Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

It is against that history and that spirit that the changes before us today must be judged. In my view, they sit uneasily with the principles that Britain itself helped to establish. We can have firm borders and compassionate policies that uphold our international obligations. We can design a system that works both for those seeking refuge and for the communities that welcome them. But to achieve that, we need policies grounded in evidence, practicality and fairness. These changes to the Immigration Rules do little to advance such a policy. This Government’s attempt to tack to a Tory/Reform position is more than regressive; it is a policy which treats people who already contribute to our society in a shameful way and it will cost us dearly. The Government should withdraw these changes and return with new proposals. I beg to move.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the various organisations that have sent us enormously helpful briefings and, of course, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has produced a pretty devastating report on the whole process.

I was very surprised when I learned that there is no ability in the House of Commons to have a debate on this issue. Frankly, I could not believe it, but I have discussed it with various MPs, who said there is no possibility for the elected House to debate this issue. These are not trivial changes; they are quite fundamental to the way in which we deal with asylum seekers and refugees, and they are too complicated as changes for the procedure that is open even to us in this House. At least we can have a debate, but we have to have a Second Reading debate and a debate on detailed changes all in one go, which is really not very satisfactory. If we had a proper Bill, we could have probing amendments to test the strength of the arguments. As it is, the only option is a Motion of this sort to enable any debate to take place at all. I would have welcomed a chance to table probing amendments on a whole range of these issues. We are dealing with what is the material for an important Bill. So, I shall not be asking for the opinion of the House, but I hope that our comments today will influence government thinking. I think that is the best we can do with the procedure that is open to us.

Of course, we are dealing with an issue that is going to be with us for many years to come, because with the turmoil in the Middle East and in other countries as well, we must expect more people to be on the move. It is important that we manage the results of such movements in a dignified way, consistent with our international obligations and commitments, and that we do it in such a way that we do not forget that human rights matter.

I will avoid speaking as if we were now in Committee or on Report; instead, I will mention just a few of the issues. I welcome the extension to the Ukrainian scheme—that is good. Many of us have been arguing for that for some time, and it is very welcome that the Government are doing it.

My sense of what we have before us is that we are dealing with a lot of piecemeal changes—not a total, whole approach to a difficult issue. I have the impression that the issues have not been all that well considered. Indeed, in saying that, I am supported by the report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which stated that

“we found the answers unhelpful”

and that the Home Office has

“not fully thought through the implications of the policy”.

That is a serious criticism, not from a party point of view but from the point of view of good governance and how subordinate legislation should be handled.

I have also read the reports from NGOs and other organisations, which clearly regret that there was not enough consultation for them to have an input into the whole process. The belief is that, if they had had more input, the changes proposed would have been better thought out and more substantially based. For example, to review asylum applications regularly will need more overall capacity in the Home Office. We have heard over the years, throughout successive Governments, that the Home Office has not, until now, had that capacity. I welcome the changes that have taken place in the Home Office—it is making asylum decisions much quicker than before and the backlog is being dealt with—but now we will have proposals that will move the whole process the other way and will put extra pressure on it. It is difficult to believe that a two-and-a-half-year assessment can happen without additional resource needs. What assessment have the Government made of the needs that will stem from the proposals we have before us?

Under the current system, the Home Office usually makes one further decision on refugee status after someone is initially granted protection, but under these proposals, there could be many decisions. One opinion is that it could happen as many as eight different times. The problem is that this will impose burdens on legal aid, if there is any legal aid available. The Government could be reasonably asked to identify what legal aid needs there will be, to ensure that those granted refugee status will be able to access legal aid during the review period, because every review period will challenge the right of people to stay in this country and their whole futures will depend on it. Frequent housing moves can have a very disruptive effect on education and on children who are trying to be settled in a new country, which will all lead to instability. People living in this country, who are feeling unstable and uncertain about their futures, cannot make the sort of contribution to our society that we would like them to make.

The result is that there will be tensions with the refugee convention, under which the United Kingdom has agreed to facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees—we are going against that part of the refugee convention. I know that there are other challenges to the refugee convention, but I hope that we will firmly stand by it. Has any assessment been made by the Government of the impact of the reduced length of leave on integration outcomes? What we really need is an overall integration policy. Integration is a difficult thing to achieve, so we need a policy for the integration of people in our society.

Finally, I will talk about family reunions and children. Family reunion applications were paused from September last year. We had the understanding that they would be resumed early this year. Can the Minister say when those family reunion applications will be restarted? Have the Government assessed the impact of the pause, given that nine out of 10 visas granted before the pause went to women and children? How many refugees have applied under other family visa routes since the pause, and how many were successful?

I feel that we are turning our backs on refugee children and family reunion. They are not covered here. I would like the Government to come back and give us an idea of what policies there are going to be on family reunion, which this House has debated with a lot of emotion over the years.

I am conscious that what we do has to have public support. On the one hand, we cannot introduce policies on refugees and asylum and just ignore the concerns of the general public; on the other hand, many of the things that we have talked about in earlier speeches and now could have public support if presented sensibly. We cannot proceed with policies on asylum and refugees without public support, but we have to gain public support. That means having calm, balanced debates explaining the terrible situations that people have fled from and why it is right that we, among other countries, should provide safety for people whose human rights have been so severely prejudiced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs]

10.48 pmMotion to RegretTabled by That this House regrets that the Statement of Changes to Immigration Rules (HC1691), published on 5 March, while making a welcome extension to the Ukraine Permission Scheme, will make it harder for refugees to successfully integrate; provides no equality impact assessment or children’s impact assessment for the reduction in leave granted to refugees; risks creating additional burdens on the Home Office by requiring refugee status to be reviewed every two and a half years; fails to restart the process for refugees to be reunited with their family members; and prevents some students, including Chevening scholars, from taking up educational opportunities in the UK. Relevant document: 56th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I thank all Members of the House who spoke, particularly those in support of the regret Motion, and my noble friend the Minister. He has handled this extremely well. He has one of the most difficult jobs in government, and I very much appreciate the sensitive way in which he responds to debates such as this.

Motion not moved.