Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I should start my speech with, “As I was saying,” given that this is the fifth such Private Member’s Bill from these Benches since 2017. My noble friend Lady Ludford introduced numbers 3 and 4.

I declare an interest as a trustee of a trust established by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, which has introduced me to a number of young asylum seekers applying for funding to attend university. Like so many young refugees I have met, they have impressed me by their resilience and their determination to contribute to the UK.

The first purpose of the Bill is to provide in primary legislation, not just in amendable rules that can be changed without Parliament’s involvement or scrutiny, the rights of people who seek safety in the UK to be joined by their family. It is not enough to hope that the Home Office will use its discretion. The second purpose is to define “family”. It is an unambitiously narrow definition, in the hope that the Government will see this extension to enable children to sponsor immediate family to join them as modest and doable—she says looking straight at the Minister. The right to sponsor applies to people with protection status—that is, refugees—and those with humanitarian protection who are at real risk of harm if returned to their country of origin but not for the specific reasons which bring them within the refugee convention. I shall refer to them all as refugees. The third purpose is legal aid.

Since 2017, when the first Bill was introduced, the plight of refugees has not changed, nor have the UK’s moral obligations or the importance of family, which politicians continue to emphasise. However, the political context has not stayed still: the areas affected—afflicted —by conflict; the greater politicisation of immigration; the conflation of asylum and immigration; and small boats have succeeded the lorries and trains used by desperate asylum seekers. Last year, 7% of asylum claims were from unaccompanied children. The academic think tank UK in a Changing Europe reports that 33% of the public think that the figure is not 7% but 40% or more. There is a huge leadership role for government to be clear here.

This Bill sits squarely within calls for safe routes for refugees; I acknowledge that we have some, mostly very specific. I acknowledge that, under the new Government, families separated during the evacuation from Kabul airport will benefit from an expansion of the ACRS and that a child evacuated without his parents will be able to make a referral to relocate them or—GOV.UK says “or”—his siblings. But there is so much more to do to put safe routes in place.

Today is Anti-Slavery Day. We know the dangers of being in the hands of traffickers—a very real risk for children alone—and of extreme exploitation. The organisation Missing People is clear that being missing very often means harm. I hope the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with her experience, will expand on this. Her report seven years ago found that closing off safe routes feeds the trafficking and smuggling networks.

Last year the Justice and Home Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, which I had the privilege of chairing, published a report on family migration. We were all affected by the evidence about children seeking asylum. A young Eritrean reached the UK alone after the sort of journey that is hard to imagine. His brother made it to Libya, which is not a good place to find yourself; he was picked up by traffickers. His sister was picked up at the border of Egypt and imprisoned there for two years. That committee is one of a number—in the Commons too—to have called for an extension to family reunification.

The Government’s response was:

“Our policy is not designed to keep child refugees away from their parents, but in considering any policy we must think carefully about the wider impact to avoid putting more people unnecessarily into harm’s way”.


Well, they are in harm’s way at home. There are plenty of “push factors”, but that Government often deployed the “pull factor” argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has said, it is “inherently implausible”. That Government’s attempts at deterrence in other contexts were not notably successful. We cannot prove a negative, but various respected organisations have reported that they cannot find support for the contention. It does not seem to me a compelling argument; indeed, there is evidence of children not wanting the Red Cross to trace their family in their country of origin for fear of endangering them.

What is compelling is the importance of family. They may not always be perfect, but being separated from your parents in childhood tends to have a significant impact on your mental health and well-being, indeed your very development. I know that other noble Lords will refer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. Siblings, too, are hugely significant; what a difference it must make in a strange country if you are with your brother or sister.

Our rules reflect a very westernised view of family. In many cultures, it is common for children of both sexes to live with their parents until marriage, and for three or four generations to stay together as a unit. Dependants are not as limited a cohort as we think of them. I have been urged to add more relatives to the list, and I well understand that; my own aunts were hugely important to me. I have said that the Bill is deliberately unambitious but, under it, the Secretary of State could add to the categories: criteria would include risk to physical, emotional or psychological well-being, and the interests of the child. I have heard the term “unexpressed grief” in connection with mental health, and “the freedom to be a child”.

There are benefits to society of supporting the integration of refugees. A moment’s thought will confirm what being settled means, in the non-technical sense, for refugees and for the rest of the population. It means stability; you can focus and achieve. If you are a child, you can focus on your education rather than being one of those described as “challenging” because you are always on edge, hoping your mother might be able to phone you.

Would there be a cost to the UK? Common sense tells me the contrary. Parents can take care of their children. We all know of the costs to local authorities of looking after children they are required to accommodate and support.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am time limited, like others, but I give way.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Perhaps the noble Baroness could inform the House how many people she envisages, on an annual basis, would be granted refugee family reunion status under these measures.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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. From the tone of that question, he obviously opposes what I am saying. I will go into that with him later, but he does not have his name down to speak.

In 2018 the UK Government requested information from EU member states about the impact of their family reunion policies. The UK is quite an outlier in Europe. There was little assessment about public services or the costs to Governments, but Italy reported that it had seen no financial effect on public resources. If the noble Lord who has just intervened is worried about numbers, he might think about costs, which are another factor. I can tell the noble Lord that the Refugee Council and Safe Passage estimate an additional 240 to 750 visa grants—not sponsorships—a year.

I turn lastly to legal aid. Yes, of course, there is a shortage of lawyers, but family reunion needs to be in scope. Exceptional case funding is so exceptional as to be well-nigh invisible. The current rules are a maze, almost impenetrable to applicants and to many lawyers.

I urge noble Lords to see this Bill all the way through, and the Government to accept what it provides. At the last iteration, the Labour Front Bench was very supportive. I will not name the spokesman for fear of embarrassing him, but he was very senior.

I have received a lot of support from outside the House. The International Rescue Committee says that it

“welcomes and strongly endorses this Bill which would see children and young people, who have fled conflict and persecution, finally reunited with their loved ones in the UK”.

In 2020, 14 children from a London primary school who had read the book The Boy at the Back of the Class—I commend it to noble Lords—told me how sad they were about the plight of lone refugee children. The boy at the back of the class was an unaccompanied asylum seeker. They were happy, though, that the book had a happy ending. In fact, the fiction involved the intervention of the late Queen Elizabeth. One child wrote:

“It must be very scary … to be in a big new country surrounded by new people. A strong country like ours can help”.


I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Bill. I know that, for at least two, being here was not straightforward. I also put on record the support that I have been asked to mention by four who have had to be elsewhere—the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lords, Lord Dubs, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Purvis of Tweed.

I thank the organisations that have briefed Peers for this debate and the individuals in them for all their work in the sector. I know how pressed they are. I will not name them all, other than to thank the Refugee Council—Jon Featonby has helped me so much to get this Bill and its predecessors to Second Reading.

I am sorry that, over the years, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I have been put into oppositional positions, as it were. It is not something that I wish at a personal level. He said that the system is not as dysfunctional as it has been painted, but I think that it is dysfunctional for the children whom we have been talking about.

The noble Lord also talked about playing into the hands of smugglers. It is widely regarded that establishing safe routes is the best way to address smuggling. I and the whole House look forward to a policy from the new Government on this. The Minister referred to a change of tone; I look forward to a change of policy and a change of law. The Government accept the importance of family reunion, but it is more than children joining their parents. It is illogical that it does not apply the other way round.

The term “exceptional” is prayed in aid, in respect of both legal aid and how the rules can be disapplied. I think that this separation should always be regarded as exceptional; it is the separation that is exceptional. I hope that there may be an opportunity to reflect with the Government, not against them. I anticipated a number of the objections that were made but, on resource pressures, several noble Lords made it clear that those pressures are best reduced by simplifying the rules and procedures. My noble friend Lord Oates referred to the processes; if they were smoother, that would save everyone an awful lot.

I am not going to take the time to refer to all the points that have been made but I realised that, since I have to wear spectacles, I could not see that I had rather more time left at the beginning. So I will take a moment to share with the House the responses that I received from the Migration Observatory, which I contacted to ask about numbers in preparation for this debate. It said that, as so many factors influence asylum migration, isolating the impact of family and reunion rights on asylum flows would be difficult statistically. However, it gave me two examples that it thought were instructive.

In 2016, Ireland changed domestic policy to enable children to sponsor family members and saw no significant change in numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the two years following the change. Very properly, the Migration Observatory said that one could always argue that, absent the change, numbers would have been smaller, but this is again impossible to verify statistically.

The example of Norway, which has family reunion for these children, suggests that a small share sponsor family members to join them—just 12% from 1990 to 2015. The Migration Observatory also refers to a report by the Refugee Council and Safe Passage, which said that this small percentage is supported by anecdotal evidence from service providers in the UK, which say that separated children are often unable to locate their family members. This makes sponsoring them very difficult. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were introduced by the previous Government, so a take-note Motion seemed more appropriate than a regret Motion as there was no time to debate them before the election. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting me to discuss them when he had hardly had time to breathe in his new role. My understanding is that the Government will look at them again as part of a wider review of detention matters, but I thought it important that we debate them now to ensure that noble Lords’ concerns are adequately addressed in the review.

Before I turn to the regulations, we would all find it helpful, I am sure, if the Minister could say more about the review when he comes to respond. In particular, what will it cover, what will be the timescale, will expert organisations be consulted and will both Houses be able to debate the outcome? This would also be helpful to the organisations that provided a joint briefing on the regulations—in particular, Medical Justice, to which I am grateful for its help. Here I should also declare my interest as a RAMP associate.

In effect, the regulations reduce the protection provided by statutory guidance to adults at risk in detention, which could increase the risk of the kinds of human rights violations uncovered in the Brook House inquiry. There are two main concerns. The first is the deletion of the key principle, introduced in 2016, that underlines the intention that fewer people with a confirmed vulnerability will be detained in fewer instances and that, where detention becomes necessary, it will be for the shortest period necessary. Of course, this concerns the wider question of the role of detention, which I assume will inform the more general review.

The second concern is about the reinstatement of the Home Office’s power to seek a second opinion from a contracted doctor on detained individuals who have already received an independent medical assessment that documents the impact and risks to their health of their continued detention. The second-opinion policy was in place from June 2022 to January 2024, when it was deemed unlawful by the High Court following a judicial review brought by Medical Justice.

Three main criticisms have been made of the policy. First, it introduces an additional delay, which could result in an unnecessary prolongation of the period of detention. Secondly, it exposes an already vulnerable person to the risk of retraumatisation. This was emphasised in a witness statement to the High Court from a clinical adviser at Medical Justice. Citing the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ general concern about how detention might trigger reminders of an original trauma, she warned of the dangers to mental health of a reassessment requiring a detainee to relive their experiences yet again.

Thirdly, the policy could have a detrimental effect on the quality of decision-making. Indeed, the UN Istanbul protocol counsels against downgrading the findings from external clinical assessments. There are good reasons why a detained person might be more willing to open up to an independent medical assessor than to one contracted by the Home Office, who might not be trusted. How are Home Office caseworkers, who lack medical knowledge, supposed to decide between any differences that there may be between an external assessment and an internal one? Adopting the lowest common denominator, where both assessors agree, is no answer. If the Home Office has concerns about any particular clinician, should it not take them up with the appropriate regulatory body, as argued in the witness statement to the High Court?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that the data provided by the Home Office

“does not provide compelling evidence either way on the need for the second opinion policy”.

It therefore simply recommended close monitoring of its operation and the publication of the results. Can the Minister confirm that such monitoring is taking place and, if so, can he share any results at this stage?

Before turning to the Home Office’s justification for the new guidance, it might be helpful to put it in the context of the original official review of the welfare of vulnerable people in detention, conducted by Stephen Shaw, and the more recent official Brook House inquiry, chaired by Kate Eves. The Shaw review identified a systemic overreliance on detention and, in particular, that too many vulnerable people were being detained for too long and were not being protected adequately by existing safeguards. This led to the introduction in 2016 of the adults at risk statutory guidance, which aimed to improve protection for this group.

In addition to the statutory guidance, further safeguards are supposed to be provided by rules 34 and 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, but the Brook House inquiry concluded that these rules were not being properly applied, so that adults at risk continued—and evidence, including the recent report of the independent Gatwick removal centre monitoring board, and new research from Medical Justice, suggests continue—not to receive the protection promised after the Shaw review.

Extraordinarily, when questioned by the Home Affairs Committee, Ms Eves said that she found it difficult

“to decipher exactly which of the 31 recommendations to Government are being accepted or rejected”.

A year on from the report, she concluded in media interviews that only one recommendation had been categorically accepted.

The lack of clarity in the previous Government’s response means they did not even get to the starting point when it comes to the monitoring of accepted recommendations, as called for by the Statutory Inquiries Committee’s recent highly critical report. Ms Eves expressed her disappointment to the HAC

“that I do not have confidence that, actually, there has been a meaningful engagement with what was really found and what the recommendations really mean”.

I hope that the new Government will look at this again, including via their review of detention, and that they will now engage meaningfully with the inquiry’s recommendations. May I ask for an assurance that this will be the case?

The Brook House inquiry and numerous other reports, including one just last week from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have detailed the injurious impact of detention, particularly on the physical and mental health of vulnerable groups. One aspect emphasised by many is the absence of any time limit. According to Ms Eves, it is a profound cause of distress, due to anxiety and uncertainty. I ask that the current review looks again at the previous Government’s rejection of her recommendation of a time limit, which echoed that of countless reviews and reports, including from the HAC when it was chaired by the current Home Secretary.

In her evidence to the HAC, Ms Eves made it clear that she considered the regulations that we are debating today constituted a move in the opposite direction from what she recommended, as they appear

“essentially to be moving towards weakening the protections for vulnerable detainee populations”.

The Home Office’s justification for the regulations, set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, is that the purpose is

“to reflect the current Government’s priorities and approach to immigration detention”,

in response to the challenge of what it dubbed illegal migration, in contrast to the context and priorities of 2016, when the focus was on reducing the use of immigration detention.

Of course, the reference to the “current” Government was to the then Government and was made in the context of the Rwanda policy, which involved an expansion of detention. Happily, the Rwanda policy is no more and I believe that it is officially accepted that the seeking of asylum does not constitute illegal migration, as my noble friend in effect confirmed in Oral Questions last week.

However, regrettably, the Government have nevertheless announced that they will go ahead with the reopening of two detention centres, which has provoked widespread concern. Despite this, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the new Government’s priorities and approach to immigration detention are not the same as the former Government’s and that they will prioritise the human rights of asylum seekers. I hope he will confirm that they will therefore withdraw these regulations in due course, as part of the wider review of detention policy. This would be consistent with the statement about detention made by a Home Office spokesperson last week in response to the IMB’s call for the end of the detention of families with children in the Gatwick detention unit. It said:

“We are fully committed to … providing a service which prioritises people’s safety and wellbeing”.


In conclusion, I hope this debate will encourage such an outcome. In the meantime, the SLSC encouraged us to press for further details on the Home Office’s plans for monitoring, reviewing and reporting on the changes, so I look forward to hearing what monitoring is currently being undertaken.

I finish by quoting from someone who has experienced detention: Jonah, who wrote a foreword for a recent Jesuit Refugee Service report detailing continued abuses after Brook House. He wrote:

“When I arrived in detention, the first thing I observed is that everybody … is treated like a prisoner. … I was in immigration detention for 7 months. It still affects me even today. Detention is like a war camp. They really want to break you, in the hope that you’ll leave and go back to a terrible situation. You are more or less treated like an animal … you’re just a number. In detention, nobody even knew my name … The horrendous things that the Brook House Inquiry brought to light continue to happen … Detention is a terrible place”.


We can all learn from those with lived experience of detention, so I hope that the current review will do so. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I warn the Minister that during the previous Session the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, gained a reputation as a terrier on these issues. Actually, a number of us were badged as terriers, and she was the leader of the pack. She was very energetic in her critiques, particularly and quite successfully on the detention of pregnant women.

It is depressing to have to have this debate. When the Brook House scandal surfaced, three of us, cross-party, met the relevant Home Office Minister. I asked why the Home Office had not terminated the contract with the provider and whether the contract gave the Home Office the right to terminate in the event of such egregious behaviour. The answer was that the same individuals would be rehired whoever the provider was. This was not a matter of TUPE; it was about who would apply. I continue to have anxiety about the terms of the contracts that the Home Office lets, but, of course, commercial confidentiality means that one cannot go further than that.

We have not got the running of detention right, if there is to be detention, especially for more than a minimum period, but that is not for today either. However, this compounds the importance of guidance. I have always thought that anyone seeking asylum or who is detained, is likely to be vulnerable—this is “and” not “or”. I had forgotten that the 2016 Act refers to people who are “particularly vulnerable”. The whole of this population is vulnerable, but not all of them are protected under the legislation and the guidance.

International Law Enforcement Alerts Platform

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend misinterprets me: I mean the years 2019 and 2020, when our exit from the European Union was completed—I was right in the first place.

In doing that, a gap was left. I give credit to the last Government for recognising that gap. They introduced I-LEAP, which has had 20 million searches and given 79,000 law enforcement users access to real-time data. Some 46 forces are now involved in that, and, with my support, the programme will move on to phase 2. What we need to do is look at a European-wide security agreement, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will do as a matter of urgency.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has already answered the question that I planned to ask—and positively, which is encouraging. Instead, I will ask for his assurance that Border Security Command will have access to the new system—now and as it goes forward—given that smuggling and trafficking is rightly high on the Government’s agenda.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that the Government are committed to undertaking that action. Phase 1 included 46 forces, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. We are looking to expand that, so that we can have real-time data—and, in future, real-time assessments of mutual sharing—to attack the real issues that matter to the people we serve: people trafficking, drug smuggling and terrorism, and a whole range of other criminal activity. That is the most important thing, and I hope that there is cross-party support in this House for the actions that the Government will take.