Refugees (Family Reunion) (No.2) Bill

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

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

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), who spoke of his commitment to this issue and highlighted his concerns about the Bill in a very constructive way, contrary to the way in which, sadly, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) presented it. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who shared her insight from her constituency, which is a very different constituency from mine. I respect her contribution and the insight she gave me into her surgery appointments.

The Government have done much good in this area, which I support. I rise with concerns about the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome did. While it is a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar on the International Trade Committee, where sometimes even we agree, I am afraid that on this matter and the substance of the Bill, I have my doubts. Without doubting his intentions, I believe he is wrong in this area.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

If the hon. Gentleman has doubts, the best place to take them is to Committee. I will happily escort him through the Lobby, when we vote on the Bill. We can discuss this in Committee, and I am sure he will allow those doubts to be raised there.

[Mr Jayawardena]

The hon. Gentleman escorts me all around the world as we build positive trade relationships with our friends around the world. I will talk about some of that, and perhaps we can continue to agree on that, rather than on the substance of the Bill.

First, let us consider what the Bill asks. It aims to require the Home Secretary within six months to widen immigration rules and grant visas to a wide range of relatives. I contend that making it easier for a parent to join a child refugee could incentivise families to send their child ahead on a perilous journey, often in the hands of unscrupulous people traffickers.

The Bill would also amend the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, to extend legal aid to family reunion applications, but this is taxpayers’ money, and we must therefore be very responsible in how we spend it. The Bill makes no mention of how to encourage integration, how to provide education or how to offer other opportunities to refugees; nor does it make any attempt to tackle the situations that people are fleeing. Rather, it simply accepts that that will continue to be the case.

[Anna Soubry]

I urge my hon. Friend to consider that this Bill is about refugees—not economic migrants, with whom one might have some sympathy, but people who are fleeing war, persecution and terror on a scale that none of us can even begin to imagine. The idea that someone would willingly put their child in an even more perilous place is frankly for the fairies.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I respect my right hon. Friend’s contributions and her right to make them to the House, but as she lets me extend my argument, I think she will understand why I have concerns about this process, about the potential use of unscrupulous people traffickers and about some people in this country abusing the rules on refugees, which is wrong and devalues the argument on which we all agree about supporting genuine refugees.

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

I speak for the fairies, as far as this is concerned. Logic would dictate that when refugees are coming from war-torn areas, they will do some incredibly desperate things, such as those that my hon. Friend has outlined. I do not think it is for the fairies at all. It is the sad reality of the terrible state of some countries around the world that forces these things to happen.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I think that he supports my point—[Interruption.] The debate is continuing behind me.

In explaining why I believe that the Bill is misguided, it seems important to discuss the current system that Britain has, as well as the international legal arrangements that underpin it. That history is important to where we are today. Principally, the UK is a party to the UN’s 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol, which expanded coverage to refugees from beyond Europe and beyond those fleeing world war two. While the UN convention recommends that signatories take measures, it is important to note that it does not provide an automatic right to family reunion for refugees.

The convention does, however, recommend that signatories take the necessary measures for the protection of the refugee’s family, which I contend the Government do at present. Further, the Government clearly take more account than the Bill does of the protection of a refugee’s whole family, by reducing the pressures on family members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, to be trafficked or make dangerous journeys—pressures that I believe the Bill could amplify. Thirty years on from the UN convention and 20 years on from the protocol amending it, article 3 of the 1989 UN convention on the rights of the child ensures that the best interests of the child must always be the primary consideration.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I will give way in a moment.

When assessing asylum claims, Home Office officials must already consider the best interests of the child. A similar consideration must be taken under another of the UK’s commitments in international law, which is as a signatory to the European convention on human rights. The UK is a signatory because of a historical desire to spread British values, and often where British values lead, the world has followed. It is often said that the convention was originally conceived by Churchill and drafted mainly by British lawyers.

It is perhaps ironic that, as I contend, shameless ambulance-chasing lawyers now use the convention as a stick with which to hit Britain in all sorts of situations. That is perhaps worst seen in their behaviour over soldiers in Iraq and Northern Ireland, but some of the worst offenders in the legal profession also use their skills to purport that certain people are refugees when they are not. That devalues the argument, which should rightly be agreed across the whole House, that genuine refugees ought to have the support of this country.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has made brief reference to the ECHR. Does he share my concern that while it sounds great, Russia is actually a signatory—and look at its dismal human rights record under Mr Putin?

[Mr Jayawardena]

My hon. Friend anticipates my argument. I set rights in the context of rights and responsibilities. In fact, he reminds me of my maiden speech, in which I referred to King John, who rode from his castle in my constituency to sign Magna Carta, creating rights for the first time in 1215. I said in my maiden speech that

“human rights were not conceived in 1998. They have existed for centuries, but they did not exist in a vacuum. Rights were balanced by responsibilities.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 646.]

It was no less true in 1215 than in 2015 that rights to reunite refugees’ families must be balanced by responsibilities to prevent them from coming to harm and by responsibilities to the rest of our country.

[Steve McCabe]

Since the hon. Gentleman is giving us a history lesson, does he not agree that the best example in history of a mother sending off her child on a perilous journey is that of Jochebed placing Moses in a basket because she feared what would happen to him? Should the hon. Gentleman not be drawing on such examples, rather than telling us about his fears for push or pull factors?

[Mr Jayawardena]

If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention from the back of the class, he would have heard me say repeatedly that I support genuine refugees being sent to other countries to be looked after by Britain and our allies in the world. The trouble is that this system can be abused. That is why article 8 of the European convention on human rights provides a qualified right to respect family and private life. While this can be interfered with for the purposes of maintaining effective immigration controls, the interference must be proportionate. As refugees cannot easily return to their families, Home Office officials must already take respect for family life into account.

To continue my history lesson, which the hon. Gentleman is so much enjoying, a final EU agreement of note is the Dublin regulation, which prioritises respect for family reunion above certain other considerations, such as the state in which the refugee has initially entered the EU. The Government have supported this, announcing a £10 million fund to support the Dublin provision and seconding Home Office officials to France, Italy and Greece to improve the handling of Dublin transfer cases. However, it is again important to note that no automatic right of family reunion is conferred. These rules only determine which country a person can stay in while they await an asylum decision.

Here is the big problem that the Bill does not seek to resolve: the United Kingdom respects its obligations under international law—I have outlined them—but it is vital that other countries do so too, because at present they do not. Described as the “electronic centrepiece” of the Dublin regulations, Eurodac is the central system of fingerprints designed to document where all refugees have arrived. However, the police authorities in Germany have said that they could not keep up, and there has been a similar situation in Greece—in 2015, Greece estimated that more than a third of all the people arriving were not fingerprinted—and in Italy.

Greece and Italy have the highest number of people recorded under category 2—someone irregularly crossing the border, rather than an asylum seeker. After 18 months, category 2 data are erased, subverting the Dublin regulations and enabling people to apply for asylum in another EU member state, even if they should not be entitled to do so. This is wrong, because Italy and Greece are safe countries. Any Opposition Member wishing to disagree with me about Italy and Greece being safe countries should take that up with the ambassadors from those countries. There is no reason for a genuine refugee fleeing horrific violence and persecution not to feel a flood of relief and a sense of safety on arrival in either country.

Obviously, for the avoidance of doubt, it is right for the United Kingdom to play our part, and we do. Perhaps the reason why so many of the arrivals are not registering their fingerprints and applying for asylum is that they are not refugees fleeing conflicts in Syria or elsewhere in the middle east, but economic migrants from countries further afield, perhaps in sub-Saharan Africa.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

On the point about national responsibility, does my hon. Friend recognise that Britain is one of six countries in the world that is meeting its 0.7% target for spending on international aid? So few countries are doing so, including many in the European Union.

[Mr Jayawardena]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Again, he pre-empts my remarks, for I will talk a little bit about aid, which is a vital part of this debate.

Before I do so, I want to mention what one of my constituents has said. Graham wrote to me, saying that the fact

“that the majority of would-be asylum seekers have landed within the EU on Mediterranean coasts and have then chosen to cross several countries within the EU (all of which could have provided refuge) does seem to contradict the argument that they are escaping persecution, hardship or war.”—[Interruption.]

I suggest that Opposition Members listen to the views of people in the country, rather than belittle them. This is, of course, the establishment view of people bought by vested interests, but they should actually consider what people feel in the country. They have all been criticising my constituent and maligning his views and intentions, but this very same constituent wrote in the same email of his

“personal belief in a sensible, compassionate system of accepting genuine refugees where possible”,

and I agree with him.

[Anna Soubry]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

No. I must make some progress.

The UK’s commitments under international law—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman’s speech is not addressing the Bill. The people covered by the Bill are already here. This is another problem.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman will continue his speech.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The UK’s commitments under international law, which we clearly follow more carefully than some other countries, and the letters that I have received from constituents show that the UK does care about refugees. We resettle many of them in the UK under various different schemes already. Under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, the UK had resettled over 10,500 people by last month. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has highlighted several points that it is important to reiterate today about why as a country we can be proud: first, this is

“the largest number of any European country”;

secondly, nearly half of those resettled have been children; and thirdly, we are

“over half way towards honouring our commitment”,

and, as a consequence, the Government are considering whether the UK should extend its target.

In addition, over 500 children have been resettled under the middle east and north Africa vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme—the “children at risk” scheme—while 220 unaccompanied children have been resettled from Europe under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 and another 8,000 Syrian asylum seekers have been granted asylum since 2011. The UK also operates the gateway protection programme, which allows the resettlement of up to 750 refugees every year who are referred to the UK by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees under the 1951 convention. Furthermore, we have the mandate refugee programme, under which the Home Office considers asylum applications from individuals who have been granted refugee status by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees at either a local UNHCR office or the British embassy in the country of refuge and who have close ties to the UK—including, but not limited to, family here. Applying to the UK through the immigration system is an additional option open to refugees.

In total, since 2010 the UK has provided asylum or protection to 28,000 children, and in the last five years 24,700 family reunion visas have been granted. Over 5,000 of the 8,000 decisions on family reunion applications—two thirds—between October 2016 and September 2017 were granted. What all these schemes have in common, of course, is that UN-recognised refugees living overseas are being resettled in the UK. In 2016, the UK resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU member state. The UK will gladly resettle genuine refugees living overseas where this is deemed to be in their best interests but—crucially—without people being encouraged to undertake life-threatening journeys to apply.

The UK has resettled many thousands of refugees, even if Opposition Members choose to dismiss that, and has spent billions in aid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) mentioned, to help look after refugees in the countries where they first seek refuge, or perhaps in their own country. Only yesterday morning, listening to BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme, I heard the testimony of several residents living under more than three weeks of bombardment in eastern Ghouta, the opposition rebel stronghold on the edge of Damascus. Deana Lynn, an English language teacher, is the mother of seven young daughters and one son. She met her Syrian husband in 1990, and almost 20 years ago they moved to eastern Ghouta from the US to be close to his elderly parents. Here is what she said:

“This my kitchen. Here in the eastern Ghouta we use the fridge as a cupboard to store things in. My daughter’s doing the dishes. I know the world is waiting for us to evacuate. But it’s not right. It’s not right to kick someone out of their own land. It’s not right to go in and force people to leave. What will happen to them? They’ll just be a displaced people, wherever they go people will look down on them. How do I think all this will end? I’m not sure to tell you the truth. I know what I hope and I hope that something good will happen, that everything will be okay, and that’s what I tell myself: everything will be okay.”

Opposition Members seem to be uninterested in the experience of someone living through hell, but I pray that Deana is right. I believe that she makes an excellent point. It is all the more relevant today because this is her lived experience—she and her family are doing no more than surviving—in an underground shelter, a basement. Perhaps we should listen to people such as Deana and not just assume we know how they think and feel. People should not be forced to flee their countries and make dangerous journeys halfway across the world.

That is why we should be proud of all the aid—and the 25 million food rations—that the UK has given. Back in 2016, David Cameron pledged an additional £1.2 billion of support for refugees from Syria, including in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Last year, the Government unveiled a £1 billion aid package for Syrian refugees, providing food, shelter, vaccines, healthcare and education, skills and job opportunities,

“so they don’t feel forced to make the perilous and potentially life-threatening journey to Europe.”

There are many other UK aid projects too, including £300 million towards a facility for refugees in Turkey; £200 million of economic development opportunities for Syrian refugees in Jordan; and almost £200 million to support Palestinian refugees. To people listening on the radio or watching on the television, it should be crystal clear that the UK cares, the Government care, I care. That is why we should not virtue signal today.

Even with the clear commitment shown to helping refugees, it is important that we retain careful control over our asylum system. [Interruption.] What is disgraceful is Members not being heard in the House. Every Member is entitled to espouse their own views. I will continue in that vein. Let us take Sweden, for example. The Guardian—no critic of immigration, of course—described the situation in Sweden back in 2015 as

“almost at bursting point… There have been small riots in Malmo over the demolition of a migrant camp set up for Palestinians and a general sense that the fabric of Swedish society is under strain.”

Those are not my words but the words of The Guardian. The Telegraph makes no effort to gloss over things:

“when asylum seekers have their case rejected, most disappear… On average, seven out of 10 of those facing deportation just vanish. Or, rather, they stay in the country and keep gaming a system that could have been designed for ease of exploitation.”

[Anna Soubry]

I gently say to my hon. Friend that this is not one of his greatest contributions. The Conservative party stands proudly on its record of offering refuge, especially to children in conditions of the kind he has actually described. May I please remind him that the Bill is about people who are genuine refugees and have been granted that status? If he could confine his comments to that, this debate would progress in a much more pleasant way.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I respect my right hon. Friend and her position as a sponsor of the Bill. It is entirely her right to do that, but equally it is my right, and that of any Member, to hold contrary views. My argument, as I outlined earlier, is that some people game the system, which is wrong, and the risk, in my view, is that the Bill could encourage more people to do that or to undertake dangerous journeys and so sadly put more children in harm’s way.

Even the children that Sweden attempts to resettle can suffer if refugees are granted asylum without careful management. The article in The Telegraph stated that

“in 2004, it was absorbing about 400 children a year. Five years ago, this had grown to 2,600 - and even then, the system was starting to creak... Last year, 35,000 unaccompanied children claimed asylum in Sweden”

and that

“providing the right care to so many is a task that would overwhelm a superpower, let alone a small Nordic state… Care homes have been set up so quickly that they fall far short of what’s needed to protect the staff, let alone the children. On Monday, a 22-year- old working at one of the homes - herself the daughter of immigrants - was stabbed to death.”

This is no lone case:

“18 boys were found in an abandoned house with no toilets and no heating; the temperature was well below zero. They were sleeping on the floor, many under the same quilt to keep warm - one was just nine years old. But after being placed in a care home, they ran away and ended up sleeping rough again.”

Further:

“There are ‘anchor children’, who are sent ahead by their desperate family”—

the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle made earlier—

“There are also trafficked children, who may still be in the hands of gangmasters and are being forced into work or prostitution. And there are the ‘street children"’ who live in abandoned buildings and are often sucked into a criminal underworld.”

The article concluded:

“the lesson from the Continent is clear: to let in more immigrants than you can handle leads to trouble, but to admit more children”—

[Hon. Members]

Shame!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Can we calm it down, please? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is returning to the Bill.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am getting very close, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your intervention.

I need to make that quotation clear—they are not my words but the words of the article:

“the lesson from the Continent is clear: to let in more immigrants than you can handle leads to trouble, but to admit more children than you can care for leads to tragedy.”

Before I wind up I should refer to Germany as well, where a similar situation arose when up to 1 million refugees and migrants entered in 2015. The Telegraph reported a terrible incident that occurred on 19 December, when a failed asylum seeker from Tunisia ploughed a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin, leaving 12 dead.

Perhaps no event was more disgusting and disgraceful than the events of new year’s eve 2015 in Cologne, when the BBC reported that more than 1,000 criminal complaints were filed, hundreds of them alleging sexual assault. An officer with the federal police stated in his report about that night:

“Women, accompanied or not, had to run a literal ‘gauntlet’ of heavily intoxicated masses of men of a kind that is impossible to describe…the situation we were confronted with (chaos) could have led to serious injuries or even to deaths.”

As a consequence, by April 2017, although a majority of Germans still said that refugees were “very welcome” or “quite welcome”, a majority were also saying for the first time that their country simply could not take in any more.

The UK has the potential to face similar issues. As I begin to close my remarks—I suspect that will delight Opposition Members—I wish to talk about how learning English is central for integration into British society. It gives refugees opportunities, and in the case of 28,000 children who have been resettled since 2010, an education. However, the Bill does not deal with that; it does not help to provide refugees with English language training, integration or opportunities. It does not think through the implications of that, or consider the hard-working people up and down our land who have aspirations for themselves and their families—hard-working people who should not suffer because of the strain on public services that could be created by the policy in the Bill.

In conclusion, the current family reunion policy is designed to provide a safe and legal route with no application fee to be paid, so that close, dependent family members can join their refugee family in the UK. That avoids the need for family members to make dangerous journeys to seek protection. I have highlighted the UK’s many other excellent refugee resettlement schemes, and it is crucial that our efforts are concentrated on ensuring that the existing schemes are used to full effect, and that the current rules work properly and effectively, without the need for family members to make dangerous journeys to seek protection. That way we can help those who need it most.

Anyone can provide examples of individual, heart-wrenching cases where our current system has not worked for an individual. However, let us be judged by what we do, not just by what we say. It is easy to vote for something in this place without thinking through the consequences. It is easy to get caught up in virtue signalling, without a second thought for the men, women and children we are here to represent. It is easy, as some Opposition Members have done, to cast aside the views of the British people. The British people are a kind, generous people who are happy to provide a beacon of hope to so many around the world, but they want to see their money well spent, and they naturally want to look after their own families too. To cast aside those views would be wrong, for the British people are right.

We must do what is best for those at risk of being trafficked or of making life threatening journeys by reducing that risk. We must do what is best for the millions of refugees overseas, and we can help more of them, and to greater effect, by providing billions in aid so that they can stay in or near the lands they call their own. We must do what is best to keep control of our system and protect the hard-working, law-abiding, decent, charitable but silent majority across our United Kingdom.