Going back to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, first, I did not disagree with his point about reciprocity but I made it clear at the time that we were of course leaving the European Union. I have consistently said, and repeat now, that we will try to negotiate with the EU on UASC family reunion, whether that is across the EU or bilaterally with states. I cannot go any further on the negotiations, but we continue to try to do that. I hope that answers his question.
On family reunion visas, we can grant them, but the noble Lord asked about tracking whether people use them or not. I assume people apply for the visas because they need them and want to reunite with family in the UK, and whether they use them or not—I have just received an answer: all 39,000 have been taken up, so I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. I was just wondering how we could track whether someone had used a visa or not, which might be quite difficult.
I move to Amendment 114, on returns. Once again, we have a number of safe and legal routes to the UK that did not require a negotiating mandate. Our resettlement schemes have provided safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people to start new lives in the UK. In particular, the mandate resettlement scheme recognises refugees who have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. This is a global scheme and there is no annual quota. These routes work alongside the UK Government’s commitment to increasing co-operation internationally, and we continue to seek to negotiate on returns with EU member states, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
9 pm
Beyond this, the Government have been consistently clear that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in—that is the fastest route to safety. We do not want policies that support, or even encourage, dangerous and unnecessary secondary movement. As I have said, we are seeking agreements to re-admit those who have travelled through or have a connection to safe countries and to whom our inadmissible policy therefore applies, and are working with our neighbours on preventing abuse and ensuring the security of our borders.
Amendment 117 relates to refugee family reunion for the purposes of claiming asylum. First, as it has been stated by your Lordships many times during the passage of this Bill, those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country—that is the fastest route to safety.
EU countries together operate the Common European Asylum System, a framework of rules and procedures based on the full and inclusive application of the refugee convention, the aim of which is to ensure fair and humane treatment of applicants for international protection. There is no reason why an individual already in Europe who needs protection needs to or should make an onward journey to the UK, because that protection is already available to them.
A second important issue is the routes that the UK already has to reunite families. Where reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route, either the new points-based immigration system or our various family reunion routes. There has been very little discussion through the passage of this Bill of the fact that there are people all over the world with the skills that mean they could apply for jobs here. It does not all have to be about asylum—although I am not decrying the fact that this debate is largely about asylum.
We support the principle of family unity and have several routes for families to be reunited safely. Data shows that our family reunion policy is already highly effective and there is simply no need to replicate Dublin, as this amendment suggests. Indeed, in 2019, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 714 transfers into the UK under the Dublin regulation. In the same year, we issued 7,456 visas under refugee family reunion, so more than 10 times that amount.
The mandate resettlement scheme resettles recognised refugees who have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. As I have said, it is a global scheme and there is no annual quota. Beneficiaries must have been recognised as refugees by the UNHCR and judged by them to be in need of resettlement, and have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me how many grants under part 8 and paragraphs 319X and 297 there had been. I am afraid that those figures are not provided in published statistics, but if I can get any more information on that, of course I will.
Afghan refugees were mentioned. Of course, we got 15,000 people out in Operation Pitting. Under the ACRS, we will resettle 20,000 people. I would argue that Afghans are probably one of the most vulnerable communities in the world at this point.
Amendment 117 would, without careful thought, be likely to lead to a significant increase in the numbers who could qualify to come here, not just from conflict regions but from any country from which someone can already be granted protection. It would mean extended family members being able to come here who could themselves easily claim protection in the country they are in, which risks reducing our capacity to assist the most vulnerable, as I said before.
I shall just deal with a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on housing. Those with family reunion leave have access to public funds, including public housing. There is no maintenance and accommodation requirement for family reunion under Part 11 of the rules, so there may be an impact on social housing, for example. In addition, as is the case the world over, family relationships break down, so that might impact on housing.
The amendment could simply create further incentives for more adults and children to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK in order later to sponsor qualifying extended family. That plays into the hands of criminal gangs which exploit vulnerable people and goes against the main intention of the Bill. We must do everything in our power to stop this dangerous trend. I hope that, with that, the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.