Lord Dubs:

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 statementThis 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.

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.

It is our polite custom to say what a privilege it is to follow the previous Speaker. In this case, and on this subject, that is absolutely true. It is to this subject that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has devoted a life of public service, trying to do for others what was done for him in 1939. It does him great credit.

In 2016, as the noble Lord mentioned, his Amendment was carried in this House and accepted at the end of the day by the then Conservative Government, and some 480 unaccompanied children got here who otherwise would not. It does him enormous credit.

Here he is again. This time, the noble Lord is concerned for the lone lost child left behind. He is concerned for the parent here who is a bona fide refugee, who has satisfied all the tests and has been given leave to remain in this country, but knows that the child is lost. The child is in a camp in Greece or Italy or, worse, on the streets of Calais. What is the father or mother to do? They have a heartbreaking choice. They can stay separated and forget the child, or they can go to the smuggler, pay up, and hope that the child makes it and comes in. That is not right. There has to be a third way.

There has to be a way in which a parent who has a right to be here, which has been established by our administrative systems and courts, can bring in the lost lone child. There used to be ways, before Brexit. But now there is only the option of a smuggler or of separation. We owe it to ourselves, to how we see our country, to stand with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on this and pass Amendment 55.

My Lords, I would have put my name to this Amendment if I had got there in time. Every slot was taken, and I am not surprised. I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said my admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I have supported him on this proposal ever since he put it forward. He raises, quite rightly, issues about the well-being and welfare of children, who I spent all my judicial life trying to help. He also talks about it being a moral issue and an issue of principle, with which, of course, I agree.

However, what might be more attractive to the Minister is the fact that it is very few children. We have heard that it has been 10,000 in the past. But currently, we are talking about a few hundred. I do not think the public are going to mind very much about a few hundred children coming to this country.

Some years ago, when Fiona Mactaggart was still an MP, she and I, with the help of Safe Passage, went to Calais to meet some of the children. I have told your Lordships’ House this before, but I say it again because among the children, mainly teenagers, were some quite young children who were seriously at risk, sleeping under the trees and waiting for the one meal a day that very good, kind French people were offering.

We are talking only about children under 18, for goodness’ sake, and I do not apologise for saying again that we are talking about hundreds. This is not something that will embarrass the Government like the crowds of people coming in who they do not seem terribly good at getting rid of—nor did the previous Government. We are talking about a small number of children whose welfare is seriously at risk. The Government really should do something about it. For me, as a mother and a grandmother, the idea that it is suspended is tragic.

I rise with great diffidence—and apologise to noble Lords—because I have not spoken on this Bill, and I did not speak at Second Reading. This issue seems to me to be relatively simple. We in the Conservative Party had a rather odd ambition during the previous Government to stop the boats. It was an odd ambition because we had no method of doing it. However, this is something—and I pay such tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—that would help reduce the number of children coming across on those boats. It is something we really ought to do. Let us do it.

My Lords, I want to express briefly my support for my noble friend Lord Dubs. He talked about this being a question of morality. He talked about the importance of hope. At a time when among the wider public there is distrust of politics, to do something that is right would chime with them. They would look to this House to do the right thing. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about the children she saw in Calais. This is a safeguarding issue. We are constantly being told about the importance of safeguarding children in the context of other amendments, so surely we can support this Amendment in the best interests of children following the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So, for the first time, I will be voting against my Government and in support of my noble friend.

My Lords, I too, like my noble colleague, have not intervened on this Bill until now, but I feel compelled to, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. If anybody has a right to speak on this issue, he has. If we have a duty to listen to anyone on this issue, our duty is to listen to him. A Labour Party activist, a trade unionist in my village, used to have a saying that anything that is morally right cannot be politically wrong. The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is morally right, and we should support it.

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s Amendment. He has, obviously from personal experience, a great fount of knowledge of the difficulties that people are facing, coming from different parts of the world to this country, or trying to. He has studied over the years the different ways of trying to get here. It is not just in small boats; they could equally well be seeking asylum in another way. Bringing together a family, which was done by a small number of people—100—last year, is something on which I think we must support him. Let us hope that he carries on with getting as many families reunited as he can, wherever they come from. I shall certainly support him if we end up in a Division Lobby.

My Lords, it falls to me to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for taking this so far. I have had the temerity—he knows I have said this to him privately—to say that he probably ranks in this Chamber as a national treasure. That is because—I know he will not like it—if you have had his experiences and you have devoted your life to ensuring that the chance that you have had in life is given to others, you cannot fail to support this Amendment. It is absolutely fundamental that children should have the right to be with their parents, and it is fundamental that we are currently denying them that opportunity. This amendment is so tightly written and so tightly executed that it is not going to take a large number of people: it is not going to take huge numbers from all over the world, it is a small number of children.

Those of us who have been on the beaches and in the background in Calais and Dunkirk know that children sometimes find themselves there in the most appalling circumstances. What are you to do as a parent if you have a child whom you cannot get to come to you? That is the most terrible thing you could possibly imagine to impose on parents. So I have no doubt that the empathy of this House is not just for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but the causes he has put forward and this very tight amendment. It deserves the support of all sides of this Parliament and I hope the noble Lord will put it to a vote so we can all vote for it.

My Lords, it is not that there are no means to enter the country, nor that families are being involuntarily separated at the French border; it is that we continue to allow unfettered and illegal entrance to the country and offer the amenities that make separating from one’s family a worthwhile choice for some. So, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for whom I have enormous regard, I submit that the Amendment perhaps does nothing to solve these issues.

I understand that, in attempting to provide a legal route for asylum-seeking children to reunite with their families, the noble Lord’s intentions are well-meaning and indeed magnanimous. In practice, however, I suggest that his amendment might well cause even more issues with the asylum system and that more families would be split up. Those considering crossing the channel and illegally entering our country would be even more emboldened to do so if they were given the impression that having to part ways with their children would be a temporary measure. There is a great risk that more parents would board small boats, making the dangerous and sometimes fatal channel crossing. Their children, left behind with the promise of a future reunion, would be left exposed to the dangerous gangs that control the people-trafficking operations into this country.

To solve the issue of separated families, we must focus on what we can control. It is not in our power to force the migrants in France to remain with their families, but we can show them that the journey over here is not worth the risk, by taking away the luxuries offered on arrival, denying asylum claims after illegal entering and making it clear that, should you choose to leave your family, it is not the British state’s responsibility to reunite. These are clear and effective ways to solve the crisis. Unfortunately, this amendment incentivises the first set of prospects. It would fundamentally worsen the asylum crisis and, as such, I submit, it is not well judged.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubsfor tabling the Amendment and for bringing to it not just his passion on this issue but his personal experience. I cannot imagine how my noble friend faced these issues as a child himself and I fully understand, and hope have empathy with, the driving motivation that he has brought to the House today.

The noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Wigley and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, |Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Berkeley, all spoke in support. However, I find myself, along with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, being a voice that will have to test my noble friend’s aspirations in this amendment and try to offer him a way through that understands the issues he has raised, at the same time as putting down the policy that the Government seek to have this House endorse in relation to the Bill.

The amendment, in effect, seeks to significantly expand the qualifying relationship eligibility for family reunion and make redundant the appendix child-relative policy by removing all current financial requirements on accommodation, maintenance, the immigration health surcharge and application fees, as well as the current exceptionality test of that route. My noble friend’s amendment would seek to ensure that the asylum-seeking children include children

“under the age of 18 … the child, sibling, half-sibling, niece, nephew, grandchild, or stepchild of the person granted protection status”.

I make it clear to the whole House that the Government firmly uphold the principle of family unity, especially for vulnerable children. Self-evidently, we have to recognise that families can become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and because of the speed and manner in which those seeking asylum are often forced to flee their country.

In the immigration white paper, which has been published already, the Government have set out a clear approach. The White Paper describes reforms to ensure that the UK can restore order and instil control and fairness to the system while bringing down net migration. As Members know, the current family rules are being reviewed. Given the immediate pressures that result from family reunion, we had to introduce a temporary suspension to the refugee family reunion route on 4 September. We intend, having looked at the issues over the next few weeks and months, to bring forward reforms in the period of spring 2026.

I am afraid that my noble friend’s proposed amendment, by expanding the scope and definition, would cause difficulties for the Government’s consistent position on legal migration and for those forthcoming reforms. To be clear, despite the suspension of the family reunion route, those with protected status can still use other family routes to sponsor a partner and/or child to come to the UK. The existing appendix child relative route allows for a close relative with protection status to sponsor a child to stay with them or to join them, but only when there are serious and compelling circumstances. That is precisely the situation where the child has no family, other than the close relative, who could reasonably be expected to support or care for them. I argue to the House that, to uphold the integrity of the route that we have in place at the moment, it is essential for it to be only for children.

The definition of “close relative” in the Immigration Rules includes a wide range of family members, such as siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, so we also have an appropriate definition of “sponsors”. The removal of the financial requirements in the Immigration Rules would pose a real risk of putting significant additional burdens on taxpayers. That might be something the House wants to disregard, but I have to draw it to the attention of the House in responding to my noble friend’s amendment. It would result in further pressures on local services and the local authorities that may have to accommodate and support those new arrivals. It is our policy intention that these should be waived only in the most exceptional of circumstances.

It is the intention of the appendix child relative route to require sponsors to demonstrate that suitable arrangements have been made for the child’s care, and it is our long-standing position that under the family routes policy we allow discretion in exceptional cases. That might include where there are compelling compassionate factors or—to go back to that old favourite of today’s discussion—where a refusal would breach Article 8 of the ECHR. Our guidance provides instruction on the extent to which the spirit of the Section 55 duty and the “best interests” test should be applied to children overseas.

I fully understand the passion that my noble friend brings to this issue and the history of his own experience, and I cannot be anything other than compelled by it. Every Government will have empathy for those objectives. However, I have to say to him that there is no consensus on how people would use this route. Public statistics on the family reunion route have shown that the number of individuals using it has significantly increased over the years, which has led to greater pressure on local services. But it also means that the route has worked. To ignore the impact on numbers and the associated financial and operational pressures would be to overlook significant areas of challenge for this Government.

For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the amendment in its current form. However, I do not want to find myself in the Lobby opposing my noble friend or ignoring the issues that he has raised. I have discussed the matter with my Honourable Friend Alex Norris, the policy Minister in the Home Office directly responsible for this area. He sits in The other House and I answer for the department in this House. Minister Norris has said he wants to meet my noble friend this month, before 17 November when we expect to have the Third Reading of the Bill.

My honourable friend Minister Norris wants to invite NGO partners—my noble friend and I have already met NGO partners—to discuss these issues and how we can work through them. Again, that offer is to both my noble friend and NGO partners. Time permitting, my honourable friend is willing not just to meet in the Home Office but to pay a visit to any particular sites that my noble friend wishes to bring to his attention where problems and challenges exist. I relay these offers as the Minister accountable for the department here in this House, but they are fair offers made by my honourable friend the Minister responsible in the House of Commons.

I hope that my noble friend can look at whether he can bring in some NGOs, as well as at his own personal experience, as he has done with me to date. I have taken on board the points he raised and discussed them with my honourable friend, who wants to hear them at first hand. I hope those offers mean that my noble friend will not push his amendment to a Division, because we have the opportunity to discuss—

I gather that it is proposed to have a meeting. Would it be possible for other Peers to join?

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.

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.

Ayes 47, Noes 136.

Amendment 55 disagreed.