Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing the Bill before the House today. I feel a bit of a latecomer to the debate, having heard that there have been four or five previous attempts to cover this issue, before my membership of this House—indeed, before my membership of another place ceased in 2019. I appreciate the tenacity of the noble Baroness and will certainly reflect on the comments made not just by her but by Members across the House today.

This Government are trying to reset the debate on migration issues as a whole. We are undertaking some significant policy changes which will come before this House, on a range of issues to do with gangs, boat crossings and border security, which will reflect the change of tone in the approach to tackling some of these difficult migration issues. I understand and respect the reasons why the noble Baroness has brought this Bill forward today and hope I can answer some of the points that she raised.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we are still in the 106th day of the Government. There is therefore an opportunity to look at a four-year plus programme, not just at what happens in the first 106 days, which have already been a time of significant challenge for the Home Office on a range of issues and will continue to be so.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising this very important issue. I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful and passionate contributions to our debate today and for their analysis of some of the reasons why those drivers are present. 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. I emphasise to the House that this framework is set out in the Immigration Rules, which a number of noble Lords have referenced today, and in our refugee family reunion policy.

The Government fully recognise that families will become fragmented and that the nature of conflict and persecution, referred to by a number of noble Lords, will continue to cause difficulties. However, the family reunion policy allows those with protection status in the UK to sponsor their spouse or partner and children under the age of 18 to join them here in the family unit, when an individual has fled their country of origin to seek protection in the UK. That family reunion policy has seen more than 62,605 individuals reunited with their family members in the last decade, when the party of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, was in power. Over half of those individuals are children and this significant number highlights the policy’s success in providing a vital safe route.

There is no fee for family reunion. Sponsors are also not required to meet any financial or maintenance requirements. Immediate family members, such as partners and children under 18, are entitled to that sponsorship and protection status. It is very important to recognise the baseline from which this House begins, which is that the UK’s refugee family reunion policy is in this regard at least as generous—in some cases, more generous—than European and non-European countries.

I also invite noble Lords to consider the range of routes across the Immigration Rules through which family reunification can be sought. In addition to the refugee family reunion policy, the UK wants to meet its international obligations, and this Government certainly want to continue to meet theirs, so that close relatives with protection status in the UK can sponsor children where there are serious and compelling circumstances. This can be in situations where the child has no family other than a non-parent relative in the UK, who they could reasonably expect to support or care for them. Furthermore, individuals with that protection status can sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them as well.

There are issues already in place where those international obligations can be met and, in line with those obligations, this Government recognise that some applicants do not meet those current rules. None the less, in exceptional circumstances their applications will be granted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, where a refused application would mean a breach of their family life and responsibilities. I recognise the difficult situations for people whose protection status in the UK means that they find themselves across the world from their family members. I take this moment to make clear the Government’s commitment to reuniting families whose lives have been disrupted due to conflict or persecution.

Ministers always come to a “However”, and I now come to mine. However, there are challenges in this Bill that the Government need to reflect on, some of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in his contribution. I see some of them in the Bill. The focus of today’s debate has been on children; I understand that, but the Bill is about not just children but the wider family, and there is no assessment or acceptance of what the parameter of that might be. That needs reflection by the Government as part of their consideration of today’s debate. It is essential that this Government take time to reflect on the issues that have been raised in this House, give thoughtful consideration to them and look at them in the context of the wider government policy we are now undertaking.

This Government are trying to establish a border force and put some real action against the criminal gangs to stop them operating. They are trying to disrupt the gangs through ways that have not been utilised before. They are trying to ensure that we have in place a speedier, more efficient and more effective asylum and refugee system than we had previously. They are trying as well at making sure that we look at using immigration for the wider good of the economy. All those issues are currently on the table, and it is important that we examine the concerns that a number of noble Members have raised in this House in the context of that wider policy. In looking at any policy changes, the Government have to strike the right balance between what they want to do as the right thing—ensuring the protection of children and reuniting refugees and their family members in the UK—and, difficult though it is to say this from the Dispatch Box, the issues around local authorities, public services and the pressures on them. They have to take into account the way this Bill will impact the wider government policy on asylum, migration and the other issues before this House today.

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. I want to make sure that we examine in detail the points put before the House today and the points in the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We need to do that in a way that makes sure that we maximise the best use of our resources and efficiencies within the complete picture of the Home Office’s approach to this issue.

We are clear that significantly expanding the policy to enable children to sponsor family members would also potentially cause difficulties around safeguarding responsibilities. Again, I am acutely aware of and have looked at—and will look again at —the issues raised by committees of this House and the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. But on our 106th day in office, it would be rash to take those steps today without a reflection on that as a long-term responsibility. It is important that we make sure that we safeguard our own responsibilities, as well as safeguarding the children who will come here as refugees, by looking at that in a clear and open way.

While the issue of children being sent as a magnet for their parents may be controversial and have no merit—some discussions may be needed—it is important that we reflect on that and look at it in detail. We must make sure that the policy we bring forward as a Government meets the obligation of safeguarding children while meeting our international responsibilities and doing what we said we would do: ensuring that, wherever possible, family reunion is important. Again, there are criminal gangs which will watch this debate and the Bill’s progress and seek to exploit these issues. It is important that we reflect on that in a sensible and productive way, hearing what the House has said while looking at that in detail downstream.

Family unity is a key priority under the Government’s policy and there are ways through which we can do that. Mention has been made of Article 8 of the ECHR. I am proud to say today that this Government will not withdraw or scrap the ECHR; we are committed to its implementation. The right to family and private life is a qualified right, however. It is therefore the prerogative of a responsible Government to consider the economic well-being of the country and to balance Article 8 with the interests of maintaining effective immigration control and protecting the public purse. That is not to say that we rule out the points made by the noble Baroness, but we have to reflect on them, look at them and understand what the Bill means in practice.

The Bill would reinstate legal aid in family reunion cases. I remind noble Lords that legal aid for refugee family reunion can be applied for under the exceptional case funding scheme, where failure to provide legal aid would risk breaching an individual’s human rights. Under the scheme, separated migrant children are able to receive civil legal aid for applications made by their family members and extended family members. This includes support for entry clearance and permission to stay in the UK made either under the Immigration Rules or outside the rules on the basis of exceptional circumstances or compassionate and compelling circumstances. However, as has been mentioned, legal aid is paid for by the taxpayer. As noble Lords will understand, we will shortly come to a Budget and resources are not limitless. It is important that we examine the demands made today in the light of those resource pressures, ensuring that we still support those who need and seek our protection.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made some points on discussions that he has read about overseas aid and development. Some of those points relate to Budget discussions and, again, the House will understand that I am not at liberty to discuss those today, but I will reflect on what the noble Lord said. If there are points that I can share with him, I will certainly write to him in due course.

As I set out, the Government’s family reunion policy is designed to welcome the immediate family members of those recognised as needing protection in the United Kingdom. We also provide protection to the most vulnerable people in areas and regions of conflict and instability. That global humanitarian need will continue to grow: the UNHCR has assessed that, by the end of June this year, more than 122 million people around the world had been forced from their homes, with 37 million of them now refugees.

This Government have a generous UK resettlement offer, which is an integral part of our challenge in addressing the needs of vulnerable refugees. The UK will continue to provide safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people to start new lives here through the UK resettlement scheme, as well as community sponsorship and mandated resettlement schemes. Take the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme as an example: it has now provided support for more than 28,000 people, including women and children. The Ukraine family resettlement scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme have also enabled hundreds of thousands of individuals to seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising this issue and thank noble Lords for contributing to our thought-provoking discussion today. This will remain an emotive issue—one that it is important to consider and one on which the Government, in particular the Home Office, will reflect in future. I look forward to continuing the debate and listening further when this Bill progresses in this House.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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.

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

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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.