To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in setting a quota for refugee resettlement through the UK Resettlement Scheme for 2025.

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I draw attention to my interest that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.

The United Kingdom works closely with the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, to determine the appropriate quota in any given year. We are focusing on the delivery of existing commitments, and we will continue to work with the UNHCR on an appropriate quota for 2025.

The UK Government continue to discuss on a yearly basis with the UNHCR what the requirements and pressures are. As the noble Lord will know, both the previous Government and this Government have given safe and legal routes to around 680,000 people in the past 10 years alone.

We are continuing to work with the agency and we are looking at that for next year—in my original Answer to the noble Lord, I said that we are looking at potential quotas for 2025.

He makes an interesting suggestion for certainty, but we need to examine the requests of the UNHCR, what their demands on us are and how we can potentially accommodate any or all of those requests.

My Lords, I had the honour of being the Minister responsible for the conduct of the Bosnian resettlement programme in 1996 under the auspices of the United Nations.

Although I can see the merit of a quota, I hope that the Government will have enough flexibility in such schemes to allow for the changes that take place across the world and the pressures that arise from different places at different times.

The noble Lord makes a very important point.

He will be aware that, three and a half years ago, for example, nobody would have suggested that we would have the number of Ukrainian individuals on temporary placement in the United Kingdom because of the pressures of the illegal war by the Russians in Ukraine.

Therefore, that flexibility needs to be maintained. What we are saying is that we are in constant discussion with the UNHCR and we want to meet our legal obligations. The 680,000 people in the past 10 years show that we are.

The noble Lord makes a valid point that we do not know what may happen in the future which may cause challenges for the United Kingdom and indeed for the UNHCR.

My Lords, as the Minister knows from my question yesterday, the Home Office scores all in-country migration costs as official development assistance.

At the end of this Parliament, that level will be halved by this Labour Government, which have also chosen to make a policy decision to continue to score in-country migration costs as 100% aid, but they are not proposing to reduce that level in relation to the overall pot of aid. Why?

The United Kingdom has a proud history of providing protection for those who genuinely need it through our safe and legal routes.

I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that we need to make sure that, when we commit to helping refugees, we have the capacity to support them, not only in housing but in schooling and healthcare too.

It is right, however, that this support is given only if it does not disadvantage the taxpayers in this country who fund these services.

I therefore ask the Minister: what other specific limited resources, besides suitable accommodation, does his department consider before allowing people using the UK resettlement scheme to move to the UK?

How do this Government ensure that their commitment to support those using the scheme does not disadvantage the UK taxpayer?

The noble Lord makes an important point that is absolutely vital. Individuals who come here as a part of our international obligations put pressure on public services, and that needs to be taken into account in relation to the issues on which we are in discussion with the UNHCR.

The noble Lord mentioned housing, transport, medical services and education; they are all considerations.

That is why, to go back to the point by the noble Lord, Lord German, and indeed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the Government are assessing on an annual basis with the UNHCR what assistance and support we can provide for refugees coming to this country.

We want to meet our obligations, but we need to do so in a way that allows us to provide the required services in support. That is why I cannot give a figure to the noble Lord, Lord German, and why I welcome the flexibility mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope.

It is an issue that noble Lords will continue to press me on, rightly, but this is important for the sustainability of the UK taxpayer as well as our international obligations.

My Lords, in secondary legislation the Government claim that India is a safe country for refugees to be returned to. Are the Government absolutely sure about that, given India’s human rights record?

We are guided by the requests that come to the United Kingdom from the UNHCR, and we will consider whatever requests it wishes to bring forward for the United Kingdom.

My noble friend will appreciate that, at the moment, I do not think we have had any requests from the UNHCR in relation to India but, again, it is a matter for the agency, in discussion with us, to look at which countries it believes are generating refugees who need help and support.

When it does that, the assessment is passed on to countries such as the United Kingdom to see where, how and if we can help; we stand ready to do so if, when and however we can.

It is obviously a bit early to say, but it is possible that positive developments in Syria, and possibly even in Sudan, may lead some who are here as asylum seekers to want to go home. Will the Government assist them?

The Government have been and are currently—as the noble Lord will be aware from previous questions—looking at how we can assist with voluntary returns to countries that are now deemed safe for people who have come seeking asylum or refugee status in the United Kingdom.

The situation in Syria is particularly fluid, which is why we have put a pause on some of the challenges that we are facing there at the moment in making some assessments.

The noble Lord makes an important point, and we want to ensure, in all cases, that if people can return to their country of origin, they do so if that country of origin remains safe for them.

The reason they are here now is because they were refugees from a regime; if that regime changes and stability comes forward then, self-evidently, the UK Government would want those individuals to return home should they wish to.

My Lords, the Minister will recall our meeting last year concerning the ongoing concerns of EU citizens trying to settle in this country. At some stage, can we have an update on progress that has been made in that area?

Yes, I will examine where we are post that meeting that we had with the noble Earl, and I will respond to him as a matter of some urgency.