Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Committee

14:10:00

Clause 1: Refugee Family Reunion

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “must, within 6 months of this section coming into force” and insert “may”

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, which is tabled in my name, I will speak in support of the other amendments in this group, all of which relate to Clause 1. It is worth pointing out in a sentence that the present position under Appendix FM of the UK Immigration Rules is that a person granted refugee or protection status is entitled to make an application for family members to join in two circumstances. Depending on eligibility requirements, they must be a partner—that is, someone in a genuine relationship—or a child under the age of 18 who is not married or in a civil partnership. That is the present legal position. This Bill would have the effect of broadening that application, and we are going to look at that in a second. At the Second Reading of this Bill, which was held on 18 October, I intervened on the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to ask whether she could inform the House of how many people she envisaged would be granted refugee family reunion status on an annual basis under this Bill. Her answer was: “I will not go into that now; I do not have it in my speech. I am time-limited and conscious of other people’s need for that time. I will happily tell the noble Lord later”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 360.] I have yet to be told how many people the noble Baroness envisages would be admitted on an annual basis under these measures. Clause 1(1) provides that: “The Secretary of State must, within 6 months … lay … a statement of changes in the … ‘immigration rules’”. That would have the effect, as per the wording in subsection 1(3), of requiring that there be leave to “enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted protection status”. Nothing in that clause suggests that there is any control on the number of people who may be admitted. The term “family members” is specifically defined in Clause (1)(5)(a), which provides that it includes a person’s “parent …. spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner … child, including adopted child, who is either … under the age of 18 or … over the age of 18, but dependent on the person… sibling, including adoptive sibling”. Clause (1)(5(b) states that it includes: “such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to … the importance of maintaining family unity … the best interests of a child … the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person … any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted protection status”, and “such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”. This is possibly the most expansive definition of “additional family member” that could be conceived. My amendments are targeted to address that issue in the Bill. The reason for this is that, clearly, the admission of refugees’ additional family members to this country places a strain on domestic limited resources, including accommodation, financial support, education facilities and medical facilities. As the House of Lords Library briefing noted, since 2015, some 64,000 additional family members have been admitted under the present scheme. I suggest that, under these proposals, that number would be multiplied very many times.

14:15:00

I will discuss my amendments in turn. Amendment 1 seeks to remove the time limit and make it discretionary for the Secretary of State to make a change in the rules. That must be right, because it is for the Secretary of State to judge when it is appropriate to expand the numbers of people who might be admitted by this route. This is a recognition of the need for flexibility in responding to the complexities of implementing changes to the Immigration Rules. Arbitrary deadlines risk rushing decisions without fully understanding their consequences. By making this provision permissive, the Government can ensure that changes are introduced in a thoughtful and measured manner, considering the ever-changing pressures on the immigration system.

Amendment 5 would require that the Secretary of State change the relevant rules only if he is satisfied, first,

“that there is available capacity in relation to … local support services and housing, and”,

secondly, that there are sufficient

“arrangements for the integration of refugees into local communities”.

Finally, Amendment 5 says that the Secretary of State may not lay a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules in accordance with these measures if the statutory cap is exceeded. The statutory cap was brought in by virtue of Section 60 of the Illegal Migration Act and is yet to be set, even though the section is in force. Provision is made in respect of any other statutory cap. In the event of such a statutory cap being exceeded, a Secretary of State must not, in accordance with this amendment, lay a statement of changes.

Amendment 9 seeks to remove Clause 1(5)(a)(i), which extends family reunion eligibility to the adoptive parents of refugees under 18. While the intention here is undoubtedly compassionate, it is essential that we maintain alignment with the existing Immigration Rules, which are more restrictive in scope. Expanding eligibility to this extent risks opening pathways that are difficult to manage and could inadvertently encourage unsafe migration practices. One of the reasons why the present arrangements do not permit parents to join child refugees is to disincentivise people from seeking to send children in advance on a dangerous, long and potentially life-threatening journey, and not facilitate a method to encourage migration to the United Kingdom. It is very clear that there is no sense in generating a perverse incentive for people to send children across the seas so that they might be able to then come to the United Kingdom by reason of making such an application.

Amendment 12 would remove the inclusion of unmarried partners from eligibility in the Bill. Of course, it is right that the present provisions in the Immigration Rules will remain. That is my final amendment in this group that I will discuss.

I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in so far as they are an alternative to mine. Having said all that, I beg to move.

I ask the noble Lord, who I think has also put forward Amendment 14, whether children who have been formally adopted are contained within the Immigration Rules?

Appendix FM, as I understand it—although I would have to check—does allow for an application to be considered by the Home Office in respect of a formally adopted child. But I am sure the Minister can confirm, or otherwise, in relation to that.

Given that the last Government did not set up safe, legal routes and actually encouraged the small boats, does the noble Lord have no shame in actually suggesting that this will do the same?

Well, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong: there are a number of safe and legal routes, as she will hear in a moment from the Minister. We are part of the UK resettlement scheme and there are a number of other routes, including the Ukraine family scheme and the Hong Kong scheme: these are all safe and legal routes. So I have absolutely no shame in standing here and asserting that this Bill would be contrary to the interests of this country.

My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendments in group 1 and to support my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I extend my apologies at the outset to your Lordships’ House for the fact that I was not able to be here on 18 October for Second Reading due to a long-standing family engagement. Given that I have tabled a significant number of amendments, I think it would be helpful to explain why my noble friends and I are seeking to amend the Bill. First, I put on record my appreciation of the commitment and tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in seeking to get this measure on to the statute book on a number of occasions. Notwithstanding that, this is a very poorly drafted and ill thought through Bill, which is why 32 amendments have been tabled to it in Committee. It gives rise to wide-ranging ramifications in terms of public finances, the delivery of public services and community cohesion. It is a de facto legislative open door to unlimited immigration—let us be honest about that. If noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to reject that analysis, I am more than happy to give way. It is also inherently unfair on those seeking regular routes to indefinitely remain and to citizenship. Finally, more generally, I believe it is predicated on a mischaracterisation and a misunderstanding of whether the UK has indeed discharged its historic and current proper humanitarian and compassionate international duties to refugees. I think there is significant evidence that it has. So, it is a bad Bill, but even now, at this late stage, I believe it can be improved. It is as well to say that the UK has a long and proud record of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution, including Jewish refugees in the 1930s and Ugandan Asians in the 1970s, some of whom came to my former constituency, Peterborough. Via bespoke humanitarian routes the UK actually resettled 31,000 refugees between 2012 and 2022, excluding the Afghan resettlement scheme and the Ukraine and Hong Kong programmes. Indeed, in 2023, 62,000 grants of application for asylum were made, against 84,000 in-country applications, the second highest in the European league table. It equates to 76%: significantly higher than, for instance, Italy, Spain or France, and up from 33% in 2018. I accept that it has since dropped to around 67% but, with these numbers, the provision of basic accommodation, a weekly allowance, free healthcare and education for children is nevertheless a very significant drain on public resources, however laudable the aims are. It would be appropriate to move to specifically consider the amendments that I have tabled in group 1. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my Amendments 3, 13, 18, 23, 26 and 27, which would all add sensible and reasonable safeguards to the Bill to ensure the integrity of our immigration system. Amendment 3 seeks to replace the proposed 21-day implementation period for changes to the Immigration Rules with a more measured timeframe of three months. Such a change reflects a pragmatic approach to policy-making, ensuring that any new rules governing refugee family reunion are implemented effectively and require sufficient time for consultation, preparation and operational adjustments, as well as for proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight in this House and the other place. A rushed 21-day period risks overwhelming local authorities, housing providers and other stakeholders, potentially undermining the system’s integrity. In my own home area of Peterborough, we have seen significant strains on the delivery of public services, particularly things such as GP surgeries, the provision of local authority and housing association housing, and primary school places. Three months provides a balanced compromise, enabling thorough preparation while allowing the Government to move forward in a timely manner. This measured approach ensures that the new policies will be robust and sustainable. Amendment 13 seeks to remove “unmarried partner” from the scope of family reunion eligibility. This amendment aligns family reunion provisions with the established principles of the Immigration Rules, which prioritise formal marital or civil partnerships over less formal relationships. Quite frankly, in the real world, it would be almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an unmarried partner is a bona fide claimant under these rules, and that is one of the many holes in the Bill as drafted. So this is a matter of both consistency and clarity. Recognising only spouses and civil partners provides clear criteria for eligibility, reducing the potential for fraudulent claims. It also upholds traditional values that recognise marriage and civil partnership as the cornerstone of a stable family unit as it goes forward towards citizenship and playing a meaningful and useful role in UK society. This amendment ensures that the UK’s immigration policies remain fair, transparent and in line with public expectations. In fact, if your Lordships consider comparative regimes across Europe and other jurisdictions, they will see that this is very much in line with the practices adopted in other countries. Amendment 18 proposes reducing the age limit for siblings eligible for family reunion from 25 to 21 years old. There is of course significant scientific data that says that a human being is not fully developed—certainly, their brain is not fully developed—perhaps until their mid-20s, but that is contested. It is generally accepted across the world that you are an adult either at 18 or, in the case of some legislation, at 21. Such a change reflects the practical realities of adulthood and independence. At 21, individuals are generally expected to be self-sufficient and capable of making their own rational decisions and establishing their own lifestyle.

14:30:00

Extended family reunion eligibility to siblings up to 25 could place a further undue burden on the immigration system and local services, particularly housing. It is very important for your Lordships to think through how this would impact on the financial obligations and financial strains of already overstretched housing registers in urban areas of the country in particular.

Lowering the age limit to 21 would strike a fair balance between compassion and pragmatism, ensuring that the policy was targeted at those who were genuinely dependent on their family members: in other words, children and young people who are not yet at the stage where they are fully independent, able to enter the employment market or do meaningful voluntary work, for instance.

My Amendment 23 would introduce an important safeguard by requiring the Secretary of State to consider intelligence from a range of trusted agencies, including the National Crime Agency, HM Coastguard and international bodies such as Interpol, before granting family reunion status. The amendment would strengthen the integrity of the immigration system by ensuring that decisions were informed by comprehensive and credible evidence. It reflects the Government’s duties to prioritise public safety and national security, ensuring that no individual who poses a potential threat is granted entry. By embedding these safeguards, the amendment would enhance public confidence in the family reunion process.

I will speak briefly on my final two amendments, Amendments 26 and 27. Amendment 26 proposes the removal of the reference to “de facto adoption” from the Bill. Although adoption is a recognised legal process with clear safeguards, de facto adoption lacks the same formal standards and could be open to abuse, and it would be expensive and cumbersome to—

Time.

It is an advisory time limit. I thank the noble Lord for that. It would also be impossible to ascertain the veracity of a claim in foreign jurisdictions. This amendment would ensure that family reunion rights were extended only to those whose adoptive status had been legally verified. Such a change would protect vulnerable children while ensuring that the system was not exploited; in fact, it would specifically protect children and young people from being trafficked for sexual or other exploitation. Amendment 27 would introduce a requirement for medical health assessments for all applicants before their family reunion status was approved. This is a common-sense measure that ensures the health and well-being of those entering the UK. Early health assessments can identify any medical issues requiring treatment, ensuring that appropriate support is provided, and additionally, these assessments protect public health by identifying and addressing any communicable diseases. This policy is pursued by many countries across the world and is sensible and responsible. Such a policy is not only practical but humane, reflecting the UK’s commitment to safeguarding both incoming refugees and the wider community. In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that the Bill is both compassionate and practical. They would uphold public confidence, protect national security, and promote fairness and transparency in the immigration system. I urge the Committee to support these thoughtful and necessary provisions.

My Lords, the speakers’ list for today states: “Other speakers within each group are expected to keep within 10 minutes”. If noble Lords could respect that, your Lordships’ House would probably appreciate it.

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments in my name in this group, and to support generally the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson, who have already spoken on theirs. My amendments are Amendments 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 25. Amendment 4 is designed to increase the time to a year. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs, numbers and funds were all understood by each of the bodies concerned—authorities and taxpayers—that fund the asylum system, and that they were itemised and publicly announced. Amendments 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are designed to tighten and clarify the provisions governing age and to tighten the provisions governing status, about which my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Murray have already spoken. Amendment 25 is designed to make entitlement transparent, by bringing the identity documents needed in line with existing immigration arrangements. Amendment 4 would require one year to pass before the Secretary of State was required to provide for family reunion. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs and numbers in the arrangements for funding and accommodating family members under the Bill were fully understood and that we knew who was funding the Bill, whether already hard-pressed councils, the Exchequer or both were paying, and whether people and families covered by the Bill would have priority over other applicants for local authority housing and public services. The other amendments aim to ensure that those covered are eligible to entitlement on clear grounds. We need a Bill to be clear about the grounds of age and status, and in accord with UK law. My final amendment in this group, Amendment 25, aims to underpin the security arrangements for entitlement by way of specific requirements for identity under the Identity Documents Act 2010. All amendments therefore aim to ensure that, given the very large and growing number of applicants each year, such a significant transfer of population—the entire family for each applicant, which has serious consequences, including financial and practical—is limited strictly to the immediate family, children under 18 at the time the Bill passes and parents of such children covered under the Bill. Even then, the potential cost will be significant, and it will add to the costs and demands on the already overstretched asylum system, the first focus of which must be on asylum seekers themselves. The priority must be to ensure that applications are processed quickly and efficiently. I am very glad the present Government are continuing their work to hurry up the processing. Resources should therefore be spent on those seeking asylum. We should seek to introduce the necessary rules to supervise, limit and identify those strictly covered under the Bill and those who believe that they have an entitlement. There are complex arrangements here and they need to be clarified. Local communities and organisations should be consulted, because we do not want to see unpleasantness and objections from local communities unprepared for housing groups of asylum seekers in small villages or towns across the country. We have no certain idea of the numbers, and I would be grateful—I am waiting with interest—to hear the noble Baroness let us know what they are. However, we know how many people made asylum applications in the year ending September 2024—77,066 over the 12-month period, relating to 99,700 people. If the Bill proceeds and the numbers expand, we will have no idea of how many family members will be covered by the Bill in addition to those already covered in law. We know that the costs are high. The asylum system itself costs £5 billion. It is the highest level of spending on record, and it is up by a third on the previous year. The costs of the UK asylum system were £5.38 billion in November 2024—the highest, as I have said, and 12 times higher than when these statistics were kept in this format in 2013-14. The Home Office figure for asylum costs covers direct cash support and accommodation, wider staffing and other related migration and border activity, but not the operation of channel-crossing interceptions to the UK. We need to take account of the additional costs this measure would put on the system, in terms of both compliance and money, and whether this will take away from the rapid processing of existing asylum claims, which should be and rightly is one of the priorities this Government are focusing on. Adding family members could increase the number by a factor of anything from three upwards. To conclude, there is no appetite in this country for further immigration of that magnitude. Our housing, education and health services are creaking at the seams, with continued pressures adding to the burden they and taxpayers face. We have already seen that the Government intend to raise tax even further, to the tune of £40 billion a year. Total immigration was in the region of 700,000 last year. Voters want it brought down. For this reason, I urge the Government to accept my amendments and the other amendments in this group if they strengthen what I am proposing. It is in line with the Government’s promise to bring immigration down. For those for whom a statement is made that family reunion can take place, the amendments I propose will curtail it to immediate family. They require clarity and tighten up the arrangements for identifying those covered. They are in line with current UK arrangements. They would ensure that public authorities and voters are aware of the cost and that there is more time for authorities, local communities and the Government to ensure that nothing is rushed, because it will end up being a mess.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 19. Like my noble friend Lord Jackson, I apologise that I was not able to be here at Second Reading. I simply echo his earlier comments without going into any detail. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for tabling Amendment 19 because I have a question and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were able to address the drafting. Earlier today, I made the familiar comment in a Second Reading that, however good a Bill is, the devil is in the detail. I would like to address just one part of the detail to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 19 seeks to “Clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b)”. That paragraph refers to “such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—” and it gives some exemptions. Rightly, of course, it talks about the best interests of a child. That is the crucial issue underpinning, I am sure, what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wishes to do in bringing forward the Bill. However, I am concerned about the drafting of Clause 1(5)(b)(iii). It applies to “the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person”. This is a hugely wide lack of definition about who we are talking about. I am assuming we are talking in the first terms about a child. The person might be the child, but who is the other person? It goes far wider than just a family connection: there is financial dependency. I feel that that particular part of this clause requires further investigation. I do not propose to extend the time today on that—I have some ideas myself about how the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might be able to better present that part of this clause—but as it stands, I certainly would not be able to support that part of the Bill.

14:45:00

My Lords, I oppose the amendments in this group introduced by their three proposers. I do so for five reasons. The first is that I believe in putting the traffickers out of business, and studies show that about half of those in the camps in Calais are family reunion cases: they are people wishing to join members of their family here. The second is that the principal virtue, in my book, of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that it deals with the anomaly where we, with the Swiss and Liechtenstein, are the only countries in Europe that do not allow a resident refugee child granted asylum status to sponsor family members to come into the country. Our position is an anomaly, which, in my view, is quite unworthy of us and quite unfitting with our pride in being a sanctuary country. Thirdly, I oppose the amendments because they are unworkable. I think the intention is probably to make them unworkable, but in practice, they would be unworkable. A good example is Amendment 7, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which would require the Secretary of State to publish in the initial statement and every six months how many people would be expected to come in under the Act and the approximate cost per person. We know the answer, actually. The Refugee Council study established that the numbers would be somewhere in the range of 240 to 750 a year, if we, as every other European country, except Liechtenstein and Switzerland, does, allowed a resident child granted asylum status to bring in family members. The range would be no more than 750—it might be as little as 240—and the cost would be about £1,000 a head. So we are talking de minimis here on money but constructing extremely elaborate bureaucracy and laying requirements on local government—and central government, because we are talking about the accommodation requirements—to do an immense amount of reporting. This, for Members of this House who oppose overregulation and bureaucracy, is a rather surprising structure. I, of course, was a bureaucrat—a proud bureaucrat. I should be delighted to see many more bureaucrats given entertainment and occupation, but actually I think it is a very bad idea. My fourth reason is that overspecifying, going into all the detail that this does, is itself a bad thing. I think it is correct that the Immigration Rules lay down the details and primary legislation should not. That is the right way of doing it, and all this heavy detail in here is making this a very peculiar piece of primary legislation and is overlapping with the existing Immigration Rules. My fifth and last point, which relates to that one, is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth—because he is a distinguished lawyer and I am neither distinguished nor a lawyer—to think hard a contrario. If we set out such extraordinarily detailed specifications in primary legislation, what about the other Immigration Rules that do not simply copy primary legislation? Will it not be open to individuals to argue in the courts, against the authorities, that, because the specification in the Immigration Rules was not set out in primary legislation, it is in some way defective? I think it is very dangerous to get into a contrario territory, but I bow to the lawyers in this Committee who know more about it than I do.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his kindness in giving way. Do I understand his main point to be that real-time, empirical data is inimical to the formulation of good public policy? Is he actually saying that we should not collect data in order to make policy, for the future of our country, in respect of the provision of health services, housing and all the rest? That is a very odd argument to make, if I am perfectly honest.

Of course not.

My Lords, I regret that I was not here for Second Reading, but my Green Party colleague, my noble friend Lady Bennett, was. I absolutely oppose all these amendments. I have been at debates on a couple of Bills in this Session where the Conservative Peers have been, I would say, playing games. That does not show respect to your Lordships’ House.

Shame.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave me a very sneaky answer earlier. If he is a distinguished lawyer, I can see how he might win cases by being sneaky like that. He knows very well—look, he is laughing.

That is unparliamentary language.

Is it? I do not think it is.

Yes. All this—

The noble Lord has had his say. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, knows very well that when I say “safe and legal routes”, I mean for any and every nationality—not just the few that the previous Government thought were acceptable to come to Britain. Also, if noble Lords are rude enough to go over the advisory time limit and show disrespect to the Committee, perhaps their microphones should be turned off. On the other Bills I mentioned, the Conservatives have been filibustering. They have been making some of these Bills quite unpleasant to sit through when one cares about the issue at hand. Personally, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, even though he did not give way to me. He is absolutely right that this is petty bickering; I really cannot stand it. We need safe and legal routes. The previous Government did not give us those routes for all nationalities, which means—

Will the noble Baroness give way?

No; I will give way in a moment—perhaps.

Will the noble Baroness give way?

No. The previous Government actually encouraged the small boats. They encouraged people to come by routes that were not safe. The Green Party supports this Bill. It is time to remove the barriers so that desperate children can be reunited with their families in safety.

My Lords, I declare that I—along with Fiona Mactaggart, then an MP—wrote a report on children in northern France, Calais and Dunkirk some years ago. I find this whole group of amendments to the Bill extremely sad. I want to concentrate on a legal issue, which I raise to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I was certainly not an immigration lawyer but, as far as I understand the Immigration Rules, civil partners, who come up in Amendment 13, and adopted children, who come up in Amendment 14—both are referred to in Clause 1(5)—are already within the Immigration Rules. Consequently, if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are right, they are trying to reduce the Immigration Rules, not increase them.

My Lords, I was unable to attend Second Reading, but I have come in today especially because this debate is a very interesting one. I say to those who really want to hear a well-argued and well-reasoned debate that it is the convention of this House that, when someone seeks to intervene with a point and they ask the speaker to give way, that person should be heard. It is very sad to see the tone of this debate.

My Lords, I declare my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. At the outset, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, if I caught him correctly, said that it was difficult to explain why the amendments in this group were laid. That is what I heard—I apologise if it is not what he said. It seems to me, from the conversation we have had on this group of amendments, that it is primarily about making further restrictions on what is already in the rules of our system and, secondly, about creating differences in timings. Those would then make it more difficult to put forward the principles that lie behind this Bill, which of course is about filling some of the eligibility gaps that currently exist for family reunion. On timings, it strikes me as strange that we have two sets of amendments pulling in opposite directions. In one set we have amendments from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches saying that they want to restrict the amount of time that the Home Office and the Government have to make the new arrangements, while in the other set they are trying to expand them so that they have longer to do it. I do not know whether we can make a judgment on that, but it seems to me that what is common practice in the timings for dealing with changes that the Government have to make—the current procedure in this Bill of six months for the Government to prepare, and 21 days before Parliament—

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I fear that he is wrong on this, in that we are seeking to open a larger window for parliamentary oversight, in terms of a statement laid by the Secretary of State under the conditions laid down in the Bill, but to give more time for those people more acutely affected at local level, such as local authorities, police and other agencies. That is why he may see a slight difference there, but they are not mutually exclusive ideas in respect of our amendments.

I understand the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, but I do not understand how they can be put alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, which seek to increase the time overall. Anyway, I am sure that noble Lords in this Committee will be able to make their minds up, having heard that interjection just then. Beyond timing, of course, there are a number of issues relating to restrictions. The issue fundamental to this is that, on the family reunion potential, those who come with family reunion protection are largely women and children. We must not forget that this is the group of people we are talking about. Family reunion costs less to the British purse than it does if you have to manage things through the state. Looking after young people by local authorities does not come cheap, and having people within their own family background certainly helps to support every aspect of family life—but particularly for young people it makes sure they have a good start in life and can proceed. I will not repeat the numbers because I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, but they are small. There are other numbers that might give an indication of the future—the ones that I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was asking about. In the past 12 months, 3,201 unaccompanied children were given protection in this country up to the year ending September 2024. Those 3,201 may have family; it is true that they may have parents somewhere, but you have to make a judgment as to how many would seek to bring their families here. We are one of only three countries on the European continent that do not operate on that potential.

15:00:00

The total number of family reunion visas granted last year was 19,154, with the top visa countries being Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Another amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says that there has to be a medical assessment of all the people coming from those countries within 48 hours, I think, of them making an application, or some other very short period. First, that would be incredibly difficult. Secondly, these people are running and escaping for their lives and may not even be in that country at that time. Thirdly, the provision of that sort of medical advice is simply not acceptable. We must be careful when amendments are put down, as they can restrict what is in the Bill to such an extent that the Bill’s importance is lost.

Many of these amendments overlap rules that are already in place. Nothing in this Bill seeks to replace the rules that are already there, which, of course, support issues such as border security.

Finally, because there are so many anomalies in these amendments, I would like to commend the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for saying in an amendment that the Home Office must consult the European Union before it proceeds. That seems to me to be an abrupt volte-face. I congratulate the Conservative Party: if it wants this passed, we can consult the European Union—that is fine by me.

I hope that the House will not accept these amendments and I ask noble Lords to put them aside, because they do not make for a coherent Bill. I say on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that we support and will assist our noble friend Lady Hamwee to make this Bill a reality.

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments to Clause 1 put forward by my noble friends on this side of the House. First, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth that seeks to replace “must” with “may” in Clause 1. This amendment is a vital adjustment to ensure that we uphold the principles of good governance, maintain flexibility in policy-making and safeguard our national interests. First and foremost, this amendment reflects the importance of retaining the Government’s discretion in managing immigration policy. Whichever Government are in power, immigration is an ongoing and rapidly changing issue to which the Secretary of State at the time must respond with pace. The word “must” imposes a rigid timeline and an obligation on the Secretary of State to act within six months, regardless of the evolving circumstances. Replacing it with “may” will preserve the Government’s ability to assess, prioritise and implement policies based on the prevailing domestic and international context. This flexibility is especially important in a world that is increasingly uncertain and unpredictable. Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the six-month timeline for laying changes to the Immigration Rules with a more appropriate one-month period. This amendment is about ensuring that Parliament retains proper oversight of a Bill about which we have serious concerns. Reducing the timeline to one month ensures that any changes to the Immigration Rules under the Bill are brought back to Parliament swiftly for scrutiny. It would prevent the Government from allowing extended periods of uncertainty to shield decisions that could fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. The amendment highlights a critical point that, while we respect the intention behind the Bill, we oppose it because it fails to address the complexities of immigration policy. Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the 21-day implementation period with a more measured three-month period. This amendment reflects our belief that significant changes to our Immigration Rules, such as those concerning refugee family reunion, must not be rushed through without proper consideration of their implications for the UK’s immigration system, resources and public confidence. The original provision for 21 days is, frankly, far too short a period for such substantial changes to be introduced and implemented. We believe that it risks creating undue pressure on our immigration authorities and undermining the orderly processes that we have worked hard to maintain. Extending this period to three months would therefore provide the necessary time for proper evaluation, preparation and control. Family reunions must be managed in a way that ensures that we are not inadvertently incentivising illegal migration or creating vulnerabilities in our immigration system. Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to amend Clause 1 by extending the period for implementing changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion from 21 days to one year. This amendment is both prudent and necessary, as it would ensure that any changes were introduced with the care, preparation and thoroughness that they deserve. The practical implications of significant policy changes must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine the very outcomes that we seek to achieve. This amendment would provide the Government with the time required to conduct a comprehensive and detailed review of the potential impacts of these changes, including their effects on public services, local communities and the integration of refugees. A rushed implementation within just 21 days would fail to account for the complex and interconnected challenges of housing, healthcare, education and social cohesion that arise from any significant adjustment to our Immigration Rules. Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, seeks to introduce critical safeguards ensuring that any changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion are made responsibly with due consideration for their impact on local communities, public services and our broader immigration system. This amendment strikes to the heart of the practical realities of governing. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that our policies are sustainable and do not place undue strain on local communities or public services. By requiring the Secretary of State to assess the projected impact on local support services, housing and integration arrangements, the amendment would introduce a much-needed layer of accountability, which acknowledges that housing, schools, healthcare and community resources are not infinite and that we must carefully manage the arrival of new residents to ensure that they are properly supported. Overburdening the systems not only will undermine the successful integration of refugees but could erode public confidence in our immigration policies. Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to introduce a new level of transparency and accountability to the Bill by requiring detailed information on costs, capacity and prioritisation in housing before implementing changes to the Immigration Rules. This amendment is both practical and prudent, ensuring that any changes introduced under the Bill are grounded in a full understanding of their financial and social implications. It reflects core Conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, public accountability and fairness, ensuring that we balance our humanitarian commitments with the needs of our communities and the sustainability of our public services. Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seeks to reduce the age threshold from 25 to 21 concerning the eligibility of siblings for family reunion. This amendment is a vital correction to a clause that, as currently drafted, risks broadening the scope of family reunion far beyond what is reasonable or necessary. By lowering the age threshold, we can better align this provision with the principles of fairness, practicality and public confidence in our immigration system. The age of 25 is unnecessarily high and creates significant challenges for the effective management of family reunion cases. An individual in their mid-20s is, by any reasonable standard, an adult capable of independence. Extending family reunion rights to siblings up to the age of 25 dilutes the focus of the Bill. The proposed age of 21 strikes a more appropriate balance. It avoids creating a system that is overly broad and difficult to administer. This amendment would ensure that family reunion remains a process based on need, not convenience. Moreover, the broader implications of maintaining the 25 year-old threshold must not be ignored. Such an expansive definition risks placing additional strain on already overstretched resources, including housing, social services and immigration officials. It could undermine the public’s trust in our ability to manage migration in a controlled and responsible manner—a trust that is critical to maintaining support for genuine humanitarian efforts. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and to reject a Bill that, in its current form, risks eroding the principles on which our immigration system is built. Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would require a medical health assessment for each applicant under Clause 1 before their application for family reunion status is approved. This amendment is a practical and necessary addition to the Bill. It would ensure that the process for granting family reunion status is not only compassionate but thorough, responsible and mindful of the broader implications for public health and welfare. First and foremost, the amendment would strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our immigration system. By implementing a medical health assessment, we would establish a robust framework that considers the physical and physiological fitness of applicants while addressing potential public health concerns. This is particularly important to ensure that we meet our obligations to applicants and the communities that welcome them. The amendment also aligns with the principles of good governance and accountability. It would ensure that decisions regarding family reunion are made with full knowledge of any health factors that may affect an individual’s ability to integrate and thrive in the United Kingdom. It would prevent rushed or uninformed approvals that could create challenges down the line for both applicants and public services. I commend my noble friend for proposing this amendment, which demonstrates a commitment to compassion balanced with prudence. I urge the Committee to support this sensible and measured addition to the Bill to ensure that our family reunion policies remain fair, humane and effective.

Well, we have had some fun with the Bill and the amendments. I start by reiterating what I said on 18 October when I responded to the Bill’s Second Reading on behalf of the Government. For ease, I refer noble Lords to cols. 371-74. It is worth taking that as a starting point because the amendments and their impact on the Bill are relevant. I said very clearly at that stage: “I reassure all noble Lords that the Government fully support the principle of family unity and share their concerns regarding families who have been separated by conflict or persecution. It is for precisely that reason that the Government support what has been referred to already: an existing comprehensive framework for reuniting refugees with their families in the UK”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 371.] That is the principle of the Bill. At the same time, I said: “Expanding the policy to extended family would—undoubtedly, in my view and in those of my colleagues across the Home Office—have a significant and difficult impact on stretched public resources. It would also mean that we have to bring more people into scope of the policy, including those who may not necessarily need international protection themselves”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 373.] On 18 October, I found myself supporting the Bill and the principle of it in part, but not its extensions without further consideration. I now find myself addressing amendments which are, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said—let us be generous—somewhat contradictory in parts. There is no coherence from the Conservative Back Benches or Front Bench in relation to all those points, and different places and policy principles are put onboard. I find myself looking at all the amendments and thinking that these are not designed to help the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they are probably not designed to help the Government come to sensible suggestions on these points, and they are certainly not designed to help those who might face persecution or refugee status and need those supports. Can I support the amendments? No, I cannot. Can I support the noble Baroness’s Bill in its current form? No, I cannot. I find myself in the very strange position of being the Government of the day and coming to a sensible position, perhaps; Members will judge that in due course.

15:15:00

Today, we are debating Immigration Rules proceedings. Amendments 1 to 4 state that the Government should make some changes. My response, as is the case with any changes to the Immigration Rules, is that the Government will require reasonable time. We have had some suggestions about what that reasonable time would be. Personally, taking into account all these factors and more, I think that setting arbitrary dates for laying rules and when they come into effect is not conducive to good policy-making. Therefore, can I support those amendments? No, I cannot. Will I vote against them if they are pressed? Well, there may be a discussion between the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the Conservatives as to what will happen, but we will see, if they come to a vote, in due course.

Amendments have been tabled on rule changes on impact data, including Amendments 5, 7, 30 and 31 today, some of which are in different groupings later on. I acknowledge that there are pressures on local authorities. I mentioned that in my speech at Second Reading, at col. 373, so I acknowledge that. We acknowledge increased pressures faced by local authorities in accommodating new arrivals. All applications for refugee family reunion must meet the requirements set out in the Immigration Rules. Amendment 7 is trying to address that but, again, we do not set out minimum or other requirements around accommodation in the current rules. I do not think that that is a fair and equitable thing to do, because we have to recognise complex and vulnerable situations that the route provides for.

It may help those who have tabled the amendments if I say that the Home Office publishes family reunion data quarterly and puts information out, as has been mentioned by a number of colleagues, by nationality, age and gender. I acknowledge that recent trends in family reunion visas may reflect the increase in the number of people granted refugee or humanitarian protection in previous years, many of whom may now be eligible to bring in family members. But again, I find myself in the position of being between the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and those Members who have tabled amendments to tighten the Bill before us today. There is a series of amendments, we can go through each in turn, but essentially that is the procedure, to tighten that regulation.

Some of the amendments—Amendments 22, 25 and 27 —are looking at refugee family reunion and putting requirements on health assessments: where an applicant is applying from outside the UK, they will need to provide various health assessments. As it happens, at the moment they have to provide valid TB certificates and information on their health for the preceding six months. We require biometrics to be taken as part of the application and we support that assessment being made. So, again, I find myself wondering, are we tightening the proposals?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is seeking to allow more people to come in and that creates a problem. Again, I have said that we recognise that, so I find myself in the position today of wanting to reassure the House that the Government fully support the principle of family unity, share the concerns regarding families that have been separated by conflict or persecution, and actually have a very proud record of allowing refugee family reunion to take place. Some 67,933 individuals were reunited with their families over the past decade, including by the previous Government, who are today apparently seeking to tighten the very rules that they allowed to operate over the past 10 years.

So I find myself in the strange position that I cannot fully agree with the noble Baroness and I certainly cannot agree with His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Let us see what happens today. Let us see whether Members withdraw their amendments or push them to a Division—

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way in a moment. Let us see whether the noble Baroness wishes to accept any of their amendments. I think the Government are in broadly the right place. We understand the pressures. We have a good set of rules in place. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, before he intervenes, that we are committed to publishing a migration White Paper very shortly that will look at a range of other issues debated in this House and in the House of Commons that government policy considers. The impact of asylum and refugee status, although not migration, is still an important issue because additional individuals coming in on family reunion is a form of migration. All these matters have to be considered. As I said at Second Reading and say again now, these are matters the Government need to reflect upon in slower time. But I will certainly hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to say.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am worried about his reputation as a bruiser from the other place because he sounds dangerously consensual and collaborative this afternoon, which is always worrying coming from him. The Minister has been speaking for 10 minutes and has not alighted on the challenge thrown down by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth concerning the overall generic numbers—the universal numbers—that are likely to come as a result of the Bill as unamended. Surely that is something the Government will take an interest in, if he makes a judgment on, for instance, the provision of public services in future.

Bruiser? Moi? Surely not. I will at some point potentially bruise the noble Lord once again, but today I am trying to find the sensible middle way. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that I have already recognised that there are issues with the numbers. When he intervened at Second Reading and asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the numbers, there was a potential vacuum for an assessment of what those numbers would be. Again, any sensible Government would have to take those matters into account, which, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is why I indicated at Second Reading that we had concerns about the additional numbers, the assessments of those numbers and the criteria for granting them. As I said then and reiterate today, there are legal reasonable routes for other family members to join after a proper assessment. Without repeating it all today, I referenced that very strongly in the debate at Second Reading. The government response today is that I wish the amendments to be withdrawn. But that is a matter for noble Lords. As we progress, in Committee, on Report, at Third Reading and when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, we as a Government will, in between, reflect on these matters. I hope that is clear, even if it is slightly in the middle. Maybe in the middle is not such a bad place to be. That is my view on the amendments and on the Bill. I can add nothing more than that today than to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to amendments that were designed—as appears to be the condition of current Opposition Members—not to help clarity, were perhaps for a little further discussion or perhaps a little obfuscation. Ultimately, the House will determine these matters in due course.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Schwab and Westheimer Trust, which supports young asylum seekers in education. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his compliments about persistence. The compliments should be directed at previous Home Office Ministers, who waived the Bill’s predecessors through to the Commons in a very similar form and did not seek to obstruct them. I applaud the Minister’s elegant negotiation of a tightrope. As he says, there can be further opportunities for discussion, and of course sending the Bill to the Commons gives those opportunities. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I certainly had not intended a discourtesy. There was not a vacuum as regards the numbers; it was my inability immediately to find the briefing we received from the Red Cross, Safe Passage and the Refugee Council, which was sent to those who had their names down to speak at Second Reading. Had I realised that he wanted to pursue that point, I would of course have handed on my copy of the briefing. That briefing included a number of other issues. I will make a few general points that are relevant to all the amendments in this group. The Bill is to put into statutory form provisions for family reunion that are currently in the rules, because statute is more stable than rules. We are adding siblings, for reasons that we will come to, and provide for children to sponsor family members, including parents, whom they cannot currently sponsor. The cost of supporting unaccompanied children is obviously high. My view is that reuniting families would lead to savings: parents would support their children. We want to see more safe and legal routes. Currently, those routes are quite limited. The provisions we are proposing would create a safe and legal route, subject to a visa. Applications for visas are much easier to control, oversee and assess than people arriving on our shores in an irregular fashion. Of course, children—particularly those who are alone—are in a particular position. That is why we have had a lot of support from outside the House, with many mentions of the best interests of the child. Vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation has already been mentioned. The incompatibility of some of the amendments with many of the current rules has been mentioned. The current position is that the Secretary of State can extend or restrict eligibility through changes to the rules, so the factual position remains the same. Amendment 19 is slightly tighter than the current position, in that it suggests criteria. I will have to keep my remarks shorter than I would like, and I hope noble Lords will understand the slightly telegraphic nature of some of what I have to say. First, making the Bill not permissive denies the whole Bill. I thought the “may” and “must” point was linked with the proviso in Amendment 5, which I had assumed was the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, shows concern for services integration, which was not much of a focus for the previous Government. It is hugely important, and I encourage him to keep on urging both investment and support for the organisations involved, and to pursue the recommendations of the Woolf commission. But the conditions he sets out do not apply to grants of family reunion now. We on these Benches are no great fans of the IMA; I hope that we will see the current Government get rid of it. The previous Government of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, consulted on a cap under the IMA, but did not include family reunion in the proposals for that cap. They listed routes to be subject to the cap and referred to other safe and legal routes.

15:30:00

In the noble Lord’s Amendment 5, there is a reference to local support services and housing. Of course I do not minimise the burden on local authorities; I mentioned the current burden on them, which I think would be ameliorated by the Bill.

On timing, there are a number of different proposals from the Conservative Benches. The timing needs care, both for producing proposed rules and for consultation. One month is a very short time to undertake consultation, and we have in this group some detailed proposals for consultation. I am sure that all the listed organisations would want much time to reply.

Amendment 7 calls for huge detail in the statement setting out the rules, and for a statement “every six months”. There is nothing to stop the Home Office collecting the information referred to, but to have rules that are in some way contingent on revision every six months is a burden on the Home Office and, I think, on applicants on a visa route, who would not know whether there were to be changes made if they are on the way.

I am not sure whether “temporary refugee permission” and “temporary humanitarian protection” have been mentioned, but the protection status has the same meaning as in the rules. The current rules contain those terms, although I understand that temporary permission and protection are not currently in use. That is related to the recent legislation that has been paused.

Who are family members for the purpose of this group? Noble Lords have addressed that to a certain extent. Amendments 10, 11 and 15 would restrict the age limit on children to being those under 18 on the day that the Act was passed. That strikes me as meaning that there would be an ever-decreasing number of children who are eligible, but the situations causing people to seek refuge will not decrease.

As the guidance explains, the rules define relevant family members as being a

“spouse … civil partner; or … unmarried partner, where the couple have been living together in a relationship similar to marriage or a civil partnership for at least two years”.

The Home Office recognises that many refugee couples are unable to marry. Those points require no change, nor indeed do those about adoption. De facto adoption is mentioned because other cultures—we acknowledge this as a society—are different from ours, but one would still need to prove the relationship.

I am editing my thoughts as I go. Another amendment seeks to reduce the maximum age of unmarried siblings from 25 to 21. Noble Lords may be aware of the particularly hazardous position of young women alone in the situations that we are concerned about. In other areas, UK law recognises that young people in this age group are particularly vulnerable. Indeed, the Second Reading of the Bill from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester immediately preceding this debate recognised that.

On the term “emotional support”—again, I am not sure whether this has been mentioned—I was very pleased to see that emotional support is mentioned in Home Office documents. It is in the relevant appendix to the rules.

I have made the general point that a visa route gives much more scope for assessing whether there is a security issue beforehand—much more than when somebody arrives seeking asylum. The application would have to be made before travel is undertaken. Biometrics have to be provided. ID and the relationship with the sponsor have to be proved. Part 9 of the current rules—and there is no suggestion that they should be changed—deals with general suitability requirements, including when an exclusion order is in place and whether the applicant is a serious or persistent criminal, has broken immigration laws, has made false representations or has sought to deceive the Home Office, and includes the general sweep-up provision that his or her presence would not be conducive to the public good. By proposing a visa route, we are proposing the possibility of management. A system for parents and children to be together does not mean that the border cannot be properly managed.

On the health assessment, as the Minister said, the Home Secretary has powers to require a TB certificate. I am not sure how this amendment would work. The application would not be made until the applicant is in the UK. It would be challenging in the countries my noble friend referred to. I do not think it is a practical arrangement, as was suggested by the Opposition Front Bench.

I think I have got to the end of the amendments included in this group. I hope I have, albeit in very shortened form, answered the points that have been made. I cannot accept any of the amendments in the group.

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate on this group of amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, with her customary elegance, has outlined her response to the amendments. I am particularly glad to note that we agree on the importance of integration in relation to additional family members—if not on too much else. I am also pleased to note that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on his matter of principle that the detail should be in the Immigration Rules. That is one of the reasons why I, like the Government, oppose the Bill in total. But, if we are to have the Bill, I suggest that we need the amendments. As I understand it, the Government remain against the Bill, notwithstanding the very elegant tightrope on which the Minister trod. I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his speech. Possibly one might have thought, from listening to it, that the purpose of the Bill was solely in relation to children, but of course we can see that Clause 1(3) relates to family members of “a person granted protection status”. So that is all people, not just those under 18. To the question from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I agree with her too. I certainly do not intend by my amendments any alteration to the present scheme in Appendix FM. It works well and allows the Secretary of State to amend the scheme, which is the correct way that these things should be done. Lastly, turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I obviously do not accept that the Government caused the small boats crossings; they sought very hard to address them and succeeded in bringing them down, and they brought in the Rwanda scheme to stop them. I still maintain that, had it been switched on, it would have achieved its deterrence objective, but that is a debate for another day. The noble Baroness suggested that the term “safe and legal routes” should be defined in the way she suggests: as a route open to anyone for application. I am afraid that that is not the meaning of safe and legal routes. It is a term used in statute and means just what it says on the tin: a route that is safe and legal. This Government, and the previous Government, have welcomed a great many refugees: over half a million in the last 10 years, including refugees from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. These are great things that we can all be proud of. However, through these amendments I say that the Bill would unfortunately overwhelm our resources to deal with this sort of migration. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.

I would like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for being so rude about him. I like to think that I speak the truth, but sometimes the truth verges on utter rudeness, and I am extremely sorry for saying that.

I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “6 months” and insert “one month”

My Lords, I will be brief. It is very gracious of the noble Baroness to apologise—

I think we need to look at the time and bring the Committee to a conclusion fairly quickly. If the noble Lord would help us by not speaking to his amendment, then we can get on with that.

On the basis of being as collegiate and collaborative as the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—before I have even spoken to it.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendments 3 to 5 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 3.44 pm.