Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

55: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Family reunion for asylum seeking children outside the United Kingdom(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement of changes to the immigration rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to make provision for entry clearance or leave to remain for asylum seeking children outside the United Kingdom of persons granted protection status in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of family reunion.(2) In this section—“asylum seeking children” means children outside the United Kingdom who are—(a) under the age of 18, and(b) the child, sibling, half-sibling, niece, nephew, grandchild, or stepchild of the person granted protection status;“protection status” means a person granted—(a) refugee leave, (b) refugee permission to stay,(c) humanitarian protection,(d) temporary refugee permission, or(e) temporary humanitarian permission to stay.(3) The immigration rules made under subsection (1) must provide that an application under those rules—(a) must not be refused solely on the basis of maintenance and accommodation requirements,(b) must not be subject to any application fee, and(c) must not be subject to the immigration health surcharge under section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014.(4) A person granted leave to enter or remain under the immigration rules made pursuant to this section must not be subject to a “no recourse to public funds” condition.(5) In determining an application under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to—(a) the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,(b) the importance of maintaining family unity,(c) any emotional, psychological, physical, or financial dependency between the child and the person granted protection status, and(d) any risks to the child’s safety and well-being if the application is refused.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that children outside the United Kingdom can be reunited with close family members who have been granted protection status in the UK, where it is in the child’s best interests. The new clause removes existing financial barriers to reunion.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 55 is to ensure that asylum-seeking children from abroad who have family here can join them. It is a very simple bit of family reunion on behalf of some of the most vulnerable refugees that there could be. There is a history to this. When we were in the EU, under the Dublin convention, under Dublin III, there was a procedure whereby a child abroad could apply to join family here. That was passed by both Houses. It became the law in 2017, and then in 2019 the Conservative Government removed it. Nevertheless, it was part of the law of the land, and there is no reason why it would not have worked pretty well.

I am grateful to the many NGOs that have helped and supported me over a period of months, including the Safe Routes Coalition. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the Liberal Democrats and the Tory signatory; indeed, in the past, I have had the support of the Bishops as well.

The Government announced the suspension of family reunion from September until next year. That has caused even greater distress in terms of opportunities for children to come here. I do not know why the Government are looking at this and why there has to be such a delay. We are talking about something absolutely fundamental.

The group of children covered by this amendment is narrower than under the previous family reunion provisions. I am concerned with the most vulnerable of all: children separated by war and persecution who are alone and without family, hoping to join relatives in this country and find some safety. The numbers are relatively small, but I would argue there is a serious point of principle here.

The benefits of this amendment are many. It would lessen dangerous journeys across the channel, help to break the business model of criminal gangs, and reduce the number of cases in the appeals process. In short, it would save lives. Since 2018, almost a fifth of small boat arrivals have been children aged 17 and under. The Government have talked about English language provision. I am not quite sure how that relates to child refugees. All I know is that children can pick up English pretty quickly. It is harder when people become adults, but children pick up the English language very quickly in our schools, and indeed, it is a matter of survival in the school playground. So that would never be a problem.

The crucial point is that public opinion would support this measure, I believe. A survey was done which showed that two-thirds of the public supported a controlled official route for children to travel here safely. There are people who say, “Ah, but the hard right is on the warpath in this country, therefore we mustn’t go too far in giving it ammunition”. I believe emphatically that the hard right in this country cannot be defeated by measures to appease it. It can be defeated only if we stand on certain points of principle fundamental to what this country has long been about.

There is a principle at stake here: it is a matter of morality and of staying in keeping with British citizens over the years. I myself was a beneficiary of the Kindertransport. We took 10,000 children from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia in under a year, in 1938-39, and that seemed to me to be a very positive step; we were ahead of other countries in providing safety to young people who were otherwise in danger from the Holocaust.

There is a fundamental phrase in this amendment, which is that it has to be in

“the best interests of the child”.

Surely that is crucial. We are talking about how we can best protect children who are vulnerable, alone and without family, mainly in Europe but somewhere in the world. They are children who could be housed in this country by members of their own family—by relatives. They should not need that much extra support. Of course, there will be some extra support—I cannot deny it. Children coming here would need to go into education, and they might have some health needs. But compared with other migrants coming in this country, their needs are relatively small. Having a safe and legal route for them would cut out the traffickers, who would have no opportunity. Surely the aim of government policy is precisely to deal with the traffickers and to cut them out. I cannot help thinking that this amendment is one means. We will not stop all the traffickers—we have to have a range of policies. But certainly, as regards children, this would help to cut out the traffickers.

In 2020, the Home Office did a report. Its own analysis suggested that the presence of family exerts a strong influence on decisions about the ultimate country of destination; in other words, it is a powerful incentive to children to come to join their family members, and if we have this in our legislation, it would be a very positive step forward. The Home Office has suggested in the past that being alone and separated from family in a third country such as Greece or France is not enough of a “serious and compelling” circumstance to warrant family reunion. That is absolute tosh—absolute tripe. How can the Home Office say that? But it said it in the past. It will not say it in the Home Office of my noble friend, but it said it in the past.

I will give an example which I may have cited before. I was visiting a refugee camp in Jordan, and a Syrian boy of 16 came to me. He had finished his education, could not find a job in the camp or outside and did not dare to go back to Syria, and he said to me, “What hope is there for me?” I thought to myself that human beings can put up with a great deal where there is some hope for them. I believe that this amendment would give hope to some of the most vulnerable child refugees. I believe that in the end, it is a question of morality. It is a question of fundamental principles and ethics, and I very much hope that the House will be supportive of this. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I offered the meeting to my noble friend Lord Dubs but I am very happy— I am committing my honourable friend Alex Norris to a meeting—for, let us say, a representative group of Peers to join my noble friend, should he wish them to. Let us make an offer: we have space for a Member from the Liberal Democrat Bench, from the Cross Benches, from the Bishops’ Bench, should they wish to do so, and from His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, as well as my noble friend Lord Dubs. I think that it is a fair approach, on a difficult issue, for him to take the case to the Home Office and bring with him a representative group of NGOs. Maybe it could be a separate meeting, if Peers want to meet the Minister personally. I will try to be present, given my commitments to taking the Crime and Policing Bill, as well as this Bill, through this House.

I do not want to find myself in the opposite Lobby to my noble friend Lord Dubs but, if he pushes the amendment, I am afraid that I will have to. I hope he can accept the offer and look at exploring further with Ministers the appropriate points which he has rightly put in a passionate contribution today, supported by Members across this House.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has gone out of his way. He will always be my friend, even if we are in different Division Lobbies tonight. I appreciate that he has done his best to meet me, and I have had discussions with him up until now.

I have listened to the debate, and I have talked to many people outside. We are faced with a position where, for example, we may have a 14 year-old in Calais, sleeping under the trees, who has an uncle or another family member over here and who wants to join them. The answer, unless we pass this amendment, is that he or she will not be able to do so. That would surely encourage that 14 year-old to use the traffickers, which is the last thing we want; I would rather see a legal and safe route for that child to come here. I do not want it to be so exceptional that it would hardly ever happen.

I say this with a heavy heart: I do not want to be in a different Lobby. I have never done this before—I am not a rebel anyway. With a heavy heart, I honestly feel—for the reasons to which over the years I have committed, the Labour Party in the past has committed, the whole House and the Commons have committed—that morality suggests this is the right course of action. I regret having to say this, but I would like to test the opinion of the House.