Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Committee

Clause 1: Refugee Family Reunion

Amendment 1

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “must, within 6 months of this section coming into force” and insert “may”

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, which is tabled in my name, I will speak in support of the other amendments in this group, all of which relate to Clause 1.

It is worth pointing out in a sentence that the present position under Appendix FM of the UK Immigration Rules is that a person granted refugee or protection status is entitled to make an application for family members to join in two circumstances. Depending on eligibility requirements, they must be a partner—that is, someone in a genuine relationship—or a child under the age of 18 who is not married or in a civil partnership. That is the present legal position. This Bill would have the effect of broadening that application, and we are going to look at that in a second.

At the Second Reading of this Bill, which was held on 18 October, I intervened on the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to ask whether she could inform the House of how many people she envisaged would be granted refugee family reunion status on an annual basis under this Bill. Her answer was:

“I will not go into that now; I do not have it in my speech. I am time-limited and conscious of other people’s need for that time. I will happily tell the noble Lord later”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 360.]

I have yet to be told how many people the noble Baroness envisages would be admitted on an annual basis under these measures.

Clause 1(1) provides that:

“The Secretary of State must, within 6 months … lay … a statement of changes in the … ‘immigration rules’”.

That would have the effect, as per the wording in subsection 1(3), of requiring that there be leave to

“enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted protection status”.

I will discuss my amendments in turn. Amendment 1 seeks to remove the time limit and make it discretionary for the Secretary of State to make a change in the rules. That must be right, because it is for the Secretary of State to judge when it is appropriate to expand the numbers of people who might be admitted by this route. This is a recognition of the need for flexibility in responding to the complexities of implementing changes to the Immigration Rules. Arbitrary deadlines risk rushing decisions without fully understanding their consequences. By making this provision permissive, the Government can ensure that changes are introduced in a thoughtful and measured manner, considering the ever-changing pressures on the immigration system.

Amendment 5 would require that the Secretary of State change the relevant rules only if he is satisfied, first,

“that there is available capacity in relation to … local support services and housing, and”,

secondly, that there are sufficient

“arrangements for the integration of refugees into local communities”.

Finally, Amendment 5 says that the Secretary of State may not lay a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules in accordance with these measures if the statutory cap is exceeded. The statutory cap was brought in by virtue of Section 60 of the Illegal Migration Act and is yet to be set, even though the section is in force. Provision is made in respect of any other statutory cap. In the event of such a statutory cap being exceeded, a Secretary of State must not, in accordance with this amendment, lay a statement of changes.

Amendment 9 seeks to remove Clause 1(5)(a)(i), which extends family reunion eligibility to the adoptive parents of refugees under 18. While the intention here is undoubtedly compassionate, it is essential that we maintain alignment with the existing Immigration Rules, which are more restrictive in scope. Expanding eligibility to this extent risks opening pathways that are difficult to manage and could inadvertently encourage unsafe migration practices. One of the reasons why the present arrangements do not permit parents to join child refugees is to disincentivise people from seeking to send children in advance on a dangerous, long and potentially life-threatening journey, and not facilitate a method to encourage migration to the United Kingdom. It is very clear that there is no sense in generating a perverse incentive for people to send children across the seas so that they might be able to then come to the United Kingdom by reason of making such an application.

Amendment 12 would remove the inclusion of unmarried partners from eligibility in the Bill. Of course, it is right that the present provisions in the Immigration Rules will remain. That is my final amendment in this group that I will discuss.

I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in so far as they are an alternative to mine. Having said all that, I beg to move.

I ask the noble Lord, who I think has also put forward Amendment 14, whether children who have been formally adopted are contained within the Immigration Rules?

Appendix FM, as I understand it—although I would have to check—does allow for an application to be considered by the Home Office in respect of a formally adopted child. But I am sure the Minister can confirm, or otherwise, in relation to that.