Refugees (Family Reunion) (No.2) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Huw Merriman

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady, and there are many such examples.

I went to the Zaatari refugee camp, where I met a 19-year-old who had lived in a tin shed for four years. His father had had his own business in Syria. Again, he scooped up everything and fled, through terror. Meeting this 19-year-old was a genuinely concerning and distressing experience. Where was his hope? He had been there for four years; he did not want to be in that place. He could not work, and although our Government are doing a fine job of providing education for his younger siblings, where was his hope?

The second most striking feature I experienced was the clear desire to go home. They do not want to be living in those conditions; they want to go home—they want to go back to their country, of which they are so proud. We should try to imagine year after year after year seeing the possibility of returning to our home disappearing. These are remarkable people: their hope, their strength, their humanity, and the way they kept themselves together, somehow with a semblance of pride, has never left me.

[Huw Merriman]

I, too, went to Zaatari, and what my right hon. Friend says about the concern that people will eventually lose hope is absolutely right. Things are not easy in Jordan, albeit they could be worse. However, having made that trip, does she perhaps share my genuine concern about the pull factor arguments? [Interruption.] This is a genuine concern that I am asking about.

[Anna Soubry]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s genuine concern; I just do not believe that there is any evidence to support it. Let us all stop and get real. History tells us: the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) referred to Biblical times, and we have referred to the plight of the Jews in Germany and other countries. As my hon. Friend will understand, these people are living in the most appalling conditions, surrounded by war and terror day after day, month after month, and year after year. To suggest that someone deliberately, cruelly tries to get their child out of that horror in order to follow them is, frankly, as appalling as it is clearly not right; it is verging on madness. People do not do that for that reason. They might well say, “How the hell can I get my child out of here?” because of their love and concern for that child and to try to keep that child safe, just as the Jews did in Germany. Nothing has changed in person-mankind over the centuries: our desire is to keep our children safe, not to use them as a route for our own escape. So let us crush that one. I gently ask where is the evidence of people doing that? It is the last thing genuine refugees would do.

[Anna Soubry]

We are talking about people who are already here and whose status as genuine refugees has already been determined. The idea that there are gangs of people smugglers in Syria going through that desperate warzone and enticing families to put their children into their hands is the stuff of fantasy. [Interruption.] No, it really is the stuff of fantasy.

It behoves on all of us to conduct these important debates on the basis of facts and evidence—and yes, at times, emotion. Look at the problems we have in our country with the lack of understanding. If I may say so, perhaps that has been evident in some of the speeches we have heard today.

If somebody living in very poor circumstances comes to this country, that person is an economic migrant, and that is profoundly different. Even if they enter the country illegally, we can understand why they are coming here. These people come here not to take, but to give. For centuries people have come to this country from other parts of the world because they want to build a better life for themselves and their children. I have always welcomed them, because they contribute by virtue of their immigration status. They are fleeing poverty and come for a better life. They do not expect us to provide for them.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again; she is making a heartfelt speech. Perhaps I can articulate the concern here. We hear that the Bill relates only to children who are already here, but my understanding is that it will apply to future child refugees. The concern on the Government Benches is that, as people traffickers take advantage of these changes, more children could be pulled into desperate and evil situations in which they are taken advantage of. Our concern is about welfare, not some of the other points that have been made.

[Anna Soubry]

Again, my hon. Friend misses the point. These are people with the status of refugees; they have been through all the systems and are accepted as genuine refugees. This is just a fake and phoney point that is being put forward.

It says a lot that there is this lack of understanding about the difference between an economic migrant and a refugee. During the referendum debate—I am not going to get into Brexit, Mr Deputy Speaker—people rightly raised the issue of immigration. I remember having a conversation with a constituent who said that she was voting for leave, “because there were too many Muslims in our country.” That is the level of debate in our nation. That is the level of plain misunderstanding and misinformation. That is why this debate is so important.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Huw Merriman

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Anna Soubry and Huw Merriman

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

From the mood music in the Chamber, and from what I am hearing from the two Front Benches, it appears that the Opposition feel confident that their motion, if it is not successfully opposed, will to some extent cause the Government to release the papers. I therefore work on the basis that that may well be the case.

What will the papers look like, and what would be a responsible position for both sides of the House to take with respect to that information, and particularly with respect to redacting certain information that may be deemed commercially sensitive to the organisations that have provided it? I ask that question in the true spirit of transparency, because, if information that has been passed to the Government on the basis that it would not be released thereafter is subsequently released—there may be confidentiality agreements in place, albeit they would not survive a vote of this House— the danger is that those companies would not be as willing to provide so much information to the Government, and therefore to the House, in future. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will be able to work on that basis with Ministers to ensure that, in making this a success, we do not end up lacking information from our business partners.

I sit on the Select Committee on Transport and, despite having sat for only a few weeks, the Chair, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), has already twice had to warn Committee members not to leak documentation. That is a difficulty, and I hope that if, indeed, the reports do go to the Brexit Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will take all the steps he can to ensure that, if certain redacted information is given to Committee members, we try to preserve the spirit in which those organisations delivered that information.

Looking beyond this challenge, and working on the basis that this information is to be given, I absolutely favour transparency and more information in the process; I am incredibly interested in what organisations have to say. I am well aware that often the advice of civil servants would be cautious, but I hope that Government Members will look beyond that and recognise that if we do not publish information—and we are therefore where we are today—Members such as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) will try to make out that there is a conspiracy or a smoking gun in the documentation. There may well be nothing of the sort, beyond cautious civil service advice. I hope that my side can take that into account.

I stand here as someone who voted remain in the referendum, although I did not campaign for the remain team. I spoke to my constituents, held a series of meetings and wrote to 40,000 households to give them information about both sides of the argument, and then I very much left it to them to decide. I do not believe they were duped when it came to the decision. I find it patronising beyond belief when SNP Members say that all my constituents, 60% of whom voted the other way from me, did so on some false basis and are not capable of making their own decisions. It is incredibly patronising to my constituents and many others to be told that. I left it to my constituents to make their decision and they did so, and it is my job, as a democrat, to ensure that that decision goes through.

[Anna Soubry]

Does my hon. Friend not accept that it is becoming clear that a number of promises made to people who voted leave will not be kept and that, in fact, the opposite is happening? Those people will not get £350 million a week for the NHS; they will not see the scrapping of all the regulations and so on, because they will be embodied in British law; they will not see a particular reduction in immigration; and, arguably, they will not be better off. It is not that they were stupid by any means—they were simply conned.

Redcar Steelworks

Debate between Anna Soubry and Huw Merriman

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman forgets that the last time Redcar was mothballed, it was mothballed by Tata, and it did so because those were the state aid rules. If there was a viable offer and anyone looked, as they have, at the situation at Redcar, they would say, “Those ovens are losing £2 million month on month”. The steel was losing half a billion pounds. In reality—and the official receiver has said the same—who will want to invest in something that was losing money hand over fist?

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I wish to convey my sympathies to the community in Redcar following this devastating news, but I would mention that the steel price has almost halved in the last year, China now produces 50% of steel, whereas in 2000 that figure was 15%, and the number of jobs has reduced under successive Governments. Is not the key thing now, on a cross-party basis, to deliver this retraining and bring more jobs to the north-east?

[Anna Soubry]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The harsh reality is that all the steel industries in this country are losing huge amounts of money. Some companies are regularly losing £700 million per year. That is the reality, but we are determined not to lose the steel industry in this country, so we now have to find the solutions to save it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Huw Merriman

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I completely take the point, and I thank the hon. Gentleman and welcome him to his place. As he will understand, smaller businesses are often reluctant to take action through law. That is why we are considering a conciliation service, which could provide a genuine answer. I would be delighted to come to Falkirk at some stage on my travels and meet some of the companies in question to assure them that we are on their side.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

According to the Federation of Small Businesses, half of small firms were paid late last year. What progress has the Minister made in ensuring that large firms do not take advantage of small businesses in their supply chain and risk livelihoods in the process?

[Anna Soubry]

I take a firm view that it is absolutely scandalous when people do not honour the terms and conditions of their contract and pay late. That is not acceptable, particularly in the modern world. I hear terrible stories about supermarkets; one can only imagine what would happen if someone went shopping on a Saturday and then said at the checkout, “I think I’ll settle my bill in about 120 days.” Obviously they would be told that it was not acceptable, and it is not acceptable for large businesses to treat smaller businesses in that way. That is why we take the problem so seriously.