hansard 04 july 2013

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

1/21

Immigration Rules: Impact on Families

Question for Short Debate

3.41 pm

Asked By Baroness Hamwee

To ask Her Majestys Government whether they have any plans to review the social and

economic impact on families of recent changes to the immigration rules.

Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, I could fill my limited minutes and everybody elses with

examples of the impact of the family migration rules introduced a year ago this month. The

media covered some of them when the all-party group launched the report by the inquiry that

I had the privilege to chair. Those affected tell better than I can the outrage, confusion,

puzzlement and anguish of British citizens and taxpayers who had never for a momentexpected that their country would put such obstacles in the way of them living with their

family in that country.

The All-Party Group on Migration is supported by the Migrants Rights Network, which

wrote the report, and I thank it very warmly. The report looks at changes to the rules that had

previously required someone seeking to sponsor a non-EEA partner and any children to

demonstrate the ability to maintain their family without recourse to public funds.

Immediately before last July, that was equivalent to income supportabout 5,500. A

number of sources and a range of evidence of income were counted. Now the minimum

income requirement is 18,600, a level that is not attained by getting on for half of British

workers, and there are considerable regional variations. The minimum income requirement isgreater when there are children and can be met only through limited sources. Those who are

successful at the initial stage of application must meet other criteria at later stages, but it is

too soon to see their impact.

4 July 2013 : Column 1386

There is also a blockI use that term advisedlyon applications by adult dependent

relatives to join British citizens and permanent residents here. They have to demonstrate a

very high level of dependency, one which suggests to me that they would not in fact be able

to travel, and that the sponsors financial support is not sufficient to provide care in their own

country. Will the Minister give an example of when an application by anyone in this groupcould be successful? If you have the money to meet the requirements to come here, you have

the money to be supported in your original country.

The Migration Advisory Committee was asked about the income needed to support applicants,

without them becoming a burden on the state.

That is an economic remit, and it gave economic advice, but as the MAC recognised, there

are also legal, moral, and social dimensions. Our report calls for an independent review as to

these impacts. Noble Lords will be familiar with the work of Oxford Universitys Centre on

Migration, Policy and Society. COMPAS is just the sort of organisation I have in mind to do

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

2/21

such a review. It also calls for a review of the income level and how the system is working. I

am well aware that the Government have said in recent answers to Parliamentary Questions

that the rules are working as intended. They say that they will keep the impact under review

without having any proposal to conduct an immediate review.

A study by Middlesex University suggests that preventing up to 17,800 migrant partnerstheGovernments estimatefrom coming and working here will cost the UK as much as 850

million over 10 years in lost economic activity. There is no evidence that most migrant

partners have claimed public funds during their first five years here. Most, in fact, work and

pay tax, and want to do so. Conversely, excluding a partner may increase claims on the state.

A single parent may need support, which would not be necessary if there were two parents

here to share the care of the child. Both sets of rules are driving out some of the very people

who contribute significantly to our society. Of course, that is a double win if this is a numbers

game.

The reality of the finances of many families does not fall neatly within narrow criteria. What

about an incoming partners employability and earnings or indeed a significant job offer?Surely it would be sensible to review the exclusion of these. A lot of employment does not

come within tier 2, an alternative route which is often suggested as being available. What

about self-employment? It is subject to peaks and troughs and it is not always evidenced in

the easy ways that the Government would want; but as a country we want entrepreneurial

spirits. What about the length of time that savings must be held and their form when an

applicant relies on savings in lieu of earnings? This affects people over a range of

circumstances. I have to say that I think anyone holding an awful lot of liquid cash is likely

not to be handling his assets very well. I have just heard of a high-net-worth couple that we

would surely want within our tax base here who have relocated to another country because of

the rules. I urge the Government to review the application of


non-cash assets. What about the assistance available from family membersmembers who

feel it natural and who are desperate to help their younger family members? This is felt

particularly acutely by grandparents who want to be part of their grandchildrens lives but

cannot if what they can provide by way of accommodation and money cannot be counted to

meet the requirements.

A childs early months and years are hugely significant in his development, not merelyif

merely is the right wordhis well-being. In another part of the legislative forest, a childswelfare by statute is paramount; so says the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Noble

Lords are of course very familiar with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human

Rights and with Section 55. It was as recently as Tuesday that we discussed in debate on the

Children and Families Bill a government clause providing for a presumption that the

involvement of a parent in the life of a child will further the childs welfare. The four UK

Childrens Commissioners support an independent review and that the obligation to secure a

childs rights to a family life be reflected. The Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

recommends that the best interests of the child should be referred to expressly in decisions.

We now even seem to see parents who are not allowed to live here being refused a visitors

visa. It is no answer that the Briton should take his British children and live abroad if that is

not the best for his family. I heard someone affected by these rules on a radio phone-in say

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

3/21

that he was building up a business hereand that there just was not much call for mortgage-

broking in Nigeria.

There were some changes in April to the evidence of means that it is required butthis point

applies much more widely than to this type of applicationthe evidential requirements are

not sufficiently clear or straightforward for applicants to understand. I do not think it isappropriate that we have managed to create a system where the ordinary applicant has to find

legal advice. Indeed, it is a sorry state of affairs if the scope for flexibility and discretion in an

assessment is constrained by the abilities of entry clearance officers and other immigration

staff.

I would like to talk about the time taken for dealing with applications and appeals, whether

the objectives of promoting integration are achieved, whether the rules support family life

which is clearly an objective of the Governmentand about the amount of taxpayers money

which is being spent, and will be spent, on government lawyers defending decisions, but I

have to leave time for others who I hope will talk about the real human dilemmas.

We have a higher income threshold than any other major western country except Norway.

We are out of step with the rest of the EU. Is it right that if, for practical reasons, you are not

able as a couple, one of you not being an EEA citizen, to move to Ireland or France to live

and work there for just a few months and then come to the UK under the treaty as EU citizens,

you are denied the opportunity to live in this EU country as a family?

We live in an interconnected world, a term which was used in the previous debate. British

citizens fall in


love with people from Canada, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Chile and Australia. We want to

protect our reputation, a point which is often raised in connection with student visas. We

want to protect our values, care for our parents, and have a family life. One of those values is

fairness. These rules are not regarded as fair by so many of our fellow citizens. I therefore

repeat the inquirys call fora review because of, as I have said, the outrage, confusion,

puzzlement and anguish that are being felt.

3.52 pm

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for introducing thisdebate on changes to the Immigration Rules. I will concentrate on three areas that worry me

greatly.

The first has to do with the way in which one is not allowed to bring ones parents and

grandparents from the country of ones origin. The new Immigration Rules require that if

your parents or grandparents are over the age of 65, ill, disabled or otherwise unable to

function, you may not bring them so long as they have a sibling in the country of origin who

can look after them, or can hire a nurse who can look after them. I find this simply

extraordinary for half a dozen important reasons.

First, looking after ones parents or grandparents is a privilege to be enjoyed and anobligation to be discharged. It is not something that you outsource to your siblings or a nurse.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

4/21

Secondly, it is not just a question of physical care, which a sibling or nurse can provide; it is

about emotional reassurance and support during the last days of ones parents or grandparents,

which only you can provide. Thirdly, people would leave the country if confronted with the

choice of either going to their countries of origin to look after their parents or staying here. In

fact, we heard a moving submission from the British Medical Association written by

Stephanie Creighton on behalf of a large number of doctors and consultants, many of themsaying that they would leave the country. In fact, a couple of them have left already, simply

because they could not bring their parents to live with them here.

Fourthly, I find the whole thing quite pointless. If our concern is to ensure that no demands

are made on public funds, that is already taken care of. If people here bring parents or

grandparents are prepared to look after themthey used to be able to do sothose parents or

grandparents will not be dependent on public funds: in which case, what is the point of this

rule?

If this were the only alternative for controlling immigration, I would at least concede the

point of it. Canada does not follow this policy. It has a super visa under which parents andgrandparents can be brought in for two years until such time as their right to permanent

settlement is decided. In the United States there is no problem. In fact, a few years ago, when

I tried to bring my parents herethey were in their 80smy brother, who is settled in the

United States, found it much easier for them to spend their last few years with him.

More importantly, if our concern is to create a culture in which the aged are respected, I

should have


thought that letting people bring in their parents and grandparents would be ideal. It sets an

example to their children and to wider society and helps to shift the culture in which the old

are seen as a liability or a burden. So far, I have accepted the terminology of the rules, which

talk about parents and grandparents. There is a complete embargo on uncles and aunts. I

come from a civilisation where very often uncles perform more or less the same role as

parents, as they did in my case.

If your parents are dead or disabled, you might feel that you have incurred the same moral

obligation and emotional commitment to your uncle as you have to your parents. There is no

reason why one should impose a complete embargo. Immigration officers should be required

to look at the nature of the relationship. If the relationship with an uncle or aunt is of a kindthat one would recognise as filial, they should qualify.

My first concern is therefore simply this, and I really want to emphasise it: not allowing one

to bring in parents and grandparents as long as there is someone else to look after them is

simply morally unacceptable. It is also unworthy of a civilised society. We are asking people

to outsource their obligations to somebody else and saying, Do not worry, pass it on to

somebody. That is a culture that we should not aim to encourage.

My second difficulty with the Immigration Rules involves family visitor appeals. These are

being disallowed and people whose applications have failed are being told that they can apply

again. Family visitor appeals make up about one-third of all immigration appeals and a largenumber of them succeed. The Government say that they succeed because very often new

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

5/21

information is provided at the appeal stage, but as I look at some of the applications I do not

find that. In fact, what is called new information is often the exposure of implicit bias,

important facts that were mentioned but neglected, or bureaucratic irregularity that is pointed

out.

It is certainly true, as the Government have said, that in some cases new information wasprovided, but the House should bear in mind that this is not the only factor. Other factors that

appear at the appeal stage include the way in which certain biases appear. It is therefore

important that we should allow family visitor appeals.

My third concern is one which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly pointed out: the

way in which one is allowed to bring in spouses. This is a long story and many of us have

spent at least 30 or 35 years fighting for the right to bring spouses. The Government require

an income of at least 18,600. If a child is involved, it is 22,400. On current estimates, just

under 50% of people simply would not qualify, because they do not earn that kind of money.

For some of us in this House, like me, a university professor, 18,000 is not even a quarter of

what one earns, but that is not what schoolteachers, nurses, UK Border Agency officers oreven some sections of retired people earn. If we insist on this sum we will disqualify half the

ethnic minority population, as well as many others.

Equally importantly, income fluctuates. In a volatile economy, jobs come and go. I might

have a job paying 18,600 today, but tomorrow it might be much less. Nor do the regulations

take into account the likely income of the spouse, or the way in which, among


ethnic minorities and elsewhere, families generally chip in with their savings. I very much

hope that the Government will reconsider this figure.

4 pm

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for bringing this

issue to the fore and for her work on the inquiry that she led. One of the big differences

between the United Kingdom and, say, Egypt, is that there is a very broad political consensus.

Although we may argue between different sides of the House, and on occasion even more on

this side of the House, at least we have fundamental principles that we believe in. Whether

we are Liberal Democrats, social democrats, socialists, libertarians or Conservatives, we have

certain values in common. They include, perhaps, the market economy, democracy, the ruleof law, and all the things that bind us together and ensure that we have a stable, long-term

democracy.

Two elements of that come within the area of family life. One is that the state should not

determine who you can or cannot marry. The second is that families ought to be able to live

together; the state should always allow them to live together. We can all think of exceptions.

Sham marriages, of which there have been many, should be prevented; forced marriages are

illegal and wrong; and the state splits up families when there is criminality by sending

criminals to penitentiaries and prison, which clearly is right. However, whether families

choose to live together, and who we marry, should be up to us as citizens. In particular, they

are our rights as British citizens.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

6/21

We have heard some of the background figures. Some 5 million UK citizens live abroad. We

think of all the citizens from other countries who live here, but 5 million of us are elsewhere.

Every year something like 150,000 of our citizens migrate from the UK for more than one

year. They are not necessarily retired peopleor gangsters, who used to go to Spain before

the European arrest warrant but now go further abroad. Some 90% of them are of working

age. Perhaps more importantly for this debate, two-thirds of them are single; they are notmarried when they go. We also knowI know this from my own familythat people go

abroad, to university and to study, and they go abroad on gap years. Those areas are

expanding.

What happens to the 90% of young, single people when they are working abroad and wanting

to get on with life? Strangely enough, they tend to meet people and fall in love with them. We

should celebrate that. Strangely enough, a large number of them get married and, praise the

Lord, have children. This has happened in my extended family, and it will be something that

increases. However, as we have heard, it is estimated that some 47% of these people would

not have an income that would enable them to come back as a family unit, with or without

their children, to the United Kingdom.

I will give two examples that I have come up against. I went to Buenos Aires over Christmas

and the new year, because two members of my extended family had got married and had a

son, who now has Argentinian as well as British citizenship. They invited us out there, and

we met another British citizen who had married a


Brazilian woman. Now they as a family can no longer come back to the United Kingdom. I

have had correspondence from someone whose family I knew a long time ago and who now

lives in Canada. She is now married. She cannot come back to the United Kingdom with her

spouse because they are not able to fulfil the income requirements.

We talk about those bad guys, the tax exiles, but we now have marriage exiles from this

country, and children of British citizens who cannot come back and grow up in British

society if they want to. We have British grandparents in this country who are unable to meet,

look after and nurture their grandchildren and to see them grow up. That is the outcome of

these regulations and of the legislation behind them.

Where do we look for our guidance? I looked back at some of the 2010 election manifestos.

First, I looked at the Conservative manifesto, and I would like to bring the Houses attentionto it. Right at the beginning it mentioned families. On page 41, and I am utterly with my

Conservative coalition brothers and sisters on this, it stated:

We will make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe Strong families are

the bedrock of a strong society We will help families with all the pressures they face

We will not be neutral on this Britains families will get our full backing across all

I emphasise all

our policies.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

7/21

That clearly includes immigration and migration. Those points were reflected in the coalition

agreement, which stated on page 14:

The Government believes that strong and stable families of all kinds are the bedrock of a

strong and stable society. That is why we need to make our society more family friendly.

We are failing in this area, particularly on this issue. It will be a growing one, and it will

affect all our families. It affects mine, although I am pleased to say that my wifes son-in-law

managed to gain entry before these arrangements came into play. I am an absolutist in this

area, and I ask the Minister: do the Government, too, believe that the state should not

determine who can marry or whether families can stay together?

4.07 pm

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, in the 20 years that I was a Member of the other place, I never

had a visa application case to deal with. Of course, that is easily explained. Representing

Northern Ireland during the 30 years of the Troubles, I found that no foreigners wanted tocome and live in Northern Ireland, so no visas were required. We got the odd foreigner

coming up from the Republic of Ireland, but otherwise none at all. How times have changed.

Immigration is now a big challenge in Northern Ireland, as it is elsewhere in the United

Kingdom. We have tens of thousands of foreign people now living in Northern Ireland, from

Lithuania, Poland and especially Portugal.

The report that we have before us today from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on

Migration is an excellent publication. All-party groups have had some criticism in the media

in recent weeks, especially about staff, access to this building et cetera. However, I think


that this is one of the finest examples of work by an all-party parliamentary group. I

congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her colleagues on the good work of their

group, because it is a thorough, detailed and excellent report and certainly enhances the good

name of all-party parliamentary groups.

I want to stress several points in the report before I go on to one particular example, without

mentioning names. One is the delay in deciding these applications. I know of a case where a

visa for a spouse, married to a United Kingdom citizen in Northern Ireland, was applied for in

February 2012. The decision was made by the Secretary of State in May 201315 monthslater. That is an intolerable delay for a family unit as they wait to find out whether or not they

will be awarded a visa.

On page 23 of the report, a submission from the Belfast Migrant Centre refers to the problem

of the minimum income requirement, which is of course uniform throughout the United

Kingdom. However, as the centre points out, average wages vary throughout the different

regions of the United Kingdom, whether it is Scotland, Wales, the north of England or

Northern Ireland. Is it fair to have a standard minimum income requirement when average

wages vary in different regions of the United Kingdom?

I know personally the people involved in a case where a girl from Australia, loyal to HerMajesty the Queen, applied for a spouses visa. She had been working in the United Kingdom

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

8/21

and had a work permit since 2008, five years ago. She is the unit sister of a 38-bed nursing

home in Northern Ireland and went back to her home country of Australia in February 2011

to marry a United Kingdom citizen from Northern Ireland. He is from the third generation

running a family firm in Northern Ireland, formed in 1975, which now employs 25 people.

There is therefore no issue of a minimum income requirement in this case. However, the

Secretary of State surprisingly reached the conclusion that she is married to a Britishcitizenwhich, of course, is correctand went on to state in the decision: Asboth speak

English there are no insurmountable obstacles to both travelling to Australia togetheras

such your application fails. It is unbelievable that that could happen. Someone who employs

25 people and who has been living in Northern Ireland for seven or eight years goes back to

Australia to get married and is told that the application for a visa to live in the United

Kingdom has failed. It is terrible for the married couple and has very adverse implications for

a successful family firm.

While thousands of EU citizens flow into all parts of the United Kingdom each yeara net

inflow of 200,000 per year, some of whom now probably work in the Home Office assessing

visa applicationspeople from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, subjects loyal to HerMajesty the Queen, are being refused visas. Is it any wonder that support for UKIP is

increasing as more and more people realise the implications of the present governmentpolicies on immigration and visas? I appeal to the Government to accept the recommendation

of the all-party group that the whole procedure needs to be reviewed.


4.13 pm

Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on having introduced the

debate. She was right to do so. It is very important that this matter should receive scrutinyand consideration in this House.

I am deeply concerned by the situation in which we find ourselves because it seems to me

that when we talk about the kind of society we want to be inwe spend an awful lot of time

talking about thatwhat really matters, and the values which we have as central to that

society, should be evident in all aspects of our life. People, however reluctantly, can

understand the need for immigration controls and immigration policy. That is true of this

country and of our friends abroad. What upsets people is when, within that immigration

policy, we do not follow through the logic which we say is vital to maintaining the values and

behaviour which we see as being central to our nation.

I am really very disturbed that we are speaking with forked tongues on the issue of family.

We keep emphasising the importance of family in our own society, but it does not apply topeople who have been allowed through the immigration system to come and join us and make

a contribution to our society. Either the family matters or it does not. I found the evidence

submitted by the BMA, to which my noble friend Lord Parekh has already referred, very

interesting. It talks not just about the personal pressures but about the quality of work

undertaken by doctors if they are surrounded by their family or if they are debarred from

having their family with them. If we see these doctors as essential to the operation of our

health serviceand, my God, they make a huge contribution to our health and well-beingit

is terribly important that family values should apply, to enable them to perform at their best.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

9/21

My noble friend, Lord Parekh, in a delightful but telling way, wove together the principle and

practicalities of this. We all know, in our own families, how important grandparents are to the

operation of the family, enabling mothers to work and running children to school and to their

activities. Grandparents have a crucial part to play in the success of the family as part of

society. It is shooting ourselves in the foot to say that we want people who are entitled to

come through our immigration system, and to welcome them so long as they are making afull, positive contribution to our society, but then to deny those very aspects of life which will

enable them to maximise their performance. It just does not make sense.

I also want to pick up on the more difficult, contentious issue of the operation of our penal

system. If people have had sentences over a certain period of time they are subject to

deportation. I have seen too much evidence that the impact on the children is not taken into

account in these decisions. Sometimes there is a quite cynical neglect of any consideration

whatever of the children in the paperwork and the rest. We were pioneersI repeat,

pioneersin the creation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in which, I am

glad to say, the Conservative Party played a big part. We won great international esteem for

the part we played, as I was saying the other night in our deliberations on the Children andFamilies Bill. We


have a long way to fall and I am afraid we are falling. What people judge us by is not what

we said at the time of the conventions creation but how we actually operate the convention,

not only in detail but in spirit, in our own society and the way we go about organising our

affairs. I am not going to say there have not been some marginal improvements, and of course

there are some very fine people working in this area. However, are we absolutely certain that

the child is central to our considerations in all the work of the UK Border Agency and all the

work of the Home Office on deportation in connection with crime? That is what the

convention, which we helped to draft, demands. Is the child central to our considerations?

This needs to be taken very seriously indeed.

In conclusion, all of us, whatever our party differences across the House, want to live in a

nation that feels at peace with itselfa nation that is confident in the underlying principles in

our society. We all want to be seen as a nation that is not only successful and achieving in

materialist terms but whose characters of compassion, care and concern are self-evident in

everything that we do and the way that we go about it. I am not denying the need for an

immigration policyof course I am not, it would be nonsensebut those principles, which

are admittedly difficult and challenging, have to be seen as applying in the operation of thatpolicy. I am glad that the noble Baroness has given us the opportunity to look at these issues.

Some of them need to be examined very carefully indeed.

4.21 pm

Lord Avebury: My Lords, a huge amount of concern has been expressed outside this House

about the Governments policy of making it more difficult for near relatives to join primary

migrants who are settled in the UK, contrary to the declaration that my noble friend Lord

Teverson quoted, which appears in both the Conservative manifesto and the coalition

agreement, and states that,

strong and stable families ... are the bedrock of a strong and stable society.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

10/21

Instead, the Government have divided husbands from wives, parents from children, and

elderly dependants from those who want to look after them in their final years. They have

weakened family unity and made it harder for migrants to contribute their full potential to our

society. They are violating the right to family life and will face challenges, I hope, in the

courts.

The Government intend to narrow the permitted exceptions in Article 8 of the ECHR beyond

what is permitted in the convention. However, whatever is written into our legislation may

have no effect on the jurisprudence of the European Court. If it follows the existing practice

of the court, it is a pointless exercise, but if it is more prescriptive, the Government risk a

series of expensive cases in Strasbourg, which is already grossly overloaded.

It has been almost impossible for a sponsor to bring an elderly parent to the UK following the

amended rules that came into operation last July. From then until the end of October, only

one visa was issued to a dependent relative, and, like my noble friend, I would like to know

whether anyone else in this category has


got past the barriers since then. Is it necessary and proportionate to prevent a migrant looking

after an elderly parent? In many cultures, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, emphasised, it is an

exigent duty to look after your parents in their old age, and making that virtually impossibleis doubly inhuman.

Mrs M, aged 65, left her homeland in Iraq with her husband and they were living in Syria. A

few years ago, Mr M died, leaving his widow entirely on her own. As the situation in Syria

worsened, Mrs M applied to the UK consulate in Beirut to come here as the dependant of her

two sons, both of whom are UK citizens. The brothers are poor but a well known charity

stepped in to guarantee that Mrs M would be supported without recourse to public funds.

When no reply was received to the application, the brothers asked me to help and I wrote to

the Minister for Immigration in April. Two months later, I had received no reply, and I wrote

again on 15 June. Today, exactly a year after the original application, her son got a refusal

letter. So even where the financial and other conditions are satisfied, the Home Office avoids

issuing the visa to an elderly dependant in a war zone.

The committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who is to be warmly congratulated

on such a professional job of work, found that 61% of British women citizens in work would

not qualify to sponsor a non-EEA partner on the basis of their earnings. No account is takenof the provision of free accommodation by parents, other close relatives or an employer. The

income threshold was also found to be discriminatory, because womens earnings are 15%

below mens. The committees recommendations deserve sympathetic consideration, as do

those of ILPA, BiD and the Migrants Rights Network.

To make matters worse, legal aid is no longer available for appeals against refusal of visas for

spouses, children and elderly dependants, in spite of the fact that some of these cases are far

too complex to be dealt with adequately by litigants in person, as we heard on Tuesday from

the Red Cross and UNHCR at a meeting in this House. Many will turn on European case law

dealing with the right to family life, of which few non-lawyers would even be aware.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

11/21

I should like to give an illustration of this in the case of non-EEA victims of domestic abuse.

They have a legal right to stay in the UK if they comply with Rule 289A of the Immigration

Rules, which is explained in the 48 pages of guidance published under the imprint of the

UKBA in April, even though it had been abolished a month earlier. On page 5 of that

document, the applicant is told that she must also comply with E-DVILR, an appendix to the

Immigration Rules, and other obscure requirements kick in for particular applicants. If therelationship is an informal one, the abused non-EEA partner is clearly even more vulnerable.

The Black Womens Rape Action Project says that the frequency of the abuse and the

severity is often more extreme when the victim is an immigrant woman and even more so

when she is not married and is in an informal relationship. Even worse, the victims presence

in the UK becomes unlawful the moment she leaves the abuser. Informal relationship victims

have nevertheless won cases before the First-tier Tribunal. I


would like to ask my noble friend whether the Government will accept those decisions and

amend Rule 289A accordingly.

The successive tightening of the screw on family migration, now being taken a stage further

by the MoJs Transforming Legal Aid proposals, is not really aimed at saving money. It is

part of the Governments campaign to reduce net migration to below 100,000 by the time of

the next election, an impossibility when at the same time we are seeking to attract more than

the 206,000 students admitted last year. Family migrants accounted for under 10% of the total

last year, but they and their British sponsors are being made to suffer in pursuit of what the

Economisthas called, the Tories barmiest policy.

4.27 pm

Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, I would like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness,

Lady Hamwee, for introducing this debate, and I thank her committee for its excellent report.

No blacks, no Irish, no dogs; that was the sign in many windows in Britain in the late 1940s

when my father was looking for accommodation. Growing up in Jamaica, he had thought of

Britain as the mother land. After fighting for the British Army in the Second World War, he

was shocked to be asked, when he came to Britain, when he would be going back home to the

Caribbean. But after scoring a century for Warwickshire County Cricket Club he changed

overnight from being described in the local Sports Argusas a Jamaican immigrant to local

Brummie hero.

Let us fast forward to August of last year. Instead of racist signs in windows, millions of

British TV viewers and thousands in the Olympic stadium cheered a Somali immigrant

running to double Olympic gold. What was also significant was that the man from

Mogadishu, Mo Farah, was wearing a British vest. Today, many of Britains high flyers in

public life, business, entertainment and sport are from immigrant backgrounds. This is why

the all-party parliamentary group report is so important. It is not an inquiry just about a

minority group; it is about the Britain of the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and

the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, have made the point that the report emphasises that there

must be an independent review of the minimum income requirement, and the reasons for that

are set out very eloquently.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

12/21

The rules are such that children, including British children and babies, are being separated

from their families. We know that the formative years of any childs life are the most crucial.

It is easier to build a strong child than to repair a broken man. Keeping children away from

their families is just storing up trouble for the future, as was so eloquently emphasised by the

noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Judd.

What really concerns me is the context in which we are debating these matters. Only today

the Home Office produced a report that talked about the negative impact of immigration. It

used phrases such as asylum dispersal areas; for example, Bolton. What the report did not

do was emphasise the positive impacts of immigration. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord

Parekh, mentioned, there is evidence from the BMA


that the National Health Service has already lost some skilled foreign doctors because they

have had to return overseas in order to care for elderly relatives. If you took away immigrants

from the NHS and many of our public services, they would be in chaos. What worries meabout the Home Office report is that it is really more about the coming election. It is creating

an us and them attitude, which will play very much into the pathway of racist parties such

as the EDL and the BNP. We need a society that comes together. We must argue and debate

these matters in that context.

The Prime Minister has described the Governments immigration policy objective as,

good immigration, not mass immigration.

The Government believe, and I agree, that they can reduce overall net migration levels while

attracting more of the brightest and best migrants whose presence is deemed most

beneficial to the UK. But good immigration should also be fair immigration. There is

worrying evidence that the recent changes to the Immigration Rules are separating families

and depriving Britain of skilled professionals, such as doctors. The Government need to

commission an independent review now. Yes, the rules need to be firm, but they also need to

be fair.

4.32 pm

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I wish that I had made any of the speeches that we

have heard this afternoon. It has been a wonderful debate and we thank the noble Baroness,Lady Hamwee, for making this possible. The report has emphasised the action that is making

family life so much more difficult.

I fear that the old British hospitality is becoming British hostilitythat is how it looks to

those overseas. There is a knee-jerk reaction to so much that happens and half-truths take

over from positive, full, thorough-going reports. It seems that if you want to make your home

here in the UK, it is an obstacle course nowa difficult and very unwelcoming situation.

So much that we read in our newspapers seems to be there in order to create hostility and stir

up opposition to people outside the UK. Of course, we are all immigrants. The English came

to Wales, we came to England; we had 3,800 Welsh dairies in London. We have been apeople who move, who are happy with each other, and so it should be today.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

13/21

I read one paper today and there were four stories about the immigrants who are coming and

how unwelcome they are, with headlines such as, Immigrants sponging off the taxpayer.

But the Office for National Statistics says that while 13% of UK taxpayers claim out-of-work

benefits, only 7% of immigrants do. Another headline was, EU migrants take our jobs. But

the facts are that nine out of 10 new jobs are taken by British nationals. We also hear that the

epidemic of health tourists is costing us billions. However, theBritish Medical Journalreported that more Britons seek health advice overseas than people from overseas seek health

treatment here in the UK. Scaremongering creates hostility, both for immigrants and British

citizens. It has no place in a civilised society.


As has already been mentioned by others in this debate, in the field of asylum and

immigration it seems that we are making the door narrower and narrower and the obstacle

course more difficult. Instances of this include the UK citizenship test, which we mentioned

here the other day, and the low, frozen asylum support rates. An asylum seeker who comes to

the UK must wait 12 months before being allowed even to consider taking a job. He mustexist on 35.63 a week. That is the income. It is not, as some suggest, that 1,000 cheques are

waiting for asylum seekers as soon as they arrive in this country. That is not the truth. The

truth is that we make it more and more difficult for people who come to this country. Now, of

course, there are new restrictions which will divide families. That is totally opposed to our

British tradition.

I turn now to the Life in the UK citizenship test. I owe a lot to Dr Thom Brooks of Durham

University for his investigation into these questions. This UK citizenship test is totally

inappropriate. We are told:

If you spill a strangers drink by accident, it is good manners (and prudent) to offer to buy

another.

People have to know that, and applicants are also expected to know 278 historical dates. Can

any noble Lord tell me the height of the London Eye? You are expected to know it. There are

3,000 facts in this citizenship test. Even we could not answer all the questions. A little while

ago in this Chamber I asked, When did the Emperor Claudius invade Britain?. The answer

was 43AD, but nobody raised a hand. The test makes it impossible for people who want to

become part of a community here in the United Kingdom to have any confidence at all. Dr

Brooks said that it is more like a bad pub quiz than anything meriting true consideration. The

ladies here might like to know that in the test there are 29 historical figures who are men andonly four who are ladies.

The Government are erecting more barriers and making entry into Britain nearly impossible,

especially for those with little funding. Not only should we welcome people, we should

welcome people who have talent and potential. A little while ago I was with the Watoto

childrens choir, who come from Uganda. I asked them what they would like to be when they

grow up. They are orphans, whose parents died of AIDS. One little girl said she wanted to be

a nurse and a little boy said he wanted to be an airline pilot. We came to the last child, who

was 10 years old and a feisty little fellow. What do you want to be?. I want to be President

of Uganda. I thought that was a wonderful answer. People have dreams and they have

abilities. Our approach to those who want to come to these shores should not be to close the

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

14/21

door and make it difficult. We should not only assess the money they have, but also the

abilities and dreams that they can share with us.

4.38 pm

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Roberts ofLlandudno, and his tribute to the contribution that migrants have made to this country across

time. We have discussed many of those in our debate today. I join those who thanked the

noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for calling


this important debate and for the work of her all-party group and join my noble friend, Lord

Kilclooney, in emphasising the benefits that such groups can bring to the parliamentary

process. Only last week, three new sets of consultations around children in care, covering

children missing from childrens homes, out-of-authority placements and data sharing, were

produced by the Minister for Children and Families. These were a direct result of the work ofAnn Coffey MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Runaway and Missing

Children and Adults, and of that groups report, produced jointly with the All-Party

Parliamentary Group for Looked After Children and Care Leavers, on children who go

missing from care. These can be very effective instruments.

Although I have not looked in detail at immigration issues for some time, I have an inkling of

the challenges that the Government face in immigration policy, as I served for five years on a

sub-committee of your Lordships EU Select Committee tasked with looking at immigration

policy. Indeed, I had the privilege of serving with the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord

Teverson. That experience made me particularly concerned that over-relaxed policies on

migration allowed businesses to neglect some of the less work-ready youth of this country,because European Union labour could easily be found from abroad. We have all become

more aware of the need for managed migration as we become aware of pressures on services,

particularly school places, and especially of the housing shortage, and how these have

contributed to social tensions. I pay tribute to the Government for their attention to the need

to manage migration more carefully.

However, I am very troubled by the rules that we are debating today. The new income

requirement for sponsoring a non-European partner affects UK citizens. Most of them are

hard-working taxpayers and many are making an important contribution to our health service

and especially to the care of the elderly. These points have been made various noble Lords.

The rules are pushing some women into dependency on the state, as the noble Baroness, Lady

Hamwee, said. As lone parents, they can no longer afford to work. Most importantly, the

rules are depriving children of their parentstheir fathers in particular. They may have the

effect of increasing pressures on housing and school places in London, as it is only here in

London that mothers can hope to earn the income necessary to be reunited with their spouses,

because of London weighting.

The four UK Childrens Commissioners have issued a statement detailing their concern about

the impact of the rules on the rights of children to a family life. In their briefing, they said

that the Governments impact assessment for the new rules,

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

15/21

barely makes any reference to a childs best interests and fails to consider at all how

these were considered in arriving at the proposals for change.

They also reported their concern that decision-makers may not be considering the best

interests of children in individual assessments of applications, as guidance requires.


The emerging evidence, as shown in the report from the all-party parliamentary group on the

impact of the rules, shows that they are having the surely unintended consequence of dividing

children from their parents, in particular fathers, with the potential for long-term damage. We

all know the poor outcomes for boys growing up without fathers and all lament the increasing

number of boys growing up without a father involved in their life. Not so long ago, as I

attended the juvenile court in west London, it was drawn to my attention that the young

people attending that day would occasionally have a mother with them but that no fathers

were present at the proceedings.

Only this Tuesday, at Second Reading of the Children and Families Bill, as referred to by the

noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we heard the Schools Minister defending a new legal

presumption for the family court: that it is normally in the best interests of the child to have

both parents involved in their upbringing. I hope that I have that correct. The noble Baroness,

Lady Perry, whom I am pleased to see in her place, made a very passionate and eloquentspeech in that debate. She said:

Denying a child adequate contact and time with both their parents is not in that childs best

interest. The sense of self-worth and confidence in any child comes primarily from one's

parents, and continued contact with two parents can strengthen a childs confidence, even

after the trauma of divorce. I was interested to read in the Sunday Times that even bad

fathers should, with proper supervision and safeguards, be allowed time with their

children.[Official Report, 2/7/13; col. 1119.]

It is that important.

I have several questions for the Minister. In formulating these regulations, was consideration

given to the impact that they would have on children, particularly on those boys thus denied

contact with their fathers? Can he say how many boys are unable to have regular contact with

their fathers as a result of these rules? If not, can he say how many children are affected? Are

the Government concerned at the impact on boys being denied access to their fathers as aresult of the rules? Will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to review these

impacts and what steps they will take to ensure that any damage to children is minimised?

That is rather a lot of questions and the Minister may prefer to write to me.

In considering these regulations, I was reminded of the experience of setting up the Yarls

Wood immigration removal centre about 10 or 12 years ago. Again, this was to address a

thorny problem with immigration. When families had exhausted all the processes for asylum,

the Government needed to remove these families and some of them were unwilling to go.

Eventually it was determined that some of them would be locked up in Yarls Wood.

Unfortunately, that was a category C prison and so we had children, babies, young children

and their mothers entering the reception area of the prison, being taken through a prison gateand all the locked doors in that prison, and being cared for by prison officers.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

16/21

The Childrens Commissioner again played a very important role, visiting on many occasions

and campaigning on the issue. I congratulate the coalition Government on deciding that this

was not the right policy and reversing it. Visiting on one occasion, I remember meeting a 16

year-old girl who had been in


that setting for, I believe, nine months with her younger sister. She was so angry: how could

she, as a child who had committed no crime, be denied her freedom for all that time during

her childhood? I had no way to respond to her on that occasion.

What really came across in the Yarls Wood experience was that there was no clear thought

at the beginning of the policy about the impact on children and families. Over the 10 years,

there was a great deal of change and consideration and, eventually, the policy was overturned.

I hope that, in this case as well, we may see further thought from the Government and I look

forward to the Ministers response.

4.48 pm

Lord Rosser: My Lords, in view of the difficulty that I created in the previous debate by

sitting down sooner than the Minister expected, perhaps I should say to him that I am not sure

that I will take up all my allocated time on this occasion either.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate

and to discuss the report of the inquiry launched by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on

Migration. We have heard some powerful and passionate speeches, which I will not even

attempt to emulate.

As has already been said, immigrants have benefitted Britain over a great many years. They

have come to our shores to help build and develop some of our major companies, as well as

sustain our National Health Service and win us Nobel prizes. It is because immigration is

important that it needs to be controlled, and its impact needs to be fair for all. We need to

build common bonds, including more emphasis on speaking English.

We also need to draw the distinction between immigration that works for Britain, and

immigration that does not. That is why we support policies to bring down the pace of

migration, particularly low-skilled migration, and why we support stronger controls on

people coming to do low-skilled jobs.

However, some changes that are made to immigration rules can have unfortunate

consequences, and today we are discussing one such changea significant one. In July last

year, as we know, major changes to family-related immigration categories came into effect.

With limited exemptions, British citizens or settled persons wishing to sponsor their non-

EEA national spouse or partner to join them in the UK must now demonstrate a minimum

gross annual income of 18,600, and more if they are also sponsoring dependent children.

New foreign spouses or partners must also wait for five years rather than two, as previously,

before they become eligible to apply for permanent settlement in the UK. More restrictive

eligibility criteria have also been introduced for adult dependent relatives of British citizens

who wish to settle in the UK.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

17/21

Last year the Government anticipated that the change would result in, I believe, up to 17,800

fewer family visas being granted every year, arguing that keeping the bar high for family

migration could result in savings to the welfare bill. At the time, we expressed our support for

strengthening the family migration


rules to protect UK taxpayers and said that if people want to make this country their home,

they should contribute and not have a negative impact on public funds. However, we cast

doubt on the Governments approach that focused so much on the sponsors salary, and said

that there needed to be a fair framework for those who fall in love and build family

relationships across borders.

The report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration on these new family

migration rules, which has just been published, has already been referred to extensively. It

highlights the impacts of recent rule changes on ordinary British citizens hoping to build a

family in the UK with a non-EEA husband, wife or partner. Among the reports key findingswere that some British citizens and permanent residents in the UK, including people in full-

time employment, have been separated from a non-EEA partner, and in some cases their

children, as a result of the income requirement.

In addition, some British citizens and permanent residents have been prevented fromreturning to the UK with their non-EEA partner and any children, again as a result of the

income requirement. In some cases the non-EEA partner was the main earner with a medium

or high salary, but that could not be counted towards the income requirement under the new

rules. On top of all this, the report found that some children, including British children, have

been indefinitely separated from a non-EEA parent, once again as a result of the income

requirement.

It looks as though the doubts raised about the Governments approach, which was focused so

heavily on the sponsors salary, have, unfortunately, been proved right. Among the

recommendations made in the all-party groups report was that the level of the income

requirement should be reviewed with a view to minimising any particular impacts on UK

sponsors as a result of their region, gender, age or ethnicity, and that family migration rules

should ensure that children are supported to live with their parents in the UK where their best

interests require this. We certainly see no difficulty in having a review without prejudging

what its outcome might be.

I want to raise a specific point about our Armed Forces. As I understand it, the Government

have now decided that members of our Armed Forces posted or fighting for our country

overseas should not be exempt from the new family migration rules. Perhaps the Minister

could explain the thinking behind that decision, as it is in marked contrast to the

Governments decision, announced yesterday, of an exemption for members of our Reserve

Armed Forces in respect of the employment tribunal qualifying employment period when

pursuing claims for unfair dismissal on the grounds of reserve service.

It remains to be seen what the Governments response will be to the findings in the report and

the recommendations of the inquiry launched by the all-party group. However, it does not

look as though the new rules in their present form and the way in which they are being

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

18/21

applied are, to put it mildly, doing a great deal to strengthen and enhance family life in what

is hardly an insignificant number of instances.


4.55 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): I

thank all noble Lords for contributing to a good debate and in particular my noble friend

Lady Hamwee for tabling the Motion. It can but be a proper function of this House to

scrutinise government and what it does. In this area, noble Lords have indicated in their

speeches today sincere and genuine interest in the application of policy.

As noble Lords know, the Government are determined to reform the immigration system and

restore public confidence in it. In that context we implemented in July 2012 a major set of

reforms of the requirements to be met by non-European Economic Area nationals seeking to

enter or remain in the UK on the basis of family life. The Government welcome the report ofthe All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration on its inquiry into the impact of the new

family migration rules. In monitoring this impact, we will consider carefully the findings of

the report.

Many noble Lords have spoken of their concerns about these new rules. The passion of the

noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the challenges from my noble friends Lord Teverson, Lord

Avebury and Lord Taylor of Warwick have provided us with a test. I enjoyed the speeches of

the noble Lords, Lord Parekh and Lord Kilclooney. I am not entirely sure that I enjoy the

testing standards of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno, but I am pleased that in his

closing speech the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, demonstrated that we agree on many of the key

issues and recognise the heart of them for government. I hope he does not believe that Ipresume too much.

Perhaps I can start by setting out the background to the changes introduced last year. My

noble friend Lord Teverson focused very strongly on his concerns about family life in this

country. The Government welcome those who want to make a life in the UK with their

families, to work hard and to make a contribution, but family life must not be established here

at the taxpayers expense. That is fundamental for the income test and is the reasoning behind

the income threshold. We expect the new income threshold to prevent burdens on the

taxpayer and promote successful integration. Those wishing to establish their family life here

must be able to stand on their own feet financially. That is not an unreasonable expectation asthe basis of sustainable family migration and good integration outcomes, on which I am sure

all noble Lords agree.

The previous requirement for adequate maintenance was not, as it turned out, an adequate

basis for sustainable family migration and good integration outcomes. It provided little

assurance that UK-based sponsors and their migrant partner could support themselves

financially over the long term. One of its considerable downsides was that it involved a

complex assessment of the current and prospective employment income of the parties and

their other financial means, including current or promised support from third parties. This

was not conducive to clear, consistent decision-making.

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

19/21

That is why the Government decided to establish a new financial requirement for sponsoring

family migrants. The level of the threshold was based principally on expert advice from the

independent Migration Advisory


Committee. The levels of income required are those at which a couple, once settled in the UK

and taking into account any children, because children can be included in the threshold by an

additional threshold sum, generally cannot access income-related benefits. The noble Lord,

Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick said that a family policy needs

to be fair. The Government believe that this is a fair and appropriate basis for family

migration. It is right for migrants, local communities and the UK as a whole.

The Government agreed with the Migration Advisory Committees conclusion that there is no

clear case for varying the income threshold across the UK. I hope the noble Lord, Lord

Kilclooney, will understand that it would be impossible to set a threshold for migration to

Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. What would become of freedom of movement withinthe United Kingdom? It is unreal, and that is the principal reason why it has been ruled out. A

requirement that varied by region could lead to sponsors moving to a lower threshold area in

order to meet the requirement before returning once a visa was granted. It could also mean

that a sponsor living in a wealthy part of a relatively poor region could be subject to a lower

income threshold than a sponsor living in a deprived area of a relatively wealthy region. A

single national threshold also provides clarity and simplicity for applicants and caseworkers. I

think all noble Lords will agree that the Immigration Rules are complex enough. They have

been complicated by politicians and lawyers, and we need to make the rules as simple as we

can if we want an efficient and effective way of determining outcomes.

We have built significant flexibility into the operation of the threshold allowing for different

income sources to be used towards meeting the threshold as well as significant cash savings.

Employment overseas is no guarantee of finding work in the UK, and the previous and

prospective earnings of the migrant partner are not taken into account in determining whether

the threshold is met. If the migrant partner has a suitable job offer in the UK, they can apply

under tier 2 of the points-based system.

We have also made significant changes to the adult and elderly dependent relative route,

ending the routine expectation of settlement in the UK for parents and grandparents aged 65

or over. A number of noble Lords were concerned about this. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh,

made an eloquent speech about it. Close family members are now able to settle in the UKonly if they require a level of long-term personal care as a result of their age, illness or

disability that can be provided only in the UK by their relative here. The route is now limited

to those applying from outside the UK. These changes reflect the significant NHS and social

care costs to which these cases can give rise.

The report highlights some cases affected by the changes that we have introduced to this

route. The new criteria for adult dependent relatives more clearly reflect the intended thrust

of the requirement of the old rules that parents and grandparents aged under 65 and other

adult dependent relatives of any age be in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances

to settle in the UK.


7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

20/21

There should be no expectation that elderly parents and grandparents who are self-sufficient

or who can be cared for overseas should be able to join their children or grandchildren in the

UK. That is the policy intention and the cases which have been highlighted are not

unintended consequences. They demonstrate how the policy is intended to work.

The new family rules are intended to bring a sense of fairness back to our immigration system.The public are rightly concerned that those accessing public services and welfare benefits

have contributed to their cost. The changes we have made are having the right impact and

they are helping, I hope, to restore public confidence in the immigration system.

The number of partner and other family route entry clearance visas issued in the year ending

March 2013 is 37,470. It has fallen by 16% compared with the year ending March 2012. I can

assure all noble Lords who have spoken in this debatethe noble Earl, Lord Listowel,

approached this with a great deal of understanding of the issuesthat we will continue to

monitor the impact of the rules. Since last July we have made some adjustments to the rules

in response to feedback from customers and caseworkers. These include allowing those in

receipt of research grants paid on a tax-free basis to count the amount on a gross basis andcounting investments transferred into cash savings within the period of six months before the

date of application. My honourable friend Mark Harper has also indicated, in a parallel debate

in another place, that he would consider representations made on parts of detail about the

operation of other aspects of the rules. I hope noble Lords feel that this debate has been worth

while. Certainly the report of the APPG has been worth while.

Lord Judd: The Minister, in his usual way, is replying with great courtesy and concern. We

all appreciate that. He referred to the complexity in the regulations and the difficulties for

caseworkers and, indeed, we might add, border officials and the rest in applying those

regulations. Does he not agree that that is why it is so important that certain salient points of

guidance should be expressed all the time by Ministers and others, such as the paramount

importance of the child, the rights of the child and the situation of the child in the midst of

this jungle of complexity?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I would agree with the noble Lord that our policy here within the

UK is a strong focus on familyand indeed on children. It


could be argued that there is a dichotomy here between an immigration policy that is

designed to limit numbers and reduce net migration and the maintenance of family structures.

I was going on to seek to answer the noble Lords points on a number of issues because he

did ask about the impact on children. We recognise the importance of the duty under Section

55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to safeguard and promote the

welfare of children in the UK. The consideration of the welfare and best interests of children

is taken into account in immigration policy. The noble Lord came in right on cue even if I

have not been able to satisfy him totally.

My noble friend Lord Avebury asked whether any adult dependent relative visas have been

issued since October 2012. I can give him an answer to that. In the year ending March 2013,

5,066 visas were issued to other family members according to published Home Office

7/28/2019 Hansard 04 July 2013

21/21

statistics. These figures do not separately identify adult dependent relatives of British citizens

and settled persons in the UK.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked what consideration of the impact of policies on boys

denied contact with the fathers, and of the impact of policies on both boys and girls, was

taken into account in the development and implementation of the new rules. We do not knowhow many children are affected by the rules. Where the effects of refusal under the rules

would be unjustifiably harsh, there is a provision to grant leave outside the rules on a case-

by-case basis if there are exceptional circumstances.

I said before that this has been a good debate, not least because there have been three John D

Taylors speaking in it. I am grateful to all noble Lords, however, for their contributions. I am

grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for bringing the report to the attention of the

House and of the Government. We welcome all contributions to the debate on how best to

ensure that family migration is done on a properly sustainable basis. I am grateful to have the

chance to hear the views on these issues. I am conscious that I have not replied to every point

that has been raised in this debate but, with the leave of noble Lords, I will write acommentary on the debate, covering all points made, addressed to my noble friend Lady

Hamwee and copied to all participatory Peers, and place a copy in the Library.

House adjourned at 5.11 pm.

hansard 04 july 2013

Documents