Refugees (Family Reunion) (No.2) Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Robert Neill

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am delighted to be a sponsor of the Bill and to support it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) on introducing it. I pay tribute to the work of the British Red Cross and others who have done a great deal to assist in this matter.

I was a member of the Conservative party when Ted Heath, rightly, admitted Asian refugees from Uganda. I am proud of that. In my community, we have a happy and prosperous community of former Ugandan Asians who are now proudly British. That is the spirit of my party that I hope Members from across the House will remember. That is the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) spoke earlier. I regret it if other contributions have perhaps not come up to that spirit.

I simply say this: the Bill is consistent with Government policy—my hon. Friend explained that very well—which has sought to address real issues. I do not criticise anything the Government have done on the work to support refugees in the region and to try to make it possible for them to make new lives nearer to home, rather than to embark on dangerous journeys. All of that is good and right—the money we have invested through the Department for International Development and other programmes—and the Bill does not seek to criticise or undermine it in any way. The Bill deals with a specific area of the law in relation to family reunion, a concept that is accepted in our law and, indeed, is accepted in Government policy.

The issue is that in practice some areas of the law do not work well or fail. The Bill does no more than try to improve the law in that regard and to make it work in a fairer fashion for, as has been observed, a very small number of people. The real issues about pull factors and so on, be they right or wrong, are addressed through other Government policy initiatives that are nothing to do with the Bill. This is a small and modest but very useful measure. We would do well to keep that in context.

The position of legal aid in family reunion cases is being considered by the Lord Chancellor. I am glad about that—the Justice Committee has pressed long and hard for there to be a review of LASPO—but that does not mean they should not also seek to entrench the rules through the Bill. It is very clear from the evidence we heard that there was a misapprehension that cases of this kind are simple and straightforward. The evidence from practitioners in the field—from the British Red Cross, pro bono lawyers and others—clearly demonstrated that in the vast majority of cases it is in fact quite complicated. We only have to think about it: genuine refugees flee in fear. As I said in an earlier intervention, they are not likely to have had the time or inclination to have gone through a tick-box exercise on what documentation they might need at some point further down the line in the future under regulations of which they, by the very nature of things when they leave, have no knowledge. They then have to go through a process which is, for perfectly good reasons, complex and full of legalese. They have to do so in what is almost invariably going to be a foreign language and under circumstances of great stress and pressure.

I note that from the research of the British Red Cross and the lawyers involved, in something like 74% of family reunion cases at least one original document required under the current rules is missing. That is hardly surprising given the way people have fled and have ended up here—lawfully and properly accepted, I emphasise again—as refugees under legal conventions. They then have to go through the rigmarole of producing witness statements and affidavits to explain why those documents are missing, get in touch with embassies or consulates—powers that, by the nature of things, are hardly likely to be friendly to them—or try to seek alternatives. The idea that they can do that without legal assistance is wrong. Practitioners and tribunal judges tell us that much time, sadly, is wasted, both for our court system and for people in difficult circumstances, and that early legal advice could not only achieve a more just outcome but will probably save money for the system, if that is a consideration. I simply say that this is not an either/or.

At the moment the issue around exceptional cases is guidance. In practice, the bar on exceptional cases is extremely high—I think “rare” is the word that is used—and may go further than is appropriate, particularly without legal advice to help refugees through the minefield of getting over that high bar. The Bill seeks to put that same principle, that there is an exceptional case regime, into statute. There is an advantage. By the nature of it, guidance changes, there is a lesser degree of certainty and it would confer different rights. The rights are not great.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There is another problem: people are led to believe that the process takes 13 weeks, but we know it takes months. That often causes unnecessary hardship, delay and anxiety.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Any delay in any kind of tribunal case causes pressure and hardship, and makes for less effective justice. The longer things drag on, the harder it is to ensure that evidence is good and genuine. It is particularly harsh in cases such as these.

For all those reasons, I hope hon. Members will support the Bill. If they do not feel they can support it, or feel that changes are needed, I hope they will not prevent its Second Reading but let it go to Committee to see if changes and improvements can be made. I suspect the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the promoter of the Bill, and those of us who support it are willing to do that. As someone who believes passionately in being a one nation Conservative, and who joined the party of Harold McMillan, Disraeli, Churchill and indeed Margaret Thatcher, who did a great deal to support the communities who came from east Africa when she succeeded Ted Heath as leader of my party, I hope nobody will seek to stand in the way of the Bill making progress today.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Robert Neill

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The economic interest is a national strategic interest of the United Kingdom. It is a damaging thing to this country for anyone to put that at risk; there is nothing patriotic in that.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

So far I can agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but some of us can remember the 1975 referendum, and the reality is that the options put to us by those who want to opt out were looked at then—trading with EFTA and the Commonwealth countries. The reasons why Harold Wilson thought we should go into Europe are there for all to see.

[Robert Neill]

I would not like to speculate as to the motives of those who, sometimes from genuine belief, but maybe sometimes from cynicism, want this country to leave the EU. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that the issue was debated then. He and I can remember it—we both voted in that referendum, I suspect. Of course the EU needs reform, as everybody has said, but any businessperson will tell us, “You don’t walk away from a major market that you’re in just because it isn’t perfect; you stay in there, you negotiate your trade and you make the market work better for you.” That is basic common sense, and frankly I am amazed and mystified that some people who really ought to know better cannot get that.