The landmark Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination Bill 2019-21 has edged closer to passing into law, as yesterday (9 November 2020) it completed its ‘ping-pong’ between the two Houses of Parliament.
The bill’s primary purpose is to repeal EU free movement, however a major sticking point between the two houses had been over the future of family reunion for child refugees.
EU laws, set out in the Dublin Regulations, give child refugees on the continent the automatic right to be reunited with family in the UK (as laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a child is any human being below the age of 18) . However, this right will lapse with the end of the transition period (31 December 2020) and a replacement agreement has not been reached between the UK and the EU.
Last week (4 November 2020), the Commons – under the direction of the Government – rejected an ‘amendment in lieu’, tabled by the Labour peer Lord Dubs, which would have temporarily allowed unaccompanied child refugees to be reunited with close relatives in the UK until a future agreement was reached – this had commonly become known as the Dubs Amendment.
The reason given by the Government for rejecting the Lords amendment was:
“Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.”.
Instead, the Government proposed a new clause in lieu, which was agreed in the House of Lords yesterday. The new clause commits the Government to establishing a review of the legal routes of entry to the UK for people in EU Member States who have claimed asylum there or who are seeking to claim asylum in the UK (including unaccompanied children who are seeking family reunion with relatives in the UK).
The Government amendment also commits the Secretary of State to “lay before Parliament a statement providing further details about the review” within the next three months. After the review the Secretary of State must prepare a report on the outcome of the review and publish the report and lay it before Parliament. The amendment was welcomed by Lord Dubs.
Despite the disagreement to Lord Dubs’ amendment in the Commons last week, he yesterday had the opportunity to push a division to vote on re-inserting his amendment, which would have forced another round of ping-pong in the House of Commons.
However, Lord Dubs gave the Minister of State for the Home Office, Baroness Williams of Trafford the opportunity to make a number of assurances in relation to the bill which would in turn see him withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs asked three questions of the Minister, firstly:
“If there are to be changes in the Immigration Rules…could the Minister arrange for these first to be published in draft form, so that we have the ability to suggest possible changes?”
Secondly, Lord Dubs asked if the Minister would commit to publishing policy guidance for the Immigration Rules before the end of December, stating:
“The difficulty is that the Immigration Rules are more restrictive than the Dublin treaty provisions. The problem is whether what the Minister said will enable an element of flexibility in the interpretation of the Immigration Rules by officials to be achieved. If that can be done, all well and good.”
Lastly, the Minister was asked to:
“indicate that the Government’s aim is that no child should be disadvantaged by any restrictions in the Immigration Rules tighter than those contained in the Dublin treaty.”
In response to Lord Dubs, Baroness Williams of Trafford said:
“in a nutshell, I am happy to do all those things.”
The Minister also announced plans to revive the vulnerable persons refugee scheme, one of the primary safe and legal routes into the UK which had been halted due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Upon hearing the assurances provided by the Minister, Lord Dubs withdrew his amendment, saying:
“If the Minister’s assurance is to be accepted by me — and I think I will accept it — I do so on the understanding that the House will carefully scrutinise what happens, that we shall raise individual cases where we feel that the assurances have not been acted upon, and that we will look to the review and the future legislation…to have further scrutiny of the arrangements for unaccompanied child refugees. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.”
The whole debate could be characterised as amicable, with both the Minister and Lord Dubs thanking the other for the “civil conversations” they had held with each other over the weekend. Though Lord Dubs did comment that his “concern is that the interpretation of Immigration Rules will still be with officials, who may not be as generous in their attitude as the Minister is.”
The debate held extra significance as it fell on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the tragic events of 1938 which saw Jewish homes, hospitals and schools across Nazi Germany and Austria ransacked by military and civilian attackers. Over 7,000 Jewish businesses were damaged or destroyed, and 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps.
Five days after the devastation of Kristallnacht – translated in English to ‘the Night of Broken Glass’ in reference to the broken glass from homes and storefronts that littered the streets – a delegation of British, Jewish, and Quaker leaders appealed in person to the UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to permit the admission of unaccompanied Jewish children into Britain, without their parents.
Out of this appeal the Kindertransport (German for “children’s transport”) was borne, an organised effort to rescue children from Nazi occupied countries. The effort lasted nine months, and among those children who came to the UK during this time was Alfie Dubs, the very same Lord Dubs fighting to bring unaccompanied refugee children into the UK today.
Speaking about the Kindertransport children arriving in the UK, Lord Dubs said:
“All I would say is that, as one of them, I have always been enormously grateful to this country for the safety and the opportunities it has given me. I only want to achieve for other children coming here in similar circumstances the same sort of opportunities I have had in the United Kingdom.”
Watch IOHR talk to Lord Dubs about his amendment: