Unaccompanied Children (Greece and Italy)

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Some 30,000 unaccompanied children entered Greece and Italy last year. Are we simply to leave them there, while this great country, which for hundreds of years has had a tradition of offering asylum to those fleeing persecution, stands back and washes its hands of their fate? I do not believe that it is in the interests of this country, of its international reputation or of its moral sense of self-worth and dignity for us simply to stand back and say, “That is not our problem—it is yours.” I completely accept that great work has been done in the region to assist those who are in such a plight, but I do not believe that we as a nation can afford the damage to our reputation that is currently happening throughout Europe, because we are being seen to fail and fall down in the obligations—modest as they are—that we have undertaken, in international law and otherwise, to assist with the plight of unaccompanied children in Europe.

As I understand it, the Dublin regulation requires us, as a matter of law, to deal in the first instance with any application for asylum that is made by a child who has family receiving international protection in this country. That is an obligation under international law. It is incumbent on us, incumbent on this House and incumbent on the Government to ensure that that obligation is not simply paid lip service to, but is made practical and effective. That can be done only if we reach out to those tens of thousands of people in Greece and Italy and if we look actively to find those who are entitled to be here under international law and whom the Government, on behalf of this House and the nation, have promised to deal with because it is our obligation.

I fear for the reputation of this country when it assumes an obligation and does not provide the means to realise it.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an immensely powerful speech. Does he agree that it is not just our legal, but our moral obligation to give refuge to refugees? That is one of our best defences against the tyrants, the bullies and the terrorists who oppose the values that Britain stands for.

[Mr Cox]

I agree with the right hon. Lady, but let us leave aside arguments of conscience and compassion. Let us concentrate on our legal obligations. I say that to the hon. Lady not because I disavow or seek to reduce the importance of the moral arguments, but because moral arguments do not always appear in the same light to everybody.

The arguments about the push and pull factors that are sometimes used surround the problem with what I understand are difficult equations and judgments about the practicalities and complexities of whether we should take children or not. But sometimes we can surround a problem with a web of complication. Sometimes, I would prefer to be a fly than a spider, and the plight of the child is one example. The plight of a child transcends the complexities of push and pull factors.

Nobody is suggesting for a moment that we should take every single one of the 30,000 children a year who enter Greece and Italy. All that the Dubs amendment meant was that we should take a modest few. Those of us on this side of the House who voted for that amendment believed that we would take a modest few, but we did not believe that it would be only 350.

Let me return to the question of our obligations. It is not in the interests of our reputation as a country to be seen to be a nation parsimonious and mean-spirited in the fulfilment of an obligation. We should have in Greece and Italy now not only the valiant single lady, Miss Malahyde, who seems to be doing tremendous work—dozens of Home Office officials should be actively searching for the children whom it is our legal obligation to find and process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but does she not recognise that France, Italy and Greece are safe countries? They are not Nazi Germany, where Lord Dubs came from. He escaped from being murdered. These children and families are not under threat of murder—they are in safe countries whose Governments should be respecting and dealing with them under all sorts of international rules.

Going back to the Syrian refugee camps in Jordan, every building at the Azraq camp has been provided by IKEA. Nobody gives it credit for supporting so many of these refugees. In the desert, all the solar panels that are heating and lighting the buildings have been given to the region by IKEA to help these young people. We are providing a lot of the education and health services.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

rose—

[Pauline Latham]

I will not give way again because I do not have long to speak.

We have provided the bore hole to provide safe water for the people there. They are safe. We should be saying to them, “Stay there.” Most of them do not want to come here. Why would they want to when they can speak their own language and do not need to learn English?

Why are all these people being pulled to Calais, Dunkirk and other places? They came recently. They were cleared in France, as we have heard. There was an agreement last year whereby those refugees were sorted out legitimately. More have come since then—many more—so one cannot say that there is no pull factor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate. Our vote last year on the Dubs amendment was one of my biggest tests in Parliament since my election. On the morning of the vote, I drafted and published my position on why I was going to support the Government, yet after sitting through the whole debate and hearing the arguments put forward by Members on both sides of the House, I changed my mind and ended up voting for the amendment, much to the frustration of the Government Whips. Such is the power of this place.

Although the Government won the vote that evening, history tells us that they changed their position shortly afterwards and accepted an amended version of that Dubs amendment. If we fast forward to the past fortnight, there has been the announcement that we will take only 150 more children under the amendment. I must say how sad and disappointed I was to hear that.

The Government have a proud record when it comes to their response to the events in Syria and the wider region. We have pledged more than £2.3 billion in aid—the UK’s largest ever humanitarian response to a single crisis, and second only to that of the United States of America. Thanks to the goodwill of the British people and local authorities up and down the country, in the last year alone we have provided refuge or other forms of leave to more than 8,000 children. However, that does not mean that we can ignore the crisis currently happening in Italy and Greece, and across Europe. We cannot say, “Job done,” pull up the drawbridge on Dubs and leave vulnerable children at risk on the continent.

Two main arguments have been put forward by those who are keen for the UK to do less to help. The first is that local authorities do not have the capacity for more children. Even if that is the case, it is no reason not to reconsult them regularly and then allow them to take in children when they can. As I understand it, the last consultation took place in June 2016. The Dubs amendment did not specify numbers, but it did mandate the Government to consult local authorities about their capacity to support unaccompanied child refugees. Yet across the UK, there are 217 upper-tier and unitary local authorities with responsibility for children’s services, so 400 Dubs children do not even equate to two unaccompanied children per council. I challenge anyone making that first argument about whether it reflects actual capacity.

The second argument is that schemes such as Dubs act as a pull factor for children who are intent on getting to the UK.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The anti-slavery commissioner published a statement on that issue this afternoon. He said that he felt that the effect of the Dubs amendment had been exactly the opposite of a pull factor, as it had meant that fewer people were pulled to the UK by the traffickers.

[Will Quince]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. I agree—I will come to that exact point now.

Focusing on a pull factor ignores the power of push factors. These children are not economic migrants. They are not seeking to come to the UK in the hope of making more money. They are refugees fleeing conflict, persecution, poverty, fear and desperation. They are putting themselves in grave danger because there is a small chance that a safer life exists across the Mediterranean.

The pull factor was mentioned many times in last year’s debate on the Dubs amendment, but the newest incarnation of the argument—that children move within Europe in the hope of being brought to Britain—simply does not stand up to scrutiny. When the Government introduced the scheme, they introduced a cut-off date of 20 March, meaning that it only applied to children already in Europe, so how could it possibly serve as an incentive or a pull factor? Remarkable work has been done by the Department for International Development in countries surrounding Syria and war zones around the world, and that has played an important role in discouraging people from travelling to Europe.

Finally, and most importantly, safe and legal routes to the United Kingdom encourage children to engage with local authorities, rather than throwing in their lot with people traffickers in the hope of being smuggled into the United Kingdom. I am told by NGOs and charities—I expect this is the point that the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was making —that anecdotal evidence suggests that when children were transferred from the Calais jungle to the United Kingdom, spontaneous arrivals by illegal means almost completely stopped. That was simply because children were putting their trust in the system. Surely it is better that scared and vulnerable children, with a shocking lack of information about their rights, are encouraged to engage with the formal system in the hope of safe transfer, rather than risking their lives. I am concerned that if we reduce those formal paths to asylum in the United Kingdom, we will be playing into the hands of people smugglers.

I have talked to charities that have worked with children in the camps of northern France, and there are countless stories of children who, after hearing that they will not be relocated to the UK through Dubs or the Dublin convention, have returned from safe children’s centres to the squalor of camps such as Grande-Synthe outside Dunkirk in order to find illicit routes into Britain. Safe relocation schemes such as Dubs and the Dublin convention mean that the Home Office can assess whether it is in the best interest of a child to be brought here, ensure that the most vulnerable or those with family in the UK are taken to safety, and encourage others to claim asylum in France.

The Dubs amendment’s passage into legislation marked an acknowledgement that we have a duty to do better than this. We can do better than this. I urge the Government to reconsider, to keep the scheme open and to continue to consult with local authorities. We cannot let it end here.