Government loses child refugee vote in string of Lords defeats

The government has suffered five defeats on its Brexit deal in the space of 24 hours in the House of Lords, with the heaviest defeat in a vote to restore the right of unaccompanied child refugees to be reunited with their families in the UK after Brexit.

There was a vote of 300 in favour and 220 against, giving a majority of 80 in support of an amendment, proposed by the Labour peer Alf Dubs, requiring the UK government to maintain the principle of family reunion for child refugees fleeing conflict.

“Either the government is mean and nasty or they are giving the impression of being mean and nasty; they could quite easily change that impression by accepting this amendment,” Lord Dubs said. “We have shown very clearly that the Lords vote is based on humanitarian principles. It’s now the turn of the Commons to show what they’re made of.”

Claim asylum

The majority of children flee persecution and endure dangerous journeys across continents alone, often falling into the hands of traffickers or smugglers en route. In 2018, 3,063 unaccompanied child asylum seekers arrived in the UK, the third highest number in Europe.

Dublin III regulation

These are children who come here having applied for asylum elsewhere in the EEA, to join family or relatives. In 2018, 159 unaccompanied children arrived in the UK via this route. The Home Office has confirmed The UK will continue to be bound by the Dublin provisions during the Brexit implementation period.

Dubs amendment

Enforced by section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016, these are unaccompanied children brought to the UK having applied for asylum elsewhere in Europe. The number agreed between the government and local authorities was 480. Other than the 220 brought when the Calais camp was cleared in Autumn 2016, the government has stated that they will not provide incremental figures but will announce when the 480 quota has been filled.

Vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme (VCRS)

This scheme was also announced during the passage of the 2016 act. These are not all unaccompanied children; some will arrive with family members. The number of individuals resettled via this route in 2018 was 688, but this also includes adults, as many children on this scheme are resettled with their families. The scheme was not designed to be a route primarily for unaccompanied children, but some children have been resettled without any family members and were placed in local authority care.

In 2018, 1,072 children were granted refugee status with a further 73 granted humanitarian protection.

Diane Taylor

The Home Office minister Lady Williams had urged peers not to force a vote on the issue, stating that the government was not dropping its commitments to family reunion for child refugees. She said more than 41,000 children had been granted protection in the UK since 2010 and over 5,000 unaccompanied children were being cared for in England alone.

She and two other Home Office ministers had last week summoned Dubs to ask him to stop pushing for this amendment to the EU withdrawal agreement bill, but he declined. He had successfully led a campaign for family reunion rights to continue after Brexit in an earlier version of the withdrawal bill, but the protections were removed in the latest version, published after the December election.

The ministers told Dubs that despite the decision to drop the measures from the bill, they would be included in the long-delayed immigration bill later this year.

During the debate, Dubs, who came to the UK as a Kindertransport child refugee after fleeing Prague in 1939, said he failed to understand why the government had removed the protection from the bill.

He asked the government not to “close the door” on the children affected, noting that some lived in shocking conditions in French camps, and were at risk of sexual exploitation.

By providing them with a safe, legal route to the UK, peers would be “thwarting the traffickers” and avoiding the need for youngsters to take more dangerous options to get to their families, he said.

The issue will be debated again in the House of Commons on Wednesday, where the government may use its large majority to overturn all the Lords defeats.

Beth Gardiner-Smith, the chief executive of Safe Passage, an organisation working with unaccompanied child refugees in Europe, said: “It’s simply not good enough for the government to claim they still back family reunion, whilst taking away the legal protections that support it. All this does is create fear and panic amongst some of the most vulnerable children. The prime minister should now show compassion and agree to the Lords amendment.

“Many of the children we support have lost their parents but they have grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles living in the UK and ready to care for them. It is illogical that these children be denied safe passage to the UK, left with no other choice but to consider smuggling just to reach their loved ones, or to grow up alone without the care of their family – many surviving in camps and car parks across Europe.”

The government was defeated in the Lords three times on Monday evening, on an amendment requiring EU citizens living in the UK to be given physical proof of their legal status, an amendment removing the power of ministers to decide which courts should have the power to depart from European court of justice judgments, and an amendment allowing cases to be referred to the supreme court to decide whether to depart from EU case law.

On Tuesday afternoon, the government was again defeated on the Dubs amendment, a fifth time, as peers backed calls to reassure Scotland and Wales on devolution powers.

The prime minister’s official spokesman said: “We are disappointed the Lords have chosen to amend the withdrawal agreement bill, which the Commons passed unamended with a majority of 99. Protecting vulnerable children will remain our priority after Brexit, and the withdrawal agreement bill reaffirms our commitment, while clarifying the role of parliament and government in negotiations. We will seek to overturn this amendment as the bill returns to the Commons.”