Minister.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Let me make the political point and then I will move on. It was suggested that only 100 could be taken. It was absolute nonsense. It is uncapped.
Chair: Hang on a second. I am putting a very clear point: 2,000 per annum is a drop in the ocean of 97,000 per annum. I am just wondering what will happen to the other people who will be in limbo after you bring in the Illegal Migration Act, because they them cannot apply for asylum. At least, most of them cannot.
Michael Tomlinson MP: This committee’s evidence scotched the Labour nonsense about the limit on the numbers. It is an uncapped scheme.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Hold on a minute. There is only enough housing at the moment for 100.
Michael Tomlinson MP: It is an uncapped scheme, so what will happen with the thousands? The whole point of the Rwanda scheme is that it is a deterrent. The whole point is to stop people coming over here in the first place. It is not just looking at it from one angle. You need to look at it from the point of view of stopping those who are coming across in the first place. Of those who are already here, the country to return them to is not just Rwanda but their own home country. Dare I say it: last year 26,000 people returned to their home countries, so let us put it in context and in the round. I am very grateful to this committee for the work it did in scotching that nonsense about the limit that there would be.
Chair: We have heard your point on that, Minister. This committee was not the source of those figures—
Michael Tomlinson MP: But it publicised it very effectively and very well.
Chair: There is still a very valid point to be made that if the Rwandans on their own say so can only take 2,000 per annum, quite a lot of other people will have to be accounted for.
Michael Tomlinson MP: The 26,000 is a good answer.
Q155 Lord Alton of Liverpool: Minister, thank you for the evidence you have been giving us. Can I ask you two questions? One is about the individuals involved, those who are sent to Rwanda. If there are still outstanding questions about the legitimacy of them having been sent there, and if we get into this quagmire that you have been describing of legal battles that can continue sometimes for years, what rights will they have once they have been sent to Rwanda? What will we do to ensure that their individual cases can continue to be assessed?
My other question is about the 114 million people displaced in the world. We are looking at countries like Sudan at the moment, where some 11 million are now displaced by the war over the last year. You said that there has been some movement in Europe towards the Government’s position. I want to know what the Government are doing to ensure that there are real international efforts to get at the root causes of mass migration. Otherwise, as the Chair has indicated, this legislation will look like a drop in the ocean in comparison with the scale of the problem.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Thank you for your question. It is a very important one. It is important to look at this in the round. It is not just Rwanda; we are also returning people to their home country. As you know, the challenge in those circumstances is where it is not possible to return people to their country of origin, to their home country. That is where the Rwanda scheme is particularly important.
Your observation of the 114 million people who are on the move is a very astute and important one. It was the theme of the West Balkans conference yesterday, because we know that the Western Balkans is one of the routes where hundreds of thousands of people pass through, and that is why it is so important to tackle it.
Respectfully, having anything that will encourage that mass movement of people across borders should be discouraged. My personal view—some may share this—is that it would be strongly preferable for people to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, rather than risking their lives on dangerous crossings. May I just say this very briefly? We talked about humanity. People have been dying in the English Channel every month. This is why I am personally determined that we must ensure that this policy works.
Q156 Chair: I am a bit perturbed by this idea that people should seek asylum in the first safe country. If you look at the stats, according to UNHCR, 70% of asylum seekers are already hosted in neighbouring countries to their country of origin. Only 30% are on the move in the way you describe. Of the 30% who are on the move, the United Kingdom is not even in the top 15 countries in Europe for asylum seekers per head of the population. So I do not really understand why you think that other countries in Europe—15 of them—are able to cope with a higher volume of asylum seekers than the United Kingdom without resorting to legislation that potentially breaches international human rights law or without resorting to sending them to Rwanda.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Respectfully, even if the figure is a third—I accept what you say, but as Lord Alton quite rightly said the total is over 110 million; 114 million was the figure given—that is still 36 million people on the move. Respectfully, it is appropriate to claim asylum in the first safe country. No one who is in France is in an unsafe country. That is why they should not be putting their lives at risk, giving their money to these people traffickers, spending thousands of pounds on people who do not care if they live or die. Some members of this committee have seen the condition of the boats.
Chair: Nobody is making any excuses for that. My question was specifically about why you think that 15 other countries in Europe, some of them a great deal less wealthy than the United Kingdom, are able to cope with more asylum seekers than us without resorting to passing legislation that potentially breaches human rights law or without sending them to Rwanda. What is it about the United Kingdom that we have to take such extreme measures, when other European countries are not doing that?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Respectfully, part of your question is contested, because we had that exchange at the outset as to whether it does or does not breach international law. So that is an assertion, but not a conclusion. I believe that we are a generous, open and welcoming country. Look at the facts, look at the evidence: over 500,000 people since between 2015 and 2023 have rightly been welcomed into this country under different schemes.
But, dare I say it, part of being a welcoming country is ensuring that we are welcoming people here under schemes that we have seen are up and running, rather than coming across here illegally, taking routes that are dangerous for them and unacceptable for us. That is why we are determined to clamp down on these criminal smuggling gangs. We are a welcoming country, and that figure of over 500,000 speaks volumes, in my view.
Chair: It seems that there are many other countries that are more welcoming than us. Anyway, David, did you want to continue?
Q157 Lord Alton of Liverpool: My real question was actually about international co-operation. What I was driving at, Minister, is that if we treat people as though they are part of a sort of pass the parcel, somebody else’s problem, this will go on and on. Whether they should be welcomed in one country or another is not really my point: it is what we are going to do to tackle the root causes of this mass displacement.
Why are we not driving things on, as we do with climate change for instance, with international conferences and so on? Are the Government giving thought to how we bring together countries to say, “This isn’t just your problem or our problem. This is the world’s problem. We have to tackle this in a much more coherent way”, with the generosity of something like the Marshall aid programme and the things we did when vast numbers of Europeans were on the move, when the ECHR came about in the aftermath of the Second World War? We did a lot of things. Whether they were practical or legal, we put those into place.
I agree with you about the generosity of our welcome, for instance to the Ukrainians and the Hong Kongers. We are capable of good deeds as well. So I am not making any partisan point here. I am just wondering what we are doing to tackle the root causes, because the Act itself will not solve that.
Michael Tomlinson MP: I recognise that entirely. I have made some political points, if you like, but I do not see any political points in your question, and it is a perfectly proper question.
I mentioned that I have been in Albania over the past 48 hours. That is part of the co-operation between our two countries. Let us not just take the Albania scheme. Let us widen it out to the Western Balkans. That is part of the co-operation and the investment that can happen, not just in the channel, if you like, but further upstream, in order to prevent exactly the scenario that you are talking about.
International co-operation is crucial. The Home Secretary himself made a speech in New York last month—it could even have been six weeks ago now—talking about starting a global conversation with our international partners. That is absolutely right. This is the issue of our day, of our time: 100 million people are moving, whether just across the border to the first safe country or moving further afield. We need to make sure that we have grown-up conversations with our friends and allies. In all my meetings with my international counterparts, that is exactly what we are having. Dare I say it, by introducing the Rwanda Act we have helped to reinvigorate that conversation and debate with our international partners, and I think we will see further movement as well.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: What conversations are we having with the Irish Government, who the Chair referred to earlier, to resolve this so that we do not get into this invidious position of saying “It’s is now your problem rather than ours”?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Respectfully, that is a very good point. The common travel area, of course, is unique in relation to Ireland and Northern Ireland, but we should be having conversations, whether it is with France, Ireland, the Balkan countries, Italy or Greece. I was in Tunisia and in Libya seeing those launching and trying to get across to Italy from Tripoli. It is incredibly important that we work with organisations such as the IOM to support it to encourage more people to stay in the region rather than risk these treacherous journeys. I agree that this is part of an important conversation that we must continue to have.
Q158 Lord Murray of Blidworth: I have just two questions, Minister. You mentioned other external interests in third-country processing, particularly in Europe. Perhaps you could just outline where we are with that, who is looking at the scheme and what you know about that. Secondly, you were asked lots of questions by the Chair in relation to the numbers that can be taken by the United Kingdom. To what extent do you think the integration of the refugees into the delivery of services should feed into consideration of an upper limit on the number of refugees the country should take? What steps are being taken to use the cap provisions in the Illegal Migration Act?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Thank you. That is a very good question. Obviously, in terms of the cap, there are Sections 60 and 61—I think I have that right—of the Illegal Migration Act, and the Legal Migration Minister confirmed, I think on Monday, that a statutory instrument will be brought forward by recess and evidence will be brought forward as to the local authority’s response and what that number should be. As was committed several times to Parliament, that evidence will be brought forward and debated in the usual way.
It is a hugely important part of the conversation. I know there is a variety of views. We talked about the generosity of the British people. The generosity may be infinite, but the capacity is not. This is exactly why Minister Pursglove has been doing his job of liaising with local authorities to see where the capacity is, and he will bring that forward as quickly as possible. As I said, I think the commitment was given by recess. That is in answer to the second part of your question.
On the first part about what other countries are looking at, I cannot say any more than that I know that several countries are acutely interested. Perhaps it is too grand to say that the eyes of the world are on this scheme, but there is a great deal of interest in this and in making it work. I am determined to see it work, and other countries will follow suit.
Q159 Lord Dholakia: My question relates to delays in asylum seekers receiving financial support, identity cards and scheduling interviews, et cetera. What are you doing about this matter when it relates to putting asylum seekers in very vulnerable situations? What are the Government’s plans on these matters?
Michael Tomlinson MP: In terms of the process—please, if you have any specific examples, do give them—there is the initial 28 days. I do not know whether that is the angle that you are driving at. Is that the basis of your question?
Lord Dholakia: Yes.
Michael Tomlinson MP: I wonder whether my colleagues have any more data or detail on that, but it is the 28 days that you are interested in.
Chair: As we are a bit tight for time, we might get you to put any data on that in writing.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Is there anything quickly that you could give, Simon?
Simon Ridley: As we grant asylum and get the biometric residency permit to individuals before they leave accommodation, the 28 days' notice to quit starts only at the point at which the BRP is issued. We are doing a lot of work internally to make sure that the process is as efficient and as clear for individuals as it can be, but if there are more detailed questions, or if you were driving at something else, we would be very happy to answer those in writing.
Q160 Lord Dholakia: My second question relates to children who come to this country. What is the process in dealing with them, particularly bearing in mind that, if they do not receive the proper resources, the question of destitution and moving away from structure is very important?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Do you mean accommodation specifically? That is a very important point. As you will know, last year there was litigation in relation to accommodation. I can confirm to this committee that not a single hotel is now open for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. One was left open over the new year. The final one closed on 31 January. We looked at the judgment, which I think came out in July of last year. It is incredibly important. The work that we do with Kent County Council is hugely important. I am very conscious that our colleagues in Kent are doing an incredibly important and difficult task in relation to children.
My view is that hotels are not the right and proper and appropriate place for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That accords with the judgment of the court, and we have fulfilled our obligations in that regard. We must continue to co-operate with our colleagues in Kent to make sure that we do not revert to that position but that children are where they should be, in local authority care.
Simon Ridley: We are also working very closely with the Department for Education and with local authorities around the country to make the national transfer scheme work. In Kent, to make sure that we have children under the statutory care of local authorities, they come through Kent but then we find placements across the country through the national transfer scheme. That work is under way, and we are successfully moving children through that process, so they are under proper care in local authorities around the country. That effort is across central and local government.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: How many are we talking about?
Joanna Rowland: Some 8,890 children were placed in the national transfer scheme last year.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Thank you, and well done for meeting what the inspectorate asked you to do, which is to get all children out of the hotels.
Q161 Baroness Meyer: I want to second my noble friend’s welcome for the idea and the fact that children are no longer in hotels. That was a very important thing.
I do not agree that other countries are more welcoming than we are. I know France and Germany very well, and they have a huge problem; it is probably bigger than ours. At the moment, illegal migrants into those countries are having a tougher time than they do in this country. I just wanted to say that.
As you have heard, some of us on this committee—in fact, five of us—went to Rwanda. Our purpose was to examine what the accommodations were going to be and how people were going to be received in Rwanda. Many of the people who we interviewed said, “We’re very positive”. Some people were less positive. We all had a very different view of the situation. Minister, what is your assessment of what the Government of Rwanda did to take into account all the criticism of the Supreme Court, particularly the non-refoulement? Has that been totally dealt with?
Michael Tomlinson MP: I am very grateful to you for that question. Can I tackle the accommodation point first? That is detailed and set out in the treaty. This committee gave very helpful evidence that certainly fed into the debates at Second Reading and in Committee, because there were differences and nuances, as you would expect. You would not expect 10 witnesses to say something identical, no more than you would expect with five. As the Minister taking the Bill through, I found that very helpful.
In terms of non-refoulement, the answer is in the treaty. The treaty, in Articles 10 and 11, is incredibly detailed, whether on accommodation, the asylum system or non-refoulement. There is the lock. Actually, the committee accepted that in its report. If I could find the right paragraph, I would read it out word for word, but I will paraphrase, because I will not be able to find it. The committee accepted that if this works as designed, it does shut out non-refoulement. That is not word for word, but that is the gist of this committee’s evidence.
Chair: Which committee was that?
Michael Tomlinson MP: This committee.
Chair: It has not actually reported yet on its visit to Rwanda.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Forgive me. I mean specifically in relation to the safety of Rwanda Bill.
Chair: We have not reported on our visit yet. We will do that as part of the report that, ultimately, we will produce on rights of asylum seekers in the UK. You are right that, during the various debates in the Commons and the Lords, individuals who had been on the trip, including me and Catherine, gave our different perceptions, but the committee as a whole has not yet deliberated on our trip to Rwanda. I want to be very clear about that.
Michael Tomlinson MP: No, we are as one. I was referring to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill and the second report of the Session, dated 7 February 2024, to which I responded in March, in which the committee very clearly said, as one of its conclusions, that if this works as drafted by the treaty, it will stop non-refoulement. It was then nuanced. There was a havering, a doubting, as to whether it would work. I have no doubt, because this is an international agreement between two grown-up Commonwealth countries. Look at Rwanda’s track record of welcoming 135,000 refugees over its borders. That is exactly why Articles 10 and 11 were drafted in the way they were: it was in order to fulfil the obligations—the challenge, if you like—that the Supreme Court set out.
In the debate, I disagreed with the assertion that this was countermanding what the Supreme Court says. It is quite the opposite. The word I use is fulfilling, saying that this is what has happened since the summer of 2022. Look at the treaty and the international binding document between our two countries. This is how we can show that non-refoulement will not happen.
Q162 Chair: Do you accept that certain things have to happen in Rwanda before the treaty is fulfilled? For example, when we met with the UNHCR, it told me that systemic and structural change needs to happen in Rwanda, which then needs to cascade down through the system. The treaty envisages that certain things will happen, but they have not necessarily happened yet. Do you accept that, Minister?
Michael Tomlinson MP: No. I think—no, I know—that all necessary steps to meet each of our country’s obligations have been taken. That was the commitment given at the time the Bill was passing through. For example, we see set out in annexe B in the treaty the system that will be up and running. Members of the committee heard the evidence that Rwanda now has the relevant legislation and co-presidents in place. This is all up and running.
Chair: We also heard that the training has only just commenced and that there is a lot still to be done. Of course, there is a difference between dealing with an asylum seeker and dealing with a refugee.
I am conscious of the limited time. We are not going to be able to go on as long as we had hoped, and I want to make sure that Jill gets a chance to come in on this, because she was on the trip to Rwanda.
Q163 Jill Mortimer: My question is something that I thought about while sitting here. As you know, there was a tragic murder in Hartlepool by someone who was here seeking asylum but who had been turned down. He was a failed asylum seeker in Germany and had been in the asylum system around Europe for years.
What steps are you taking to enforce the removal of people who have been turned down? What is the vetting process to make sure that these almost career asylum seekers do not bounce around in Europe and then come across to us? What is the vetting procedure to make sure that we do not have dangerous extremists living in our communities?
Michael Tomlinson MP: That is an incredibly important question. In terms of failed asylum seekers, I mentioned the figure of 26,000, some of whom were returns from last year. Not all of them were, but 26,000 was the grand total. It has been confirmed that the scheme for Rwanda will extend to include failed asylum seekers. That is an important step to be done sensibly and sensitively in a grown-up fashion, but it has been confirmed that that will happen. I do not know whether the committee has had a chance to visit Western Jet Foil and Manston. Some committees have, some have not.
Chair: We visited Manston a couple of years, or a year and a half ago. It was quite a while ago.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Thank you. Things will have changed on the ground, because they change rapidly. On your point about knowing who is coming in, safety and security checks and the like, there is equipment or technology to take biometric data. It is incredibly important that that work is done, and is expanded; certainly, on the occasion I was there, as recently as that month, there had been an expansion in capacity, because, as the committee knows, it is important for people to be processed in Manston swiftly so that there are no delays at that stage.
Simon Ridley: We can put more detail in writing, given the pressure on time. More broadly to the question, we are also increasing the overall capacity for removals, with detention centres across the piece and the number of caseworkers in our removals teams. We have increased the number of removals year on year over the last few years, and we need more capacity to continue to do that.
Chair: That is very interesting. We will follow up in writing with questions about detention.
Q164 Jill Mortimer: I want to ask another question that tags a little on to that. We talked about short-term holding facilities. Some people were kept in excess of the amount of time they should have been kept, which violated their rights, and there was a risk that they were going to sue us because they had been kept overly long in the short-term holding places. Do you have any figures on that? Could you reply in writing with some explanation of why that has happened and why they have not been processed through fast enough?
Michael Tomlinson MP: I will tackle that more broadly and, if there are more specific questions, it would be interesting to hear of the specific examples in writing, to follow on from that. There are strict time limits, for obvious reasons. For Manston, for example, unless there are exceptional circumstances, it is 24 hours or 72 hours. That is where we are. I am bound to say that, certainly since I have been in post, I get a regular report as to how swiftly people are being processed at Manston. I very much hope that you and the committee were impressed by what you saw there and the speed at which people were being processed. Perhaps you were not. Let me say that, when I was there, I was impressed by what had expanded and the capacity to make sure that our obligations were met.
Chair: We were impressed. I think I am the only person left of the group who went. We reported on it in some detail. We had no doubt that there were many decent people there trying to do a good job, and we were impressed by some of the staff we met with. We still had grave concerns, but that was the matter of another report, and it is probably something we will follow up on with you in writing.
Q165 Baroness Meyer: I want to come back on my question. How can you persuade the people who are not convinced that Rwanda will abide by the terms of the Supreme Court, particularly on non-refoulement? Will it be by experience? How can you prove it?
Michael Tomlinson MP: If people are not convinced now, I suspect it will have to be by experience. My answer is because of the treaty in the first place, because of the Bill and the Act of Parliament in the second place, and because of the steps that Rwanda has already taken and is taking. No one can doubt the generosity of the Rwandan people in stepping forward.
The debate sometimes frustrated me, because this is not just a migration plan but an MEDP plan and an economic development plan. It is the whole picture that we need to take into consideration. Rwanda has welcomed 135,000 refugees from Libya and elsewhere. Okay, it is not exactly the same situation—we have had this debate in Parliament—but it is an indication of how seriously Rwanda takes its obligations in this regard. I have no doubt that the treaty is a step up. It is internationally binding. Frankly, through some of the debate that we have seen, we now have a treaty, we now have an Act of Parliament, and now we need to get on and do it, and that is what I am determined to do.
Q166 Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: This is rather important. You keep repeating that there have been such terrible misconceptions, but Rwanda, as you know, is right next door to the Congo, where a civil war has been going on. Forget Libya. The numbers from Libya are not the significant ones. The significant numbers are people from the Congo who have fled the destruction, mass rape and terrible violence that is taking place currently inside the Congo. They are not living in nice accommodation; they are living in terrible camps on the outskirts of Kigali, which of course were not part of the designed tour available to our Members of Parliament. So this distinction has to be made, which is that when most people in Africa are fleeing terrible wars, they flee to the next-door country, and Rwanda has had that experience and has encampments of those people.
We have chosen to do something differently, and we have helped to build and have invested a lot of money in creating accommodation. You say that they will take up to 2,000 in the first year and each year thereafter, so 10,000 over five years. So far, Hope Hostel is providing accommodation. I said 100: Forgive me, I was wrong. I have just checked, and it is 200. Accommodation is still a serious issue if we do not want people to be in tents in the outskirts and facing the deprivations involved in that. If we are going to provide accommodation, it involves continued investment and sending of money to Rwanda, which I have no doubt Rwanda is happy about.
The question for you is that, even if you get up to 10,000—we know that there was talk of 52,000 eligible contenders for places on the Rwanda scheme, and Rwanda is not talking about taking 52,000 but taking 10,000 over five years—what are you going to do with the 42,000 that are left over? What is going to happen to them? What is the big plan?
Michael Tomlinson MP: That picks up on a point that the Chair raised early on. On the accommodation point, you are right; this is different. Annexe A to the treaty sets out in granular detail the accommodation and the fulfilments that are required, such as support on arrival and reception. You are right; it is very different. I illustrated the 135,000 to show the generous spirit and nature of the Rwandan people, rather than saying that it is an exactly comparable scheme, because it is not.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: It is not at all.
Michael Tomlinson MP: It is a bespoke scheme with a treaty between two international partners, and that is why I have confidence in it.
In terms of the returns, not all will be returned to Rwanda. Not all have to be, because some will be able to be returned to their home country. As I explained last year, 26,000 people were returned by this country to their home country, to their country of origin. As Mr Ridley indicated, if I remember correctly, that has increased in recent years, and we need to make sure that the number continues to increase. The whole purpose of the Rwanda scheme is to act as a deterrent so that we stop the boats. It is not just a question of the biggest number you can think of; it is in fact stopping the boats. That is the determination.
Q167 Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I want to persist with my question. If your numbers are right—I am relying on your numbers—you have a huge backlog of people who will still be here. I want your answer to what you are going to do with them. You are talking about deterrents against people coming.
Michael Tomlinson MP: That is the key to scheme. That is right.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: What are you going to do with the many thousands of people who are currently here? You are talking about sending them back. How do you send them back if they are from places where sending back is not a possibility? What are you going to do?
Michael Tomlinson MP: They will be returned to their home country or to a safe third country such as Rwanda. The Rwanda scheme, you are absolutely right, is to fulfil two purposes. Its primary purpose, in my view, is to ensure that the deterrent effect kicks in to stop the boats. Therefore, even more people are not added to the list that you quite rightly highlighted, because that is the fundamentally vital factor of this Bill. That is why it is important. As to the others who are already here, it is a mixture of a safe third country, if they are not able to be returned to their home country—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Given that Rwanda has said that it will only be able to take 10,000 in five years—
Lord Murray of Blidworth: I think you have had your shot.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: No.
Lord Murray of Blidworth: We have limited time. That is your third question.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: How many countries do you have lined up to do the same Rwanda thing?
Michael Tomlinson MP: Respectfully, I do not think my answer is different.
Chair: Just pause there. I am very conscious that we will have to finish in a moment. These are very important issues, and I will follow up on Helena’s question in writing.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Please.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Respectfully, my answer will be no different to the one that I have just given.
Chair: I understand that, but we will follow up on it, because that is what I want us to do.
Q168 Jill Mortimer: We were there and we spoke to the people. Hope Hostel is just a short-term processing centre. We saw a lot of accommodation that has been built to take people once they have gone through there. When we spoke to the Rwandans about the limits of the scheme, they do not see any. They do not have any limit and said, “We will take whoever you want to send, as many as you like”.
Chair: That is not what I was told.
Michael Tomlinson MP: It is an uncapped scheme.
Jill Mortimer: They said it was not limited; it is uncapped. Thirdly, on the terrible condition of the Congolese people living in camps, the Rwandans have attempted to settle them into their communities, but there is a reluctance among a lot of them, because they want to return to their homes. We were told that they feel that if they leave the camps, it is like a step away from ever being able to go home.
Chair: We are all agreed that the refugees in the camps who have come across the border fleeing a civil war and the most appalling violence are in a very different category. We do not have time to go into that just now.
Q169 Lord Murray of Blidworth: This is a very short question about the asylum grant rate disparity. In the United Kingdom, asylum is granted in about 75% of applications. In France and Germany, it is nearer 20%. Will you get the Home Office to investigate the reasons for that disparity and see what policy steps might be taken?
Michael Tomlinson MP: That is an incredibly important question. The latest figure is lower than 75%. I hope it is 67%. If it is not, I will confirm in writing, but it is moving down and moving lower. The short answer to your question is that it is not precisely comparing like with like, and there is always a challenge with comparing international statistics. With the Chair’s permission, I will reply to that question in further detail in writing, because it is an important point. It is certainly my determination that that figure continues to move down from the 70% or so, where it was. It is now 67% or thereabouts, and it needs to be moving in that direction.
Q170 Lord Alton of Liverpool: You talked earlier about children. There are missing children in the system as well. When you come to reply and provide that information, can you give us the current figures on what action we are taking to locate the children who remain missing?
Michael Tomlinson MP: If I am prompted to do so, I will certainly do that.
Chair: In fairness, this session has been shorter than we hoped it would be, and we are grateful to you for your forbearance and for coming a bit earlier. As a committee, we will generate a document to you listing the additional questions that we want to ask you in writing, so that we are quite clear what they are and members can contribute to that through the usual channels. We will have a quick chat about that.
Joanna Rowland: I just want to clarify that it is indeed 67%, but that it is on old immigration legislation. This year’s figures, once we have processed new casework, will be on the Nationality and Borders Act. That has a different evidential threshold, so we would expect to see some difference.
Chair: That is a very interesting point. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Michael Tomlinson MP: Let us come back with further detail, but thank you.
Chair: That was a very interesting session. I would love for us to have longer but, as I say, we will follow up in writing.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Thank goodness for civil servants.
Chair: Thank you to your colleagues too.
