Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Ranil Jayawardena

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

If she will include provisions to support domestic battery development in future trade deals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

We recognise the importance of domestic battery development and manufacturing, which is why we have engaged with business to understand its needs and ensure that our free trade agreements deliver. That includes negotiating rules of origin that consider the transition to electric vehicles and enable British manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan to access global markets.

[Steve McCabe [V]]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.

As the Minister acknowledges, the future of our car industry in the west midlands is dependent on battery production and the Government giving the go-ahead for a gigafactory, but battery production requires ready access to materials such as cobalt, lithium and manganese. Will he tell us which countries he is talking to about trade deals that would secure these supplies?

[Mr Jayawardena]

We are talking to friends around the world to make sure that our supply chains are more resilient than ever before. That is a clear lesson from our coronavirus situation, where we have seen that we should not be too reliant on any one country. We have prioritised securing investment in battery cell gigafactories, to which the hon. Member refers. I am delighted that he is supporting our agenda, which we believe is key to anchoring the mass manufacture of electric vehicles in Britain, safeguarding jobs and driving emissions to net zero by 2050.

Refugees (Family Reunion) (No.2) Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Ranil Jayawardena

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.