Asked by Lord Dubs To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment
they have made of the situation regarding child refugees in the
Calais and Dunkirk areas, and whether they will take immediate
steps to allow a significant number to enter the UK. Lord Dubs
(Lab) My Lords, I beg...Request free
trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have
made of the situation regarding child refugees in the
Calais and Dunkirk areas, and whether they will take
immediate steps to allow a significant number to enter
the UK.
-
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have
given private notice.
-
My Lords, in 2016, the UK transferred more than 750
children from France as part of comprehensive support for
the Calais camp clearance. The UK also offered support to
France following the recent fire at Dunkirk. We continue
to work closely with the French to transfer eligible
children under Section 67 of the Immigration Act and the
Dublin regulation. The fastest route to safety is to
claim asylum in France.
-
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government
announced in a Written Ministerial Statement today that a
further 130 children would be taken into this country
under Section 67 of the Immigration Act, even if the
reason is the Home Office having to hang its head in
shame because it made an administrative error as part of
collating the figures. That comes out of “Yes Minister”.
Will the Government now reconsult local authorities,
because many local authorities, not just in England but
in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, have expressed a
willingness to take more child refugees? Is not the
Minister aware that many representations have been made
recently about the availability of local authority
places?
-
The administrative error is most unfortunate, and for
that I apologise. I would not want that to happen. The
good news is that we have an additional 130 places, and I
think we should all be very pleased about that. The
important thing here is that no child has been
disfranchised. Any eligible child has been taken thus
far, and 200 children have been taken so far, so we have
not even got to the figure of 350. I would not want noble
Lords to think that any child had been disfranchised
because of this administrative error, which is, as I
said, most regrettable.
On the consultation, we have consulted local authorities.
For the record, I can tell noble Lords that there are
4,000 unaccompanied children in local authority care as
we speak. Some local authorities, such as Kent and
Croydon, host a disproportionate number of children. We
are always very glad to hear from local authorities
coming forward to take children through the national
transfer scheme or to take refugee children, but it is
not as though we have not consulted properly. I know that
the Immigration Minister wrote to all local authorities,
a national launch event was held, and more than 10
regional events were held in every part of England, as
well as one in Scotland and one in Wales.
-
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of reports last week
in the context of child refugees that an assumption was
being made that, if such a child was disabled, they would
be debarred because they would be regarded as too
burdensome. Will she take the opportunity to deny with
all possible strength that that could be the Government’s
policy?
-
My Lords, it would never be the Government’s policy—I do
not think any Government’s policy—to disfranchise a
disabled child because they were too burdensome. A child
would be assessed under the criteria of either Dubs,
Dublin or the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme.
No child would ever be disenfranchised because they were
disabled. I can very strongly confirm that.
-
I have two questions for the Minister. Is she aware that
Help Refugees will press ahead with its pending court
case, as freedom of information data show that further
clerical errors exist? Secondly, will the Government
accept that we have a moral and legal duty to these
children to reopen the Dubs scheme to ensure that these
errors are ironed out once and for all and that we act
with utmost haste in bringing these unfortunate children
to the UK? The Government have been far too slow in
actioning those points.
-
My Lords, as my first Answer explained, we have not
closed the Dubs scheme. We have 200 children here and
there is potential for another 280 to arrive under the
additional numbers. I look forward to the outcome of the
court case and would not want to comment on it at this
stage.
-
My Lords, France or Europe are not some war-torn country,
so I am delighted that refugees are able to get to a
place of safety, whether in France or here. My concern is
that the most vulnerable children and women are still in
Syria and on the borders of Syria. What support have the
Government given in that vital work?
-
I am very pleased to be able to do that. My noble friend
is absolutely right that the most vulnerable are still in
the regions. Last year, the former Prime Minister made an
announcement to double the amount of assistance going to
the region to £2.4 billion—double the amount that it had
been previously. My noble friend makes exactly the right
point that we should be sending help to the regions where
it is most needed.
-
First, I think it would have been better if the
Government had come with an Oral Statement to the House
on this issue rather than putting it in a Written
Statement just before we are about to cease sitting, as
this is an issue of considerable interest to the House.
We discussed this in the House on 9 February, after the
Government said a Written Statement in the Commons:
“Local authorities told us they have capacity for around
400 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children until the end
of this financial year”.—[Official Report, Commons,
8/2/17; col. 10WS.]
That would have been 2016-17. I asked the Minister:
“What capacity have local authorities told the Government
they have for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in
the 1917-18 financial year on the basis that the current
level of government funding is continued?”.—[Official
Report, 9/2/17; col. 1861.]
I did not get a direct reply to that question. The
Minister said that the Government were in constant touch
with local authorities. Can she give us the figure? What
capacity have local authorities told the Government that
they have for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in
the next financial year, 2017-18, on the basis that the
current level of government funding is continued?
-
My Lords, as my honourable friend in the other place
outlined in the Written Ministerial Statement yesterday,
the capacity for Section 67 children is 480. As for
future commitments, obviously we are hours from
Prorogation and I cannot make any future declarations at
the Dispatch Box, much as I would want to. Those figures
will be forthcoming should we be successful in the
general election.
-
My Lords, the Minister said that there are 4,000 children
in foster care. Are these 4,000 asylum-seeking,
unaccompanied youngsters, as we voted on in the recent
Act, and is she aware that of the children dispersed in
France, 600 have made their way back to Calais because
they have not been accepted in a very friendly way? Can
the she answer those two questions?
-
I am not sure why children who had been accepted for
local authority accommodation here would want to go back
to Calais. I am sure that there are various reasons for
that.
-
Noble Lords
-
Sorry, I have slightly misheard the noble Lord’s
question. He asked me, first, whether there are 4,000
unaccompanied children in local authority care in this
country. Yes, there are. Other children who were not
eligible for either Dubs or Dublin have been dispersed
within France.
-
-
Noble Lords
-
My Lords, the debates that we have from time to time on
this issue focus almost exclusively on local authorities,
suggesting that they are the only and the best providers.
Is that the case? If so, what is the arrangement by which
other providers can link into the system in order to
increase the number of places available?
-
I am glad that my noble friend asked that question,
because one thing that the Government have been very keen
to promote is the community sponsorship scheme, which the
most reverend Primate the has taken
part in, taking in Syrian families in Lambeth Palace. In
fact, in my own local authority in Trafford we also have
a community sponsorship scheme. I never let the time pass
up without encouraging noble Lords to tell of any
community sponsors they know who might be willing to take
families.
|
