Refugee Family Reunion Scheme

Lord Bishop of Sheffield Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the temporary suspension of new applications to a refugee family reunion scheme, what is the timeline for introducing a new route.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

This suspension is temporary while the Government undertake a review and reform of the current family reunion rules to ensure we have a fair and properly balanced system. We anticipate that any changes will come into effect from spring 2026.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I will press him further. Recent research from Oxfam and the Refugee Council has found clear evidence of people turning to cross-channel smugglers to reach family members because they could not access a safe and legal family reunion pathway. Therefore, what dedicated family reunion pathways are being considered by the Government that will offer safe, legal and accessible alternatives to asylum seekers, and which will thereby disrupt smuggling operations?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. Anybody in the system as of 4 September will still have the same approach to asylum and family reunion claims that applied prior to the announcement by my right honourable friend. This is a pause while we review the system. Anybody can apply through any other safe and legal route, and that will be considered appropriately. In the last 12 months, there was a 368% increase in family reunion grants compared with 2022. That is not sustainable, and we need to examine the reasons for that. That is why the pause has been put in place.

Asylum Claims: Religious Conversion

Lord Bishop of Sheffield Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Home Office continues to have discussions with Church leaders on a range of matters, including asylum. I say to the noble Lord—I hope this is helpful—that if he is asking, “Does the Home Office accept every conversion claim?”, we do not. All claims are assessed on an individual basis. Someone simply saying that they are converting to Christianity does not mean that they will have their asylum claim accepted. That asylum claim will be tested against both their performance and whether they attend church, along with advice given by Church leaders and others, but it does not guarantee an acceptance of an asylum claim.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield, which seeks to support refugees and asylum seekers. Is the Minister aware that the evidence provided by the former Anglican cleric just referenced was refuted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford in extensive oral evidence on the subject at a Home Affairs Select Committee meeting in the other place last year?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As it happens, my right honourable friend Dame Diana Johnson chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee then. She then became a Home Office Minister and is fully aware of the ongoing discussions. We will continue to discuss with any Church leader the basis for individuals claiming conversion as part of the process of asylum, but I reiterate to the House that claiming conversion or Christianity does not mean that the individual is accepted. That is subject to a rigorous test by officials in the Home Office.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Bishop of Sheffield Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

We have to be careful, because if we do not draw these definitions carefully, we will damage public acceptance. Amendments 165 and 166 run counter to the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr, because if we widen the group of people who can join children in the UK, we make it less likely that people will want to bring unaccompanied children here, if they think that, in doing so, we would open up the floodgates to bring in a huge number of other people. If we want public acceptance for bringing in unaccompanied children, having careful, tight definitions of the people who can join them is the way to go. That is why I recommend those amendments in particular to your Lordships’ Committee.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I will speak in support of three amendments in this group, one to which I have put my name and two to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has put hers; as we have heard, she regrets that she cannot be in her place today. I refer to Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, Amendment 178 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 203K in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

It is not just the Christian Church that regards the family as more than a merely biological unit; it is the fundamental God-given building block of community life and the source of belonging and stability for children. The former Home Secretary recognised this when she wrote in 2020:

“When children lose their home, their parents and their country through war or persecution, reuniting with surviving family members elsewhere can be their only hope of rebuilding their lives. But they need safe and legal routes to do so”.


The truth is that families belong together; these amendments speak to that truth. We must not keep families apart. No parent can be expected to build a meaningful new life, contribute to society and establish roots in a new country, knowing that their child is stranded elsewhere. No separated children should be prevented from reuniting with their parents.

We are told that the Bill partly seeks to stop the vile work of smugglers and traffickers. Yet 93% of those travelling safely via family reunion were women and children, who may now be at the mercy of smugglers taking criminal advantage. As a lawyer at Safe Passage puts it,

“the lack of accessible alternatives means we are not able to compete on equal terms with smugglers who make promises to children to cross the Channel within a few days and actually deliver on those promises”.

I urge the Minister to ensure that, when the Bill is mature, it will provide dedicated arrangements to support refugee children who have been separated from their parents.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments led by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which have been signed by others. We have debated refugee family reunion at numerous points over the past five years or so. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, recalls that at one point I picked up the relay from my noble friend Lady Hamwee and took a Private Member’s Bill through this House successfully. Unfortunately, it did not get through the other place successfully, but I have been somewhat involved in this issue and feel strongly about it.

Just to pick up the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, he talked about family being the basis of belonging and stability. That is important, not only for personal feelings of security and being able to thrive within the family but as a practical issue about integration, which has been much talked about in recent months. On the one hand, people shout, “Why aren’t immigrants properly integrated?”, yet we want to pull the rug from under refugees by saying, “You have no right to have family reunited with you, which would help you to settle and get on in our society”.

There is obviously room for discussion about the scope of the amendments that I support, and colleagues to the right have pulled various holes in in them. One can discuss some of them, but I must admit that I am somewhat shocked by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—he and I are not always completely eye-to-eye in other fora. Here, he makes some reasonable suggestions in some of his amendments, but this one I find bad. He wants to delete proposed new subsection (5)(e) in my noble friend’s Amendment 166. He wants to delete having regard to issues such as

“the importance of maintaining family unity … the best interests of a child”

and

“any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological well being of a person granted refugee status”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the right reverend Prelate said, the principle of family unity is important, but I think that the social aspects are also very important. There seems to be a lack of continuity and consistency in the policies of successive Governments. Like others, I find pretty shocking what has happened in the last six weeks. First, the Home Secretary paused family reunion, and then, perhaps tellingly—there may have been an interesting internal debate with the Home Secretary—No. 10 said, “Actually, we are going to make that permanent; it is not just a pause. We are going to eliminate family reunion as we know it”.

Some remarks from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches went to wider issues about immigration and asylum. I always find it a bit rich that such complaints are made. There are valid issues about the control of migration and security of borders—no one denies that—but we must not forget the big explosion in legal migration that took place after Brexit, which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supported. We then had far greater volumes than ever happened under EU free movement, besides eliminating the two-way street which allowed Brits to migrate within the EU. I think a bit of non-joined-up thinking goes on there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, talked about how we do not have a right to deny public opinion. Of course, public opinion—which is perhaps in a rather inflamed state at the moment—is important. I read in a briefing from the safe routes coalition that recent polling undertaken by the organisation British Future found that 67% of the public support a controlled official route for refugee children whose only remaining family are in the UK to travel here safely. Two-thirds of the public polled support family reunion for children who are stranded abroad, which is a large element of these amendments. That is public opinion, and we must be specific about what the public are reacting to.

The aim of some is apparently to curb the numbers coming in, but it depends what numbers we are talking about. In the case of family reunion and child refugees, we are talking not just about compassion, humanity and human rights, or even the principle of family unity, but about the best interests of the child and of the people who will settle in this country. We and they hope that they will make a big contribution to the success of this country, but we cannot expect them to do that if they are lonely, anxious and deprived of the support of their family. We must always remember that we are talking about social practicalities here, as well as the high principles of human rights.

Refugee Accommodation: Move-on Period

Lord Bishop of Sheffield Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risks to social cohesion and the pressures on local councils and homelessness services presented by the recent decision to reduce the “move-on” period that newly recognised refugees are granted to find new accommodation to 28 days.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as a patron of ASSIST Sheffield, a wonderful charity that seeks to support asylum seekers and refugees in our city of sanctuary.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The Home Office monitors the impact of all its policies, especially move-on and the impact on wider communities and local authorities. We are committed to working closely with our partners to identify improvements and make efficiencies in supporting newly recognised refugees who move on from asylum accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for his response, although my concerns are not entirely allayed. It is important to remember that those affected by move-on period policies have already been formally recognised by government as refugees, with rights to protection that are enshrined in international law. First, given the success of the recent 56-day extension, as reported by local authorities and numerous organisations supporting refugees, what impact assessment was undertaken in commending a reversion to 28 days? Secondly, what metric will His Majesty’s Government use to measure the success of this reversion? Finally, will the Minister commit to update the House within six months on the impact of this change?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I can assist the right reverend Prelate with some clarification on what has actually happened. First, nobody who is in the system as of 1 September will have their 56-day period changed; that will still be operational. The pilot we are undertaking runs until December this year, and we will fully evaluate the pilot accordingly. Those individuals affected by the announcement on 27 August, who will change from 56 days to 28 days from 1 September, are single applicants; no families, nobody over 65 and nobody with disabilities will be impacted. We are trying to help tackle the longer-term asylum accommodation problem, but the pilot on 56 days to which the right reverend Prelate refers is continuing, and we will evaluate it and report back in due course. We have tweaked the pilot—we have not ended it—so we will continue to monitor the impact assessment issues. There will be full accountability on the outcome of the pilot when it is completed in December, but the majority of individuals to date will not be impacted by the change.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Lord Bishop of Sheffield Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an interesting question. I will, as ever, examine that in detail and get back to him with a specific figure, which I do not have in front of me. The Government are undertaking a reprioritisation of resource to tackle this issue. As we have said, that means ending the Rwanda scheme, putting in place a proper Border Force through the immigration Bill, if passed, and ensuring that there are additional staff to speed up the asylum backlog. This will ensure that people are assessed properly and quickly, that those who have a right to claim asylum in this country are accepted and that those who do not are returned to a place of safety.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the patron of ASSIST Sheffield, a charity which supports refugees and asylum seekers in our city of sanctuary. What consideration has the Minister given to the introduction of a guardianship scheme, such as the one piloted in Scotland, to provide specialist support to unaccompanied children seeking asylum—not least given their acute vulnerability if accommodated in hotels?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As with those of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I take on board the points that the right reverend Prelate makes. It is important that we ensure that children who arrive here unaccompanied are safeguarded. That has been a failure in the past and it must be prevented now. I will examine with my colleagues in ministerial office with direct responsibility for these issues how best we can ensure safeguarding. I will report back in writing to the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Lord Bishop of Sheffield Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the patron of the charity ASSIST Sheffield. In the interests of time, I will limit my remarks to three key points.

First, there is the question of safety. One of the communities I serve as the Bishop of Sheffield is Rotherham. Noble Lords may recall how, in August last year, a group of asylum seekers living at the Holiday Inn in Manvers were deliberately targeted, in an incident that led to criminal convictions for over 60 men. The following month, at the request of the Mayor of South Yorkshire, I arranged for one of the churches in Sheffield, Christ Church Fulwood, to offer sanctuary for the day, free of charge, to a group of asylum seekers because there were fears that their hotel could be subject to a similar attack. Quite simply, it subjects asylum seekers to danger if they are placed in hotels in visible numbers. Dispersed accommodation offers greater protection and, for that reason, we should move to that provision as swiftly as possible.

Secondly, hotel accommodation by and large inhibits rather than promotes the integration of asylum seekers into local communities, and it increases rather than decreases their sense of isolation and precariousness. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the need to transition from hotels to dispersed accommodation, and for affirming the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, last week that asylum seekers are not currently well integrated into local services—but the two are connected. Noble Lords will be aware that, in 2024, nearly 7,500 unaccompanied children seeking asylum were in the care of local authorities across the UK. May I press the Minister and ask what actions he is taking to engage in mutually constructive discussions and consultations with local authorities to provide asylum seekers with sorely needed access to support services and continuity of place, not least to ensure the welfare of unaccompanied children?

My third and final reflection is that it is worth emphasising that the substantial costs associated with the use of hotel accommodation reflect the backlogs and delays resulting from a dysfunctional asylum system. In other words, the asylum seekers themselves are not to blame for the strain on the public purse. In any case, each is an individual created in the image and likeness of God, to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect—especially in view of their very real vulnerability. Frankly, it would be not only a better use of public funds but a better expression of care to seek to move as quickly as possible from hotel accommodation to dispersed accommodation. I urge the Minister to urge the Government to accelerate that process.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of Sheffield Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing forward this important Bill, and I acknowledge the work of other noble Lords on similar Bills.

The sustained interest in a Bill of this kind should tell us something: that the current route to family reunion is unduly restrictive and prohibitive. Government data shows that in 2023 there were over 7,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the care of local authorities in the UK, 141 of those in the communities that I serve as bishop in Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield.

Despite the best efforts of dedicated professionals and public agencies, the care system is simply not the right place to house children, least of all children seeking asylum. It is deeply regrettable that so many are in care when they have family members only too willing to come and look after them—if the family reunion routes only made that possible.

These are just the children we know about—just the children on the books, as it were. The risk that unaccompanied children will go missing outside the legal process, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just reminded us, and fall into the hands of exploitative gangs is horrendous and simply unacceptable.

Of course borders need to be managed. The strains on host communities are real, and we should not minimise or overlook them. Resources are needed to help host communities and incomers to live with dignity side by side and integrate well. However, the reality is that families can be separated on their journeys to safety, and we strengthen communities when we strengthen families.

In July this year the Government allowed children who were separated from their parents during the evacuation from Kabul in August 2021 to apply to have their parents join them in the UK; the last Government deserve credit for that. Will the current Government afford that same right to children from other countries?

I very much support the Bill and hope it makes good progress through the legislative process.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Lord Bishop of Sheffield Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

The committee reports that the data does not provide compelling evidence either way on the need for the second-opinion policy, and suggests that the Home Office should monitor the effects closely. My addition is that that may be more difficult in the absence of an impact assessment. The committee adds that the Home Office should publish the results—quite right. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that, as well as the subject of this SI.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its work in scrutinising the regulations and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling this debate. I have the privilege of being a patron of a charity in Sheffield called ASSIST, which works with people who are seeking sanctuary and who have been refused asylum; it provides accommodation, information, advocacy and other support.

Just last week, I met a man called Victor, a former client of ASSIST. I have his permission to tell his story. Victor is from Zimbabwe. In 1980, he was among those who greeted with joy the nation’s independence and the election of Robert Mugabe as the first democratically elected Prime Minister of that country. That year, Victor embarked on a career in banking of 20-plus years; he became very senior. However, through the 1980s and into the 1990s, he became increasing disenchanted with the Mugabe regime and then opposed to it. Finally, in 2008, after a warrant was issued for his arrest on account of his political dissent, he sought asylum in this country. Victor was eventually granted leave to remain in 2022 and was united with his wife after a 14-year enforced separation. So, in the end, his has been a good news story.

However, in 2019, Victor experienced detention. Reporting in one week as required, he was in effect arrested and assigned for deportation. The decision came out of the blue, with no notice and no explanation. It was apparently arbitrary. In Victor’s case, deportation did not follow. He had by then lived for 10 years in Sheffield, which sets itself out to be a city of sanctuary, and he was known and valued. Within four days, 70,000 people had signed a petition for his release; he was indeed swiftly released and, within another two years, had been granted leave to remain.

I summarise his story because the inhumane way in which the detention and deportation process is operated makes every person subject to it vulnerable. At the time of his detention, Victor was a resourceful and accomplished adult male in good health. He was not vulnerable, according to the definitions in these regulations, but the impact of his detention on his well-being made him vulnerable. It was terrible at the time and remains considerable today. In other words, until the whole process of detention is managed in a way that is humane, consistent, fair, transparent and accountable, every immigrant and asylum seeker detained will be vulnerable.

I am deeply concerned that these regulations expressly remove the intention to reduce the numbers of people in detention who are vulnerable in specifically acute ways. As the Minister will know, the previous Government appear to have accepted just one of the Brook House inquiry’s 33 recommendations. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, requested, the detention review will revisit that inquiry report to ensure that all the recommendations are given due consideration for implementation.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I support the need to discuss and debate these regulations. The issues have been laid out more than clearly by my noble friend Lady Lister. This stems from the Shaw review, reinforced by the subsequent Brook House inquiry.

The principle that we work under—I am sure that we all agree with it—is that the detention of people with severe mental health conditions amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. I hope we can all agree on that. It has been defined as such by the European Court of Human Rights, but the issue runs wider than that. There should be—indeed, there must be—a clear presumption that people at risk because of existing or potential mental health problems should not be detained. “Detained” is a euphemism; they are, in effect, imprisoned. We imprison people as a punishment, so the need to avoid providing these people with punishment is clear.

The statutory guidance was established in 2014 and has been reviewed. One could not object to the review at all; I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept that a full and adequate review is reasonable. The problem with this review is that it is driven— it says as much in paragraph 5.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum—by a wish to avoid “undermining lawful action” to remove people from the UK. That is the most concerning statement in the EM. Such an objective is totally at odds with the general principle that we should not imprison people with severe mental health conditions when they have committed no offence. The story it tells us is one of an attitude in government of wishing to prioritise the need to remove people from the UK rather than protecting people who are vulnerable.

The statutory guidance clearly represents its purpose: a weakening of the guidance originally given. One particular example, which is clearly a major issue here, is the issue of a second opinion. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded, the data

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

We do not really know what the effect of the second opinion policy would be, except that it will result in people remaining in detention for longer; that is the one known effect of having a second opinion policy. Clearly, that in itself suggests that it is something to be done with great care and attention.

Another problem is that there is a general belief among a number of the voluntary organisations most closely involved in these issues that the consultation process on the new statutory guidance was woefully inadequate. It was short, there was a lack of information and there was no equality impact assessment.

The upshot of all of this is that I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept that the statutory guidance requires review and reconsideration, and that it should be driven by the clear presumption that we do not lock up people with severe mental health conditions.