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.