My Lords, this debate should really start with a health warning. I say that not because of the time of day but because the official list of changes in the Immigration Rules since 1994 covers more than one large page of closely typed A4. There have been some four to seven changes every year since then. The good news is that the Secretary of State will review the changes made since 2017, produce a report and publish it. We may get some insights into the various zig-zags of policies over the years.
I turn now to the statement of changes of 11 May, referred to in my Motion. The statement implements Section 12 of the principal Act. I regret that it is equally discriminatory, giving successful asylum applicants different rights depending on how they arrived here. Group 1 will be a very small group who arrived here direct from the country they fled or who entered under another visa and then applied for protection—for example, following a change of regime. Group 2 applies to successful asylum applicants who arrived via other countries. They will be the great majority of recognised refugees in future.
Group 1 will get status and leave to stay for five years, after which they can apply to remain permanently. They can sponsor a partner and any children under 18. By contrast, group 2 will gain status and leave to stay for 18 months only. In the last of those 18 months they may apply for an extension, but they will have no automatic right to settlement here. Reunion will be possible only for a spouse or child who cannot safely live elsewhere. Your Lordships will see that there is a huge difference in the treatment of the two groups, although both will have been accepted as bona fide refugees.
The British Red Cross, which I thank for its information, points out that refugees should have support based on their need for protection, not their method of arrival. Short periods of leave to enter will harm integration, making it difficult to learn new skills and gain employment. The Home Office will have to decide on applications to extend the leave to remain. This resource could be better used in reducing the backlog and giving better and quicker first decisions. I note that on 30 June the backlog was more than 99,000 cases.
The restrictions on family sponsorships will harm women and children by removing, for many, an existing safe method of arriving. This in turn may lead to more dependants attempting dangerous journeys to reach
their next of kin. Lasting family separation and uncertainty will make it harder for recognised refugees to integrate.
The new regulations on family reunion may be slightly clearer than the old ones. There can be little doubt that they are more restrictive, but the complexities are such that free legal aid would be extremely helpful. At present it is not available. Therefore, much will depend on guidance that we have yet to see and on training for caseworkers and sympathetic implementation.
I come now to the special case of El Salvador, from which in 2017 there were only 38 asylum applications. Then, because of that Government’s harsh repression, the figures rose by stages to reach 658 in the first six months of 2022. Over the last two years, more than half of these applicants received refugee status or humanitarian protection. Why has this safe and legal route now been closed?
The May regulations had no impact assessment. I therefore ask: will one be published, in particular on group 2 refugees? Shorter periods of leave, no automatic route to settlement and restrictions on family reunion are the most important points to be considered.
The success of the two schemes for Ukrainians shows what can be done when there is good will and good co-operation all round. Over 133,000 entry clearance visas were granted for Ukrainians in the year ending last June. I have met a number of those who have benefited, and simply ask that every effort be made to enable people with good qualifications and good English to move into suitable work.
The media have enjoyed a field day over cross-Channel arrivals, but there can be no doubt about the desperation on the part of those facing the risks. We can gain a sense of proportion by comparing the numbers of cross-Channel arrivals with the much greater volume of visas provided for students and workers, and indeed for Ukrainians and British overseas nationals.
I have, I hope, outlined the weaknesses and omissions in these changes to the rules. They provide serious grounds for regret. I trust that subsequent speakers will touch on positive steps that this country could take to prevent loss of life in the channel by closer co-operation with France. If speakers can offer new ways of making the asylum process more humane, I will be delighted. I beg to move the Motion in my name.