Child Refugees: Age Checks

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Lyn Brown

Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend needs to be aware that both the Dublin regulation and section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016—the so-called Dubs amendment—define children as those under the age of 18. Indeed, a large number of those in the camps are both male and 16 or 17-year-olds, and we have never tried to mislead anyone about that particular fact.

The criterion being used at this stage for the Dublin children is family connections in the UK. Those children are our priority and they are the ones we have seen being brought across this week. Further children will be brought across, and some of that initial assessment will enable further work to be done, including fingerprinting. If there are cases where, for example, the person concerned has been brought to the attention of a European immigration authority or has applied for a visa somewhere in the world to come to the UK, we will be able to have further information, so that work is being done.

The age issue can arise because of Home Office concerns about the claimed age or because the individual does not accept the initial assessment process. Where there is doubt, the individual will be referred to a local authority children’s services department for a careful, case-law compliant age assessment and will be treated as a child while the outcome is awaited. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of children under section 11 of the Children Act 2004, regardless of their immigration status or nationality. This safeguards the individual who is required to undergo an age assessment and safeguards children already in the care population from the presence of an adult being placed in the same living accommodation.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I want to start by welcoming all refugees who have entered Britain in the last few days to their new home. I hope that our country will provide them with a safe space that enables them to put behind them the traumas and difficulties they have faced. Welcome to Britain.

The Government committed to taking unaccompanied child refugees in May. The Home Office have therefore had five months to assess the age of the young people—five months in which refugees have had to live their lives in limbo and in conditions that none of us would like to live in, and certainly not to have our children live in. I am sure the Minister can assure the House that this delay is a result of the Home Office carefully assessing the age of the young people we are granting sanctuary to.

Europol has warned that at least 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees have gone missing since entering Europe after fleeing the most terrible political situation in Syria and elsewhere in north Africa and the middle east. Citizens UK thinks there are at least 54 unaccompanied girls, mainly Eritreans, in the Calais camp, and they are eligible to enter under the Dubs amendment. These are children who have had their homes, their parents and their entire lives taken away from them and they are in real danger. Does the Minister agree that our resolve to give sanctuary and protection to unaccompanied child refugees must remain undiminished? We cannot succumb to compassion fatigue.

I know that some Conservative Members have called for dental checks to determine the age of children coming over, but the Journal of Forensic Sciences found that when it comes to determining if someone is aged between 17 and 19 years old, dental checks are wrong up to 50% of the time. The British Dental Association, whose members would presumably have to carry out the mooted checks, has said that they would be “inappropriate and unethical”. Does the Minister agree that calling for dental checks is an unworkable red herring?

I am pleased that the Government are committed to helping unaccompanied child refugees, and 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020. However, given the scale of the refugee crisis, we can and should do more. There will be challenges along the way and things will not go perfectly, but helping people in dire need—and they are—is the right thing to do. When we meet bumps in the road people in this place, and in other positions of power, we should keep a calm head and continue to offer a welcoming embrace to those who are fleeing the most desperate circumstances.

[Mr Goodwill]

The points made by the hon. Lady encapsulate the vast majority of the United Kingdom’s view of the compassion that we should show and our legal responsibility to step up to the mark to ensure that vulnerable children in those camps are looked after as well as possible. It is in the joint interests of both the United Kingdom and the French Republic that the camp is removed, and, more importantly, that is in the interests of the people in that camp. I must make it clear that nobody needs to be in that camp. The French have facilities for people who ask to leave the camp and large numbers have already left it.

I have already covered the point on dental checks. One additional point, which I think some of the media have failed to grasp, is that there are two distinct categories of children. First, there are the Dublin III children, who qualify because they have family here in the United Kingdom, and those are the children whom we prioritise to move before the camps are cleared. Secondly, there are the children who qualify under the Dubs amendment. The criterion in that case is where their needs will best be served. I can assure the House that we will prioritise the most vulnerable in that group—the under-13s and those who are vulnerable for other reasons—to ensure that that can happen. They cannot be processed as quickly. We need to remove them to a place of safety as the clearance starts and then ensure that we can fully live up to the commitments that this Government made when they accepted the Dubs amendment.

Rights of EU Nationals

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Lyn Brown

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

My right hon. and learned Friend has made a perfectly reasonable point. The only problem that the Government have with the motion is that it does not go far enough, in that it does not include the rights of British citizens living in other EU member states, which we would demand to be protected in return. It is impossible for us to support the motion, because that reassurance is not contained in it.

I fully appreciate the importance of giving certainty to EU citizens who have built a life here in the United Kingdom. As I have already said, they should be reassured that we are working on the basis that we want to protect those people’s status in UK law beyond the point at which we leave the EU.

[Lyn Brown]

As the Minister knows, I am very fond of him—[Interruption.]. It is true; it is a guilty secret. However, I am genuinely wondering why he has not responded to the question asked a moment ago by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Why are we still debating this issue, given that the Government clearly agree with the motion?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have made it crystal clear, I hope, that the motion does not go far enough because it does not extend the protections that SNP Members want for EU citizens here in the UK to British citizens, including Scottish citizens—people from Stranraer, Montrose and Edinburgh—who are living and working elsewhere in the EU and who require reciprocal protection. That is all we are saying. If the SNP Members had included that in their motion, we would have been more than happy to support it, but this is a fatal omission.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Lyn Brown

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I am saying that if the hybrid Bill Committee proposed changes that the Government agreed to, there would be a further opportunity for people who are directly affected by those changes to petition. The Bill cannot be changed in a way that affects people without their getting a second bite of the cherry, because they may not have considered petitioning in the first place.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is getting himself back on to my Christmas card list, from which he was rejected last night. Are the Government completely closed to the idea of a different, better HS1-HS2 link than the one we rightly rejected last night?

[Mr Goodwill]

Any link between HS1 and HS2 is not part of the Bill that was before us last night or the provisions we are considering today, and we as a Government are certainly not planning to look at it in the near future. This project will be in operation for many centuries, we hope, and who knows what might happen in future? At the moment, the Government’s position is absolutely clear: we have abandoned the link—we voted on that in the House last night—and we do not wish to revisit it. We will be looking into making it easier to get across from Euston to St Pancras. Although it is not a long walk and there is an underground train service, there may be better ways of dealing with the situation, and HS2 is looking into that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady’s amendment was about the link. I made the point that it would be possible to petition to ensure that a link was not obviated, but the link itself, whichever route it might take, was not covered. Therefore, in the same way that we have provision for the Heathrow spur in phase 1, it would be possible to petition to ensure that the construction of phase 1 would not rule out any future link. I thought that was one of the very first points I made—if the hon. Lady was paying attention then.

[Lyn Brown]

I have paid great attention to everything the Minister has said, both today and yesterday, and I cannot remember hearing the word “Stratford” come from him at the Dispatch Box. Given that I have listened to every word he has said, I am hoping I will be able to add him to my Christmas card list, as he now gives Stratford some confidence.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am certainly happy to mention Stratford, but Stratford is not within the scope of the Bill at this stage. I made it clear in my opening remarks that this is about constructing a railway from Euston to Birmingham, with the intervening stations and other works, and not, at this stage, about including Stratford. In fact, the Bill does not include Stratford, so perhaps she should get to work on her policy people in the Labour party. I am sure they will be beavering away, busy writing their manifesto, and she might be able to be slightly more persuasive.

It is interesting, because people in Sheffield were keen to make the point to me that they wanted phase 2, which is not within the scope of this Bill, to go into Sheffield city centre, because a station was needed there. I am now being told that stations are needed way out. The idea that we could be served by Stratford and Old Oak Common, without the need for a city centre station, is the exact opposite of what I heard in Sheffield.

[Lyn Brown]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Olympic games were held in Stratford in 2012? The idea that Stratford is “way out” shows that he is himself a little distanced from the reality of what London is. Stratford offers interconnectivity through the rail networks in the east of England and to the north. It also offers economic opportunity. The idea that we will be wandering down roads with our suitcases in the rain shows the limit of his imagination. I would ask him gently—because I like him very much—whether he would reconsider his position.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady makes some very good points, I am sure. I would merely make the point that the distance from Meadowhall station, outside Sheffield, to the centre of Sheffield is less than the distance between Stratford and the centre of London. It is interesting that when we talk to cities such as Nottingham, Sheffield and others that are served by parkway stations rather than city centre stations, they see the importance of having a station in the city centre. However, I understand the point she makes about Stratford.

Should the House approve the motions, the matter will move to the Select Committee to start hearing the petitions of those affected by the scheme. This is a crucial moment in the process and one that many have waited many years for. I therefore believe that the House has an obligation to ensure that we swiftly progress to that point. I believe that the motions as drafted provide a fair and reasonable framework for both petitioners and the Committee. As I have said, I do not believe that the proposed amendments would add to the Committee’s ability to hear petitioners or progress its work effectively. Indeed, in some cases the amendments seem to work against the interests of the petitioners and should be rejected. Indeed, as I read them, many of the amendments gave me the impression that they were designed to frustrate the Committee’s work, rather than facilitate it, but maybe that was one of the objectives.