Lord Davies of Gower (Con)

My Lords, this group brings us to a very topical and significant point of contention. Amendments 165, 166 and 177 all seek in their own way to expand refugee family reunion provisions, in some cases dramatically. I begin by acknowledging the sincerity of those who support these amendments. We all recognise the tragic circumstances that force families apart due to conflict and persecution. But we must equally recognise that compassion, if not tempered by realism and control, risks undermining both the integrity of our immigration system and the public’s confidence in its fairness. Each of these amendments, though well intentioned, risks undermining the very principles that underpin a sustainable, fair and secure asylum system. Amendments 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have made the argument that those granted refugee status in this country should be able to apply to bring their spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner, their children, grandchildren, sister, brother, nephew or nieces to the UK; and, for a child, they should be able to sponsor their parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles. This is a fundamental shift in the architecture of our immigration policy. It creates wide-ranging entitlements without the necessary safeguards, verification mechanisms or limits. It also risks creating perverse incentives, in particular the possibility that families might send unaccompanied children on dangerous journeys in the hope of opening a pathway for broader reunification. Such unintended consequences which risk perverse incentives are not compassionate: they are, to put it mildly, reckless. Amendment 166 would require the Secretary of State to rewrite the immigration rules within six months to provide an expansive new framework for refugee family reunion—one that far exceeds the scope of existing policy, international norms and operational capacity. Subsection (5) of its proposed new clause includes, as of right, not only spouses and dependent children but siblings up to age 25, unmarried partners and, potentially, a wide range of others where there is dependency or concern for well-being. In that regard, my noble friend Lord Jackson is right to raise the issue of unmarried partners via his Amendment 169. Crucially, it would also open the door to almost unlimited discretion under its subsection (5)(e). This would empower the Secretary of State to admit other persons based on subjective criteria, including emotional or psychological dependency, with no practical limiting principle. This is not a measured enhancement of our current rules. It is an open-ended expansion that risks transforming refugee protection into a de facto right to extended family migration, far removed from the original purpose of asylum law. It would not only increase pressure on our asylum system, already under significant strain, but risk distorting the principle of individual refuge into a system of family-by-family resettlement through the back door. The current refugee family reunion framework already allows for spouses and children under 18 to join those granted protection, recognising both humanitarian concern and practical enforceability. What is proposed here goes far beyond that: it would create a prescriptive and permanent legal duty to change immigration rules, backed by statutory timetables, without proper democratic scrutiny or flexibility to adapt to changing geopolitical conditions. This raises several concerns, the first about security and verification. How will we reliably establish family links, particularly when documentation is scarce or unreliable? The broader we cast the net of eligibility, the more vulnerable our system becomes to fraud, abuse and trafficking. A second concern is about the operational consequences. The Home Office is already processing record numbers of applications, with finite resources. Imposing a statutory obligation to widen the criteria, potentially by tens of thousands of additional claimants, would undermine our capacity to deal swiftly and justly with the most urgent cases. This amendment, with its wide eligibility, statutory rigidity and lack of safeguards, risks sending precisely that signal. I must ask: what is the end point? If we legislate to allow adult siblings, adult children up to 25, unmarried partners and those in psychological dependency, where does it end? We risk normalising a model where refuge is no longer about the individual at risk but an entitlement for entire extended families, however genuine their desire to reunite. That is not what the refugee convention envisages and it is not something we can responsibly support. Amendment 177 proposes a statutory family reunion right for asylum-seeking children overseas to join relatives already granted protection in the UK. The amendment would remove virtually every safeguard, with no maintenance or accommodation requirements, no fees and no health surcharge. It would also oblige the Secretary of State to facilitate travel arrangements and co-ordinate with foreign authorities, regardless of the complexities or security conditions on the ground. In effect, this would create a state-sponsored international reunification scheme for extended relatives, with no meaningful eligibility checks or financial thresholds. The idea may be noble in sentiment, but it is completely divorced from operational reality. We already offer safe and legal routes for those in greatest need. The resettlement schemes for Syrians, Afghans and Ukrainians, not to mention the Hong Kong BNO route, demonstrate that, when this country chooses to act, we do so with generosity and resolve. But that generosity must be targeted, managed and sustainable. At the heart of all three amendments is a belief that compassion must override control, but compassion without control is not kindness but chaos. The British people expect an asylum system that is firm but fair, not one that is open-ended, unverified and vulnerable to abuse. We must not confuse individual acts of empathy with a systematic rewriting of our immigration obligations. Nor should we allow our policies to be shaped by emotional pressure alone. A functioning asylum system must serve those in greatest need first and foremost, but it must do so within the bounds of national sovereignty, operational capacity and public trust. I fully respect those who have tabled these amendments, but I urge the Committee to reflect seriously on the risks they pose. We cannot allow emotion to drive policy at the expense of security, sustainability and the long-term integrity of our borders.