In January 2020, MPs voted 348 to 252 against an amendment that would have guaranteed the right of unaccompanied child refugees to be reunited with family members living in the UK after Brexit.
CWR approached Cheltenham MP and GARAS Patron, Alex Chalk, on his decision to vote with the Conservative Party against protections recommended by human rights and welfare organisations to ensure kind and proper treatment of vulnerable children.
The email exchange is detailed below.
17 January 2020 11:36 AM
Dear Alex,
We wanted to write to you to follow up on the Parliamentary vote on provisions for child refugees in the amended EU withdrawal bill that took place last week.
We appreciated your answering our questions during the December election, where you stated that "The United Kingdom has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. It is part of the moral fabric of this nation."You wrote that you "passionately believe this principle must be preserved and underscored," and you acknowledged the fact that "those in the asylum process may be under severe emotional pressure".
Back in 2017, you wrote to us about the UK's 2016 resettlement scheme for ‘Children at Risk’ from the Middle East and North Africa region, through which the UK was "resettling 3,000 of the most vulnerable children, accompanied by their families, where the UNHCR deems resettlement is in the best interests of the child". So in the past you've enthusiastically supported the vital impact that policy can have on the well-being on children, and presumably you still understand this.
You wrote to us that you prided yourself on being "a loud voice in Parliament on asylum and immigration issues", and we were hoping that this might continue. Following last week, we no longer feel reassured that this is still the case. We're concerned that the protection of highly vulnerable people, abandoned by so many, is no longer among your present priorities.
We would like to ask you how you might be able to reconcile your previous statements with your vote to prevent child refugees being reunited with their families in the UK.
Please could you clarify your position on this matter, and confirm to Cheltenham Welcomes Refugees, the many individuals, groups and organisations in Cheltenham who help and support refugees and people seeking asylum in our town, whether you will do everything in your ability to help those who have been so desperately hurt by war and isolation?
We look forward to receiving your response very soon. We will be publishing this email and your reply in the interests of our members and those we work to help. We also respectfully ask for the opportunity to discuss your response with you.
Best wishes,
Cheltenham Welcomes Refugees
Core Group
Natalie Genes, Maggie Powell, Bill Flynn, Chris Vidler, Tabi Joy, Najah Allam-Hill, Hanan Shami, Isabel Ruckelshauss, and Cal Anton-Smith
19 JaNUARY 2020 10:06 PM
Dear Natalie Genes, Maggie Powell, Bill Flynn, Chris Vidler, Tabi Joy, Najah Allam-Hill, Hanan Shami, Isabel Ruckelshauss, and Cal Anton-Smith
Thank you for contacting me about asylum seekers and refugee resettlement, and Jeremy Corbyn’s amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill (division 7, amendment 4). What is set out below is not some centrally produced text, but my own words. It is long, but given the importance and sensitivity of the issues raised, necessarily so.
As you allude to in your email, I have long believed in helping the world’s most vulnerable people, and honouring the letter and spirit of our international law obligations to refugees and asylum-seekers under the UN Refugee Convention 1951. I have a record of doing so both as a barrister and as a parliamentarian.
The Government remains committed to the aims of the Dubs’ Amendment and to the important and humane principle of reuniting families. The policy has not changed, and nothing in the amendment could fairly be said to suggest the opposite. I’m afraid amendment 4 – which relates to parliamentary procedure as opposed to substantive provisions affecting child refugees – has been deliberately and cynically misrepresented by some.
Context
Before turning to the detail of the amendment it is important to set out the wider context. The UK under this government has a strong record in this area, both historically and recently. As the Archbishop of Canterbury himself said in June 2019 “The resettlement of thousands of the world’s most vulnerable refugees over the past four years is something the UK can be proud of.”
Indeed, since 2016 Britain has resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU state. In 2018 the UK received over 3,000 asylum claims from unaccompanied children, making the UK Europe’s third-highest intake country. In addition, in the year ending September 2019, 6,035 family reunion visas were issued to children and partners of those granted humanitarian protection or refugee protection in our country.
Response to the Syria Crisis
In response to the dreadful suffering in Syria, the UK set up the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme as a result of which 16,000 refugees have already found safety here since 2015 (including hundreds here in Gloucestershire). Funding for GARAS's excellent work in this field has been provided by the Government via Conservative-led Gloucestershire County Council, who continue to support GARAS financially quite independently of the VPRS.
In addition, the British Government allocated over £2.5 billion to provide food, shelter and education in the region – the largest aid effort in British history and second only to the United States. By comparison, France is believed to have contributed approximately £100milion.
Middle East and North Africa ‘Children at Risk’ Scheme
In 2016 the UK launched a new resettlement scheme to resettle ‘Children at Risk’ from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. On the UNHCR’s recommendation the scheme did not target unaccompanied children alone, but was extended to all ‘Children at Risk’ as defined by the UNHCR and extended to at risk groups and nationalities within the region, not limited to Syrians.
Through this category the UK resettled the most vulnerable children accompanied by their families where the UNHCR deemed that resettlement was in the best interests of the child.
This unique initiative was the largest resettlement effort that focused on children at risk from the MENA region. It is worth noting that far, far more unaccompanied children were and are in the refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon et al than in Europe. It was only the UK that chose to resettle 3,000 of these children; not France, not Germany, not Italy.
Other Family Reunification Measures in Europe
On the issue of family reunification specifically, DFID committed £46m to help support refugees. That fund was administered by three specialist organisations including Save the Children and UNHCR.
We also seconded additional resource into the European Asylum Support Office totalling over 1,000 days of expert support to Italy and Greece to implement and streamline the process under the Dublin Regulations, including to quickly identify children who qualified for family reunion.
In addition, DFID created a £10 million Refugee Children Fund specifically to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children in Europe. This was used to support the UNHCR, Save the Children and International Rescue Committee (IRC) to work with host authorities to care for and assist unaccompanied or separated children in Europe and the Balkans. This included identifying vulnerable children, providing for their immediate support, referral to specialist care, and helping with family reunification.
New Resettlement Scheme
At the start of 2019 World Refugee Week, Sajid Javid (then Home Secretary) unveiled a new resettlement scheme which will consolidate the Vulnerable Persons’ Resettlement Scheme, the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme and the gateway protection programme into one global scheme. In response to itRossella Pagliuchi-Lor, UK Representative for UNHCR, said “We are delighted by this announcement from the UK, which is extending its commitment to offer international protection to a meaningful number of refugees from wherever the need is most acute. We hope this serves as a signal for other countries to provide more routes to safety for those forced to flee as the international community moves to make the global compact on refugees a reality.”
EU (Withdrawal) Bill
As indicated above, the votes in Parliament on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill relating to family reunification have been misrepresented – in particular on social media.
The Government has declared to the House an intention to undertake negotiations with the EU on this issue. Jeremy Corbyn’s amendment (number 4) which was voted down was therefore of limited scope and practical effect. Although he sought to suggest in his ‘Member’s Explanatory Statement’ that “This amendment would protect the right for unaccompanied child refugees to be reunited with their family after Brexit” that overstates its significance.
The amendment instead simply required the Government to update the House on progress made towards securing an agreement with the EU on child refugees and family reunification, if such an agreement is not reached within three months of this Bill coming into force. That of itself guarantees nothing. I have set out the full text below so you can judge for yourselves:
Clause 37, page 37, line 3, leave out from “Europe)” to the end of the Clause and “after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) If, three months after this Act comes into force, no agreement achieving the objective contained in subsection (1) has been concluded with the European Union, a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to the House of Commons setting out—
(a) the steps taken by Her Majesty’s government, and the progress made in negotiations with the European Union, for the purpose of achieving the objective in subsection (1); and
(b) whether in the Minister’s opinion an agreement with the European Union achieving the objective of subsection (1) is likely to be achieved by IP completion day and, if not, setting out the reasons for this.
(3B) Following the making of the first Statement referred to in subsection (2), and until such time as an agreement satisfying the objective contained in subsection (1) is reached with the European Union, the Minister shall, at least as frequently as every 28 days thereafter, make further statements in accordance with sections (3A)(a) and (b).”
The reasons for voting down the Opposition amendment were as follows:
First, amendments of this nature simply do not belong in a Bill which is deliberately and narrowly focused on EU exit – in particular the three pillars of the financial settlement, the implementation period and citizens’ (not refugee or asylum-seekers’) rights. As one MP has put it, Labour’s approach is a little like putting in an amendment about lowering football ticket prices. That amendment would have been voted down too, because it has nothing to do with the Bill. It is not that MPs wouldn’t want to lower football ticket prices; it just would not be right in that Bill. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this amendment was tabled in the knowledge that it would be voted down, principally for political effect.
Second, the requirement to ‘update the House’ has little practical effect. That’s because MPs already have the powerto raise the issue before the House if they are not satisfied with progress on the negotiations. They can do so via at least four routes, none of which is closed off by this Bill:
an oral question at Departmental Questions
a Written Parliamentary Question
applying for an ‘Urgent Question’ to summon a minister to the House
calling a debate.
Third, the Government has indicated from the despatch box an intention to bring forward arrangements which comply with our international obligations when the Immigration Bill is brought forward. On that point, being compassionate towards vulnerable people means being mindful about the practical experience of those affected, and recognising the cynical and ruthless behaviour of people traffickers who stand ready to exploit ill-thought through policies.
One MP with particular expertise in this area indicated that all too often young people are brought to the United Kingdom (having been trafficked at great risk to themselves) to be linked up with a distant cousin—maybe a teenager—only to become shortly afterwards an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child in the care system of this country. It is important that we do not inadvertently undermine the child protection agreements that the European Union, supported strongly by the United Kingdom, has agreed with Turkey and countries in the MENA area. Those arrangements mean that there is frequently a very real prospect of reuniting young people with those with parental responsibility—either the mother or father, or at least close family members—who are established in those countries. Many EU countries have concluded that the best interest test will often be satisfied by reuniting them with their mother or father in the region, rather than with a distant cousin who cannot look after them in the UK.
As noted above, we remain committed to the aims of the Dubs’ Amendment; and we have and continue to stick to the important and humane principle of reuniting families.
Thank you again for contacting me. Yes, of course, I would be happy to meet.
Best wishes,
Alex
22 Feb 2020
14:12 PM
Dear Alex
We apologise for the delay in acknowledging your email of 19th January regarding Protection for Child Refugees. It was a detailed and often technical reply to our concerns and we wanted to give it due consideration as a group.
You explain in some detail the procedural inadequacies of Amendment 4 to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill but appear to ignore the fact that the Government chose to remove paragraphs on child Refugees from its own Bill thus triggering concerns that it was backing away from previous commitments. Concerns that were shared by Lord Dubs and many major charities - as well as many individuals in Cheltenham.
We acknowledge what the Government has done in response to the refugee crisis but do think you are over-stating the case. Your assertion that the UK is resettling more refugees from outside Europe than any EU country does not take into account those countries who are having to deal with huge numbers who have landed on their shores or made their way over-land across Europe.
Similarly, you are positive about the UK record of reuniting children with families here, but ignore the recent report (Without My Family) from the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and Save The Children highlighting a very poor record of enabling children here to be joined by their parents.
However, we note your ongoing commitment to the Dubs Amendment and your high praise for the work of GARAS. We also note the Conservative councillors support for Cheltenham becoming a Town of Sanctuary. We hope for your continued support for the work of Cheltenham Refugees - and would welcome the opportunity to update you on this and share the experiences of refugees and asylum-seekers living in Cheltenham.
In the meantime, we congratulate you on your promotion but hope it does not take you too far away from the needs and concerns of your constituents.
Best Wishes,
Maggie Powell
Secretary to Cheltenham Welcomes Refugees
25 Feb 2020
08:07 AM
Thank you Maggie. No apology necessary. I appreciate you and the group giving my response careful thought. There are points I could pick up, but maybe best to do so when we next meet for the update which you refer to, and which I would welcome.
Thank you too for your kind words. Cheltenham is my home, and the needs and concerns of people living here will always remain my top priority!
Very best wishes
Alex
Alex Chalk MP
Member of Parliament for Cheltenham