In
recent weeks I have received a number of different campaign emails from
constituents concerning Child refugees and the Lords amendments to the
Withdrawal Agreement Bill on the issue.
I
refer them to my most recent responses of 9 and 16 January.
Constituents
will now be aware that the Withdrawal Agreement Bill has passed through both
Houses and is awaiting Royal Assent before it becomes Law.
I
would like to remind them that I did not vote against the Commons and Lords
amendments on child refugees because I do not want the UK to offer safe routes
to sanctuary to child refugees. On the contrary, I have always made clear that
I want our immigration, asylum and refugee policies to demonstrate compassion
to those to most need our help. For instance I am immensely proud of our
country’s record of giving sanctuary to thousands of Jewish children and
families fleeing from the Holocaust during the War.
The
Government also has strong record on supporting the most vulnerable children.
The UK has granted protection to over 41,000 children since the start of 2010.
In
2018, the UK received over 3,000 asylum applications from unaccompanied
children – 15% of all asylum claims from unaccompanied children across the EU –
making the UK the third-highest intake country in Europe.
Intake
in the year ending September 2019 rose to over 3,500.
I
voted against the amendments because the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which seeks
to facilitate a smooth and orderly Brexit and allow the Government maximum
flexibility to negotiate with the EU, is not the right place for an amendment
that would effectively tie the Government’s hands even before the negotiations
commenced.
Furthermore,
our helping child refugees should not be considered a primarily Brexit issue. I
certainly do not want to see it be politicised to the same degree as Brexit has
been. The principle of showing compassion to child refugees that something that
MPs across the benches can agree on.
The
Government has made it abundantly clear that it remains absolutely committed to
seeking an agreement with the EU which will enable unaccompanied asylum-seeking
children in an EU Member State to be reunited with specified family members in
the UK, where it is in the child’s best interests, and for children in the UK
to be reunited with family members in an EU Member State in equivalent
circumstances.
I
would also like to address the popular misconception that Section 17 of the
European Union (Withdrawal) Act as it originally stood guaranteed the family
reunion rights of unaccompanied children.
It
did not. It simply required the Government to seek to negotiate an agreement
with the EU – section 17 did not guarantee the rights of these children and it
is not possible to do so without an agreement with the EU.
The
Government has repeatedly stated its commitment to seek an agreement.
It
is important to note that any future agreement with the EU is a matter for negotiations,
and not within the gift of the UK Government alone.
Similarly,
the new Clause 37 of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill does not remove any such
rights.
Moreover,
Clause 37 goes above and beyond the previous obligation in section 17 in that
it provides a statutory guarantee that Parliament will be updated on the
Government’s policy regarding family reunion for unaccompanied children within
two months of the Bill's passage, giving Parliament the opportunity to provide
scrutiny to the progress of the Government’s negotiations with the EU to seek
an agreement on child refugees.
