Live Unaccompanied Children Question Questions and Statements

do see a good future for UK steel and the Department of International

Trade looks forward to taking part in a hollow government approach to

make sure that UK steel is sold the board. Order. Urgent question.

Yvette Cooper. To of the Home Secretary to make a statement on the

government 's decision to close the scheme for child refugees. Secretary

of State. We have pledged over ?2.3 billion in

aid to the simmering conflict. It is our largest ever humanitarian

response to a single crisis. The UK has contributed significantly to

hosting, supporting and protecting the most vulnerable children

affected by the migration crisis. In the year ending September 2016, we

granted asylum or another form of leave to over 8000 children. Of the

4400 individuals resettled through the Syrian vulnerable persons

resettlement scheme so far, around half our children. Within Europe in

2016 we transferred over 900 unaccompanied asylum seeking

children to the UK. This included more than 750 from France as part of

the UK's support for the Calais camp clearance and I am proud that as

Home Secretary the UK tape such a key role in the closing of the camp.

Yesterday the government announced that in accordance with section 67

of the immigration act we will transfer the specified number of 350

children pursuant to that section who reasonably meet the intention

and spirit behind the provision. This number includes over 200

children already transferred under section 67 from France, and I want

to be absolutely clear. The scheme is not closed. As required by the

legislation we have consulted with local authorities on the capacity to

care for unaccompanied asylum seeking children before arriving at

the number and we are grateful for the way that local authorities have

stepped up to provide places for those arriving and we will continue

to work closely to address capacity needs. The government has always

been clear that we do not want to incentivise perilous journeys to

Europe, particularly by the most vulnerable children. That is why

children must have arrived in Europe before the 20th of March 2016 to be

eligible under section 67 of the immigration act. The obligation was

accepted on the fact that it would be based on local authority

capacity. The government has a clear strategy and we believe it is the

right approach. We have launched the National transfer scheme and we have

increased funding for local authorities caring for unaccompanied

asylum seeking children by between 20 and 20%. The government has taken

steps to improve an already comprehensive approach and we are

providing protection to thousands of children and I am proud of this

government's active approach to helping and sheltering the most

vulnerable and that is a position that will continue. Yvette Cooper.

Last week the Prime Minister said, on refugees this government has a

proud record of support and long may it continue. This week the

government cancelled the scheme after it had been running for less

than six months. She says it has a close, but will she confirm what it

said in the statement yesterday that one so 350 children are here, that

is it, it is close. Where does it say in the hands of debate that I

have here from our debates on the amendment that we will only help

lone child referees to six months? Where does it say that instead of

the 3000 that Parliament debated, we will only help the tenth of that

number? Where does it say that when we get the chance we will turn our

backs? It doesn't because we didn't say that. The Home Secretary knows

what she is doing is shameful. Not only has she shocked the programme,

but she has cancelled the fast track Dublin scheme to help those with

families who are here. The Home Secretary did good work in the

autumn of last year and I commended her for it, to help those in Calais

and make sure we could take as many children as possible, but she also

knows most of those have family here already and they were entitled to be

here. She said local councils can't do more. They can, but it takes

time. The scheme should not be closed down and there are still many

children in need of help. She knows there are thousands in Greece in

overcrowded accommodation or homeless. Or in Italy, still at risk

of human trafficking. On teenagers in French centres that are being

closed down and have nowhere to go now. In Calais, they are heading

back to the dirt and danger and back into the arms of the abuse,

prostitution rings, traffickers and modern slavery, that this government

has pledged to end. We note that France and this government can do

better. There are a rich array teenagers here now with a better

future. We can do this. Britain can do better than this. Will she do

better -- will she accept that and reinstate the scheme? I repeat that

the amendment in place is not close. We have done what we were meant to

do and we have put a number on it. She implies it is a business of

accepting children and it is about numbers. What I will respectfully

say to her is that these are children who need looking after over

a period. When we accept them here it is not job done. It is making

sure we work with local authorities, that we have the right safeguarding

in place, and that is why we engage with local authorities, why we make

sure they have sufficient funds, which we have increased, to look

after those young people. I completely reject her attack. The UK

has strong reputation in Europe and internationally for looking after

the most vulnerable. That will continue. We have a different

approach to wear those most vulnerable are. We believe that they

are in the region. That is why we have made a pledge to accept 3000

children from the region and we are committed to delivering on that.

They are the most vulnerable. I am clear that when working with my

French counterparts they do not want us to indefinitely continue to

accept children under the amendment because they specify, and I agree

with them, that it acts as a draw, it acts as a Paul, it encourages

people traffickers. I know she doesn't want that, but I would ask

her to think very carefully about the approaching prefers.

I am very much aware of the great shortage of resources there are. I

commend the Home Secretary for the resilience she's showing. Can she

assure me the Government will remain committed, not only to bringing

referee children here, where appropriate, but she'll have due

regard to the children we already have? We are always grateful for the

work that local authorities do. We must not underestimate the

difficulty there is sometimes, particularly taking children who

have been through war zones, the extra work and care that they need,

which we work with them to ensure they deliver. Of course, he is

absolutely right. We need to make sure that children within the UK are

always looked after. Last year I visited a number of referee camps in

Europe. I meted with the Red Cross volunteers who were saving refugees

from the sea. And they said to me that the worst thing was the

children. And I think the worst thing about this Government's

failure to step up to the totality of the refugee crisis is the

children. In the written statement yesterday, the minister for state

for immigration said, all children, not transferred to the UK are in the

care of the French authorities. They may be technically the

responsibility of the French authorities, but many of these

children are not being cared for at all. They are sleeping on the sleep.

They are sleeping in formal encampmentens and they are making

their way back to Calais, Dunkirk - can the Secretary of State tell me

how does a UK plan to screen and process this extra 150 children, for

which country will the remaining 150 children be transferred from? What

conversations has been had with the Italian and French Governments

regarding taking such a small number of children? How does she live with

herself, leaving thousands of people, and members opposite can

jeer - how does she live with herself? Leaving thousands of

children subject to disease, people trafficking, squalor and

hopelessness? Mr Speaker, I share one thing with The Right Honourable

lady, that it is the children that matter most and it is an absolutely

disgraceful situation we have on the borders of Europe where there are so

many people being trafficked over through to Italy and in the past

through to Greece in order to meet their desire to come to Europe and

so often find themselves in the hands of the people traffickers. It

is because we care in this way that we have put together our plan to

take refugees from the most vulnerable places. She doubts how

the children are looked after. The many children who are most

vulnerable are the ones out in the vulnerable are the ones out in the

camps out in Jordan, in Lebanon, these are the runs who are really

vulnerable. These are the ones that we are determined to bring over

here, to give them the benefit of the safety in the UK. I would also

say to The Right Honourable lady that I do speak to my European

counterparts about the best way to address helping these children and

helping the refugees that are now coming in such numbers to Europe and

the French are very clear that they are now processing the children who

have come out of the Calais camp. They want to continue to do. That

but one of the things that stops the children operating with the French

authorities is the hope of being taken into the amendment and coming

to the UK. They are clear with us that if they are to manage those

children for the best for those children, which I think is what she

wants, as I want, then making it clear that that is not going to be

indefinitely open is the best outcome for them.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the members opposite, but when I was

chairing the all party group on human trafficking this is a classic

dilemma we have. And if you continue to take unaccompanied children into

this country you will have more and more taken from Syria, taken across

sea routes, many will die and you are feeding and encouraging human

trafficking. The honourable lady is very sincere but she's is wrong. I

would urge the Home Secretary to continue to take people from Syria

but abandon encouraging human trafficking by taking them from

Europe. I thank my honourable friend for his intervention I know he has

substantial experience in this area having worked so hard on human

trafficking. I recognise the point he makes that it is a dilemma. It is

not always clear what the right strategy is. I would ask honourable

members opposite to recognise we have an approach, sitcom passionate,

they do not have a monopoly on that and we can deliver the best and we

would urge them to support us on that.

Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, I am struggling to understand exactly

what the Home Secretary is telling us. She says the scheme is not

closed. But she seems to have specified a number of 350 and said

that once the 350 are here, that will be an end of any scheme under

the section. That must mean that the scheme is closed after 350 children

get here. Will she clarify that? Will she appreciate if that is the

case it is completely against the spirit of what was discussed in this

House. I understand the pool argument, but there are thousands of

children already in Europe and many of these children are unaccompanied

and vulnerable. The Lord has described what was done

yesterday as shabby and deceitful. It seems that the Government tried

to sneak out what they knew would be an unpopular announcement when they

were busy looking at the detail of the Brexit deal S this what comes of

cosying up to President Trump? Well Well, I pecks ected better from the

honourable and learned lady. She has not listened to the point I have

made. We believe knit the interests of the children to take this view.

Instead she casts assertions around. There's no attempt to hide anything.

I must say, if there had, today might have been the day to put down

the WMS rather than yesterday. Here I am to answer the urgent question

and delighted to so to put any clarity on any misunderstanding. In

terms of the right, the honourable and learned lady's first comment

about the number, the scheme is still open because we still expect a

transfer another 150 children. And we have Home Office representatives

in Greece and in Italy making sure we can do that. But in accordance

with the regulations as set out we had to put a number on it, having

consulted with local authorities. That is what we've done.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I note the Secretary of State says the

scheme is not closed. I would urge the Secretary of State to respect

the House when the amendment was voted that it was never expected to

be closed at any point. Does she agree with me that Britain, does the

Secretary of State agree that Britain should be leading the way,

there should be more resources for local authorities? Will the

Government please reintroduce a minister for refugees, not just

Syrian refugees to show the importance we give to this 21st

century problem? I know she cares as I do, as the Government does very

much about this issue, which is why we have substantial combhiments to

help children interest the regions to help 20,000 from Syria to come

over here. We are transferring 100 people. We will continue to step up

to show the world that the UK is doing the right thing by helping

these families, helping these children. And I disagree with her on

one thing and with some honourable ladies and gentlemen opposite, which

is that I believe that at the time of the amendment it was made

perfectly clear that the number needed to be set. A number would be

set and we have stuck absolutely both to the letter and the sprirt of

that amendment. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Home

Secretary says she's talked to the French authorities and they want to

stop the scheme. Well, now there are an average 50 children every single

day going back to Calais and the camps. What responsibility does the

Home Secretary recognise that the policy clearly isn't working? What

does she think will happen to those kids now she's closed the door to

them? I would ask the honourable lady to consider why they are going

back to the camps rather than staying in the centres the French

have taken them to in order to process them. Perhaps it is because

they think they will continue to be able to move to the UK? Does that

help them? It does not. What will help those children is if they are,

if they are processed in France, and can have their claims processed

there. Rather than going back to Calais, back to the mud. I am sure

she wouldn't want that, just as I don't.

I share Jewish ancestry. May I say how distasteful I find it when I

hear some commentators compare the situation today with that in the

1930s and the kinner transport. In those days, there was no opportunity

to go into Germany or the access countries and assist those children

who faced death in concentration camps. In this situation it is very

different. And I simply ask my Right Honourable friend condemn those

commentators, thankfully no-one so far in this House, who do compare

the situation in the '30s with today.

Well, my honourable friend makes a very good point. It is not the same.

Perhaps the one comparison one might make is the cop decisions stiemss of

the camps -- conditions sometimes of the camps in the region, and there

where there is a terrible situation, in some of the camps, is where we

should put all our effort to make sure that we take the children that

we can from that most vulnerable area.

Thank you. Tens of thousands of refugees stranded in Greece,

including hundreds of unaccompanied children are living in appalling

conditions and face immense suffering. Last year the Government

only took five children from there and none under D dubs. What will the

Government do to seek out those who could benefit from the transfers? I

can tell the honourable gentlemen we do have staff in the region to see

which children might qualify under the amendment but also to see which

children might been able to qualify under the Dublin regulations. We are

looking to make sure we assist the children in Greece and Italy that we

can. Thank you Mr Speaker. Whilst the

amendment is one part of the overall strategy on refugees, would my Right

Honourable friend agree with me that the UK's record on the full strategy

has been exemplary and our biggest humanitarian contribution in our

history? My honourable friend is absolutely right. The UK has stepped

upfy Annan Shali and with sup-- financially and with support for

refugees. Half of which will be children. He and the rest of the

country can be proud of the UK's commitment to helping refugees and

the most vunable. Thank you -- Vulnerable. The Prime Minister never

misses an opportunity to tell us that she wants to see Britain as an

out-ward looking player with a global vision. This is an issue

where she would have the opportunity to demonstrate that this country's

global vision is about more than just trade deals. Limiting our

ambition to less than 1% of the desperate children who need to be

helped is not worthy of that vision. Will the Home Secretary look at the

way in which she uses the Dublin regulations? There are discretionary

clauses that could be used more effectively to identify children

with family links already in the UK. The fact is that until we had an

accelerated process and really lent in to identify children that

qualified under the Dublin arrangements into Calais, it was not

really working. The number of children being transferred under

Dublin pre--ously were very small. We managed to transfer nearly 600

under Dublin, the end last year and we will now, I now feel that the

Home Office and other associations, associated organisations with help

us deliver, have learnt how to make sure it operates better in the

future. I am confident that those numbers will improve going forward.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. A two-tire, in fact a multi-tire system in

response to refugees and asylum seeker is emerging with

incomprehensible contradictions. In order to live up to the well

deserved representation that we should be proud for, for those

fleeing war and persecution who see us as a place of safe haven and do

our best for the thousands arriving in Europe, desperate but with huge

potential to offer this country, will she appoint a minister for

refugees and integration? I have a substantial ministerial

team and an excellent Immigration Minister. I don't see the need at

the moment for extra ministers, but I will keep it under review. The UK

is helping the most vulnerable children in the region and it must

be the principal focus for us, but we should revise our approach only

after very careful thought. Can my right honourable friend confirmed

this announcement follows the career advice of our French friends and

allies? I can reassure my honourable friend that I work closely with my

European counterparts and particularly France because it is in

the camps in northern France that a lot of the young people arrive and

create this environment that is so difficult for them and difficult for

the local authorities as well. I will always work closely,

particularly with the French, to ensure our plans work with them.

Does the Minister agree that the secret to reform the system in this

country is a fair dispersal of refugees and asylum seekers? And

what she looked at the situation where my city is happy, with some

strains, to take hundreds of asylum seekers every year. There has never

been any asylum seekers welcome in the constituency of the present

Prime Minister, the past Prime Minister or the present Chancellor

of the Exchequer. I am proud that my constituency in Hastings and ride

does welcome asylum seekers. He is right, we need more constituencies

welcoming asylum seekers. Under the National transfer scheme which

allows councils to help other councils where a lot of these

children arrived, we are encouraging local authorities to step forward on

a voluntary basis so they can spread the support around. The fact is,

Kent had over 1000 children who arrived unaccompanied at one point.

We must do more to spread that out and I would urge members to speak to

the local authorities to take advantage of that. Those who traffic

and abuse young children across Europe really do need the modern

definition of evil people committing evil acts. What are the British

security services and police, together with our European

counterparts, doing to track down, arrest and prosecute these

perpetrators of evil? My honourable friend raises an important point. He

is absolutely right. The human trafficking and misery and abuse

that goes with it is something we will always make sure we combat and

I do work closely with my European counterparts to make sure that we

share information. Our own National Crime Agency work so that we have

serious organised crime groups carefully tracked and we have

Europol which works with ours with other European partners to make sure

we work across Europe to guard against the terrible damage that is

done by these people. I think the Home Secretary is a good person, so

I am not here today to make any personal attack on her, but I want

to ask her what signal she thinks this sense to the world in the wake

of the announcement last week from President Trump in a different

context? There are always those who will say, look after our own.

Charity begins at home. Britain first. America first. French first,

and so on. Does she really want us to be aligned with that sentiment,

or a different one? I would say to the honourable gentleman that we are

not saying we are closing the door, we are pulling up the drawbridge. We

are not saying that and I would urge him an honourable members across the

whole House not to fall into the trap of suggesting that we are not a

country that is welcoming of refugees, we are stepping up to our

obligations and supporting the money and with refugee programme is the

most vulnerable. I do not recognise the comparison he is making and I

hope that other members will share in that position. Like several other

members in this house I saw for myself the conditions in Calais and

can I thank my right honourable friend for the work she did to

transfer children with family in the UK from France to the UK. As she has

also said, in Kent we look after 1000 unaccompanied asylum seeking

children. Does she agree with me that when we welcome front of all

children to the UK we must make sure we can give them a genuine welcome,

that councils have the resources and capacity to look after them as well

as the British children in need of care? It is a good point and we are

fortunate that Kent dustup out because they so often take the brunt

and how to take the largest number of unaccompanied children. We do

need other councils to engage. We need to spread the responsibility

around, but she makes a good point about the need not to feel that this

is job done when we take the children in here. We need to have

care, time, money, professional support to look after these refugees

because they are children, they are here and we will make sure they are

looked after. I think the unfortunate remarks of the

honourable member for Lichfield, is it not the case that it was an act

of humanity that he referred to and it is no less now the same as far as

children are concerned? I think that people will use their own language,

Mr Speaker, but it seems clear to me that the most vulnerable place that

children are that we can help are from the region. We have agreed to

take 3000 of those children by 2020. We will be absolutely sticking to

that. We are also taking about half of the 20,000 coming from Syria by

2020 and that will be children. We will take as many children as we can

under the Dublin arrangement. British charities are working hard

on the ground in the Symbian region is helping people. All my right

honourable friend continued to support the work and continue to

tackle the people trafficking networks who are exploiting the

situation? He is right. British charities and British government is

the second-largest bilateral donor in the region. We work hard to make

sure part of the support we give does go to help children, help to

educate children, so we don't have a children that grows up without any

schooling. We are very focused on making sure we support the people

and children in the region as well as our obligations under refugee

arrangements. I'm genuinely struggling to understand how it

could possibly be in vulnerable loan children's 's interest for us not to

take more of them in. I don't understand what kind of leadership

this is. If we have compassion and humanity and the capacity to take in

more, why are we not doing so? Can I please ask the secretary of State to

take the feeling from the house today and think about changing the

decision she has made. I respect the honourable lady's views, but they

are different to the one we take and it's not because of a lack of

compassion, it's about trying to work out what is better those

children. She has vowed to acknowledge the point that several

members here have made and I have as well, that if we continue to take

numbers of children from European countries, particularly from France,

it will act as a magnet for the traffic that is. I wonder if she has

come across traffickers or children that have been trafficked? The

terrible crime, the danger done to lives. It is imperative that we take

action here to protect those children stop that crime and part of

our process is focusing on the most vulnerable from the region. We

should applaud all councils individuals and families who have

stepped up to the plate in assisting these honourable children. Camber

secretary of State clarify whether the capacity of councils across the

country to host these children has met, exceeded or disappointed the

government's expectations? My honourable friend is right. The part

of the proposal was to make sure the local authorities can support these

children. We need to make sure that when the children arrive there is

not a feeling of job done, rather they are supported to make sure they

have a good life here as well. We consulted with them, they come up

with a number of 400, but I'd like to remind the house that that is not

the total number that councils take in. We have an average of 3000

unaccompanied minors arriving in addition to that, councils

generously stepped forward to support them and we should thank

them for that. I am surprised the Home Secretary didn't understand the

depth of feeling in the house make a statement to the house on base

rather than putting it into a written ministerial statement

yesterday, but I wanted to say to her I am struggling to understand

how it is if you put a cap on the scheme of 350, that is not closing

the scheme? Perhaps the Home Secretary can explain that one more

time? In the act we were required by a date which is fast approaching to

name a number, having consulted with the local councils. We have now done

that. It remains at 150 transferred. At some point it will close, but it

is not closed yet because we still need to transfer 150 under the

amendment. My right honourable friend has already pointed out that

disparity there is in terms of dispersal of these honourable long

-- young children. What more can she do to ensure the children are

received across the country in a variety of local authorities said

they can have the opportunity of a life that we all want them to have?

A good question and I can say we have worked closely with local

authorities. People in my department have gone out, made presentations

across the country. We have had over 400 people attend them. We are

making sure local authorities are able to step up by making sure they

have sufficient support each if the young people, but can also see it as

something that represents the right thing to do when we are experiencing

so many problems from the region and refugees arriving here. So we are

working closely with local authorities on persuasion bases and

urging them to participate and the sign is more of them are stepping

up. When I spend time with my young niece and nephew I wonder what will

happen to them if they were in similar circumstances and I hope and

pray they will find a country of compassion and safety and that's

what we want for all young children across the world. However, can be

Home Secretary tell us what discussions she and her department

had with Lord Dubs and charities before making the decision? My

department meets regularly with children's charities and Lord Dubs.

When the former Prime Minister announced that Britain would take

20,000 Syrian refugees, West Yorkshire led the way in laying out

the scheme. -- West Oxfordshire. Whilst it is necessary that we take

in as many children that we can, it is important to ensure councils have

the capacity to help these families because we are constrained, not by

money, but by things like the availability of translators. It is a

helpful point from my honourable friend. The fact is we want to make

sure that the refugees who arrived here, children, families, adults,

are looked after in the best tradition of the UK. I'm delighted

to hear of his personal involvement and I have heard some fantastic

stories about local churches, local charities stepping up and making

sure that sometimes these frightened families are really well looked

after. I think we see sometimes, Mr Speaker, the really -- the best of

British families. We have been told that the scheme won't be close, just

capped. It seems that hearts are close. Is it not the case that what

we are being treated to is calculated in different just up as a

measure commitment. Will the government do more in both respect

of Dubs and Dublin? It's disappointing that the honourable

gentleman has clearly not heard a word I have said. The efforts of the

UK has gone through, the generosity from local authorities, the

International aid budget. This country is stepping up to its

responsibilities. Having been to a refugee camp on the Iraq border, I

am proud of Britain's because of response to a humanitarian crisis.

If communities and councils want to continue and take more vulnerable

young refugees in the future, will they be welcome to do so? We always

welcome initiatives from local councils to make sure we do look

after the refugees and the children who come over here and I would urge

any local authorities who think they can do more to get in touch with the

national transfer scheme to make sure they can support the councils

who sometimes having to have too many children in the area and long

for additional support. All French centres are closing and today in

this freezing weather there are children in Dunkirk with families in

this country who were hoping to be considered. Will then needs be

assessed if the Dubs scheme is not closed and if not, what she expect

what happened to them? The French have transferred the young people

and indeed all the people from the Calais camp to centres where they

were given beds and food so the applications for asylum could be

considered. She is right that there are some camps now beginning to form

in northern France and I am in constant touch with my French

counterparts. We are helping them with money, support to make sure

another camp does not emerge. The French have a responsibility for the

people the to allow them to apply for asylum in France where they

should do that. We will continue to monitor where we can help and we

will continue to act on Dublin arrangements.

There will always be some who say charity begins at home. He is right.

The important thing is that charity does not stop at home. It never has

in this country and never will be. Which is why I applaud the comments

made which the Home Secretary, recognising the work being done and

will go on being done to help children and refugees from Syria in

general. I thank Gloucestershire County Council and today there have

been some very personal comments made, which I regret from the

honourable member about the Home Secretary. Surely it is time all

members of this House realise whatever our differences of opinion

about the right way forward, everybody and particularly ministers

in the department responsible start from the same position of wanting to

do the best thing. Well, I thank my honourable friend

for his comments and of course it is disappointing when people don't

recognise that we are both sharing an ambition of compassion but we

have a different strategy for delivering on that.

Thank you Mr Speaker. I have to say to the Home Secretary, I think many

in this House have listened to what she said with total disbelief. We

cannot understand, given the intensity of the decision kugs and

debate -- discussion and debate around an amendment made by this

House that the Home Secretary has come forward with a closure of that

scheme. A number well below what any of us would have expected. Does she

not agree where me that the reality will be that many children across

Europe, in desperate need l be left with no hope? No. I do not agree

with him. We have communicated to the French, to other Europe pine

countries what our plan is. And we have discussed with them what is the

best for these children as well I think he fails to understand, he

fails to listen, as so many members have, to the points I am making

about how these children are made vulnerable and what is in their best

interest. I respectfully ask him to reconsider that very high moral tone

that he is taking. We are doing what we believe is best for those

children. He may not agree with it. The honourable lady may say you are

not, you are not. But we are doing what we believe is best. I recognise

he has a different position. I ask him to reconsider his language. The

THE SPEAKER: The capacity of the honourable laider to chunter is not

in doubt. But she should desist. I politely say to her as she's a

supporter of West Ham and, well, anyway, she represents, well, I'm

glad she's an Arsenal supporter, but she represents... She still

shouldn't Chunter. What she could do is blow some bubbles and find it is

therapeutic! We have consulted local authorities on capacity. It is clear

there is the capacity to support the children we intend to take from

Calais as well as continuing to meet our other commitments. I find it

unbelievable that councils would only be willing to take an average

of two children each. Can I ask the Home Secretary, as I asked all local

authorities individually, how many children they could take? Did the

Home Office suggest numbers to each of them? No, Mr Speaker. We did not

suggest numbers to the councils. We set out for them what the challenges

were. What our payments were, which had been increased by 20% on one

scale and 28% on another. So, under 16s were to get ?41,000 of support a

year. Over 16s, ?33,000. We urge councils and we work with them and

we did presentations around the country and they came back to us

with this proposed number. I repeat, accepting the children is one thing,

having the capacity and indeed the confidence to look after them is

what we urge local authorities to think about. And can I say I would

like to share particular thanks to the Scottish authorities, who did so

much to accept particularly the vunlable young women who were moved

from Calais. And they are now making their life in Scotland and we are

very grateful for that. Contrary to what the Secretary of

State seems to believe civil society in my constituency and I am sure

many others are to help the children. I visited St Christopher's

fellowship which took in 30 of the children last year and refugees

welcome which sources accommodation for refugees. They want to do their

bit. Why want her Government? Well, we are very grateful for the work

that Hammersmith has done. I would urge them to consider taking

children who are just as vulnerable from the national transfer scheme.

It is not just from Calais but from the national transfer who need help.

I would urge him to that that conversation as well.

The closure of the scheme will affect the most vulnerable refugees

who have been per cent suited -- persecuted, 90% of who are. Many who

have been in the United Kingdom. Given the UK's role in Iraq over the

last decade, is this where our legacy of aiding and assisting Iraqi

citizens ends? Well, the UK position on aiding refugees from the region,

which is what I think he's asking about, is very strong and it is

added to by the fact that we have one of the largest aid donation

plans in the world, that our point seven commitment and the ?2.3

billion that goes into the region. I think he should join me in being

proud of the commitment, the financial support we give to the

region to make sure we do look after the vulnerable people. I think seen

at first-hand the work my local community has done to assist

refugees. But what sort of moral and political lead does she think the

Government is giving by only doing the bear minimum under the scheme I

identify what the Government and -- I wouldn't identify it as the bare

minimum. We are taking 20,000 vulnerable citizens by 2020. And we

are making sure that we give them thefy than shall support that they

need. I don't recognise the honourable gentleman's

characterisation. Thank you, Mr Speaker. As others have already

said, the Home Secretary says the scheme is not closed, but the UK

needs to send out a strong message against the pool factor. Both these

statements can not be correct. She says she's working with the

intention of the dubs scheme. If that is the case, can she confirm

what she's doing to confirm council authorities to take in more

children, rather than hide behind the excuse that ka passty is already

reached -- capacity is already reached? There is no hiding. We have

another 150 children who will be transferred over the next period

under the Dubs agreement. We are working closely with local

authorities to ensure they have the support for the children that they

have said they will take. I would add that we already have

approximately 3,000 children unaccompanied who arrive a year,

which in addition to the Dubs commitment, local authorities work

with us, through the national transfer scheme, to ensure they look

after. What assessment has been made of the

numbers of children in Greece and Italy, many of whom were working

with charities that belief they would be eligible for the Dubs

commitment? How many of these children will now not be eligible? I

cannot answer how many children will or won't belible until those

assessments have been made. I can say that having accepted 200

children under the Dubs amendment, there'll be another 150. And in

addition to that, we will continue to assess the children to see if

they arelible for the -- are eligible for the Dubs arrangements.

Talk of numbers, was surely the message is whether a children is

vulnerable. On the bigger picture I have visited seven refugee camps. I

want to ask this, there a east a disparity between poor standards and

high standards and the Government seem to do inning to help these

people. One camp is of a very high standard and provides good

education. Some of the other camps are exceedingly poor. What is she

doing and her Government to sort out the people living in these camps and

to help this problem? Well, we do work closely with the organisations

that run some of these camps. I absolutely recognise that they are

of a different standard, but the UK is stepping up with financial

commitment of ?2.3 billion to make sure that we do help make those

camps somewhere where families can exist, where children the be taught.

So I want the honourable gentleman to be in no doubt, we do lean in to

make sure we acyst in the vast movement of people taking place --

we do assist in the vast movement of people taking place in the region.

My understanding as chair of the all party group for disability is the

most vulnerable children, including those with dacts are to be

prioritised. What number of children can disabilities have arrived? What

are the arrangements for vulnerable children who are left behind? I do

say to the honourable lady, that particularly in the clearance of the

Calais camp we were determined to prioritise the most vulnerable,

which is why we moved to remove a lot of the girls and young women who

we believed and the evidence suggested were most vulnerable to

being trafficked. We do prioritise the young people who are more likely

to be vulnerable. In terms of the numbers on the actual amount of

disabled people transferred, I don't have that information. I will

endeavour to have it and come back to her. I know of just one Christian

charity in London housing over 30 children, which appears to be 10% of

the entire national effort. Many faith communities are willing to

step up to what we would like the Government to do themselves. If they

want to do more, will the Home Secretary let them? There is still

plenty of need for support from community organisations like

churches. I have met with several as well that are doing their bit to

welcome families to look after children. I would urge the

honourable gentleman to get in touch through the national transfer scheme

or through my office and we will work loosely to ensure any community

groups which think they can support families or children are able to do

so. I am glad to hear there's going to

be another 150 children coming to the UK under this scheme before it

closes. But can the Secretary of State tell the House, is she able to

look the 150 first child in the -- 150th child in the eye and say, no?

I wonder how the lady would feel about the children from the region?

The children in the camps - they are not in France, not in Italy, they

are the ones in the camps, where the conditions are much, much worse. How

would she feel about looking them in the eye?

Is this not a shameful betrayal, not just of the thousands of children

being secured a future but the tens of thousands of constituents who

signed letters in support of the Dubs amendment. No-one is suggesting

this country is not welcoming of refugees, but it increasingly

appears the Government isn't. I would urge the honourable gentleman

perhaps to correct any misunderstandings that anybody has

got. The fact is, we have stuck to the agreement in the Dubs agreement.

We were obliged to put out a number, having consulted with local

authorities. Perhaps he would consider putting out a message to

constituents so they are clear that the Government is stepping up to

commitments. Is taking 2000 by 20 -- 20,000 by 2020. We are proud of our

response. Mr Speaker, last week I met with a tech company, whose staff

volunteered to create a digital classroom project for 150 children

at a camp in Dunkirk. These children are stuck there. Why is it that

everybody in this country seems to be willing to do something to help,

organisations, companies, individuals, what signal does it

send out that the Government is not meeting its commitments The

honourable lady should be clear the Government is meeting its

commitments. And it is exceeding them. In terms of the aid that we

give to the region of ?2.3 billion. In terms of making sure we bring

over from the region the most vulnerable. 20,000 by 2020. Most of

all, most of all, making sure that the children who arrive here are

looked after. They are given the support, they are often from

vulnerable areas and we ensure that the local authorities have that. We

should be proud of our response. Before we proceed to business

question, I would like to congreat late the member from new port West

on his 82nd birthday and on reaching the mid-point of his parliamentary

career. Business