Syrian Refugee Crisis Committee Select Committees

Order, order. One of the things we are trying to do as a committee is

to follow up our earlier reports, and our first published report of

this Parliament was on the issue of the Syria refugee crisis, and this

is actually the second follow-up session that we have done, delighted

to be welcomed by our first panel of witnesses this morning, Lord dubs,

and Beth. The public session is for about an hour and a half this

morning, we will spend 45 minutes with our first panel and 45 with the

second panel. We have nine questions to deal with, so it is roughly five

minutes per question if we stick to that. If I can ask the first

question, and please introduce yourselves in responding. Do you

think the Government has gone back on a commitment it made to you on

child refugees? Yes, afterwards. When the immigration act went

through, the then Minister, James Brogan show, told me that the

Government intended to accept the letter of the amendment. It started

very slowly because of the situation in Calais. And then the Government

did two things, it announced its eligibility criteria for France, and

they pretty well stop a lot of the children from being able to come, to

remind you, the criteria said very little -- very young children or

women who had been subject to sexual attacks and harassment. And so only

children from Syria and Saddam, thereby excluding Ethiopia,

Afghanistan and so on. And we thought that was pretty bad. And

then more recently the Government said that having taken 200 under

that process, they would be stopping the whole thing by the end of March

by which time they would be 350. I can give you the reasons... Well, at

the time they said two things, I thought that was a breach of what

the Parliament decided. What they said, to things summery: one is they

wanted to stop the scheme because it encouraged trafficking. To which I

would say emphatically not, where there are legal powers to safety,

traffickers do not get a way in. But we know from elsewhere that

traffickers do best when they have no legal powers to safety. And the

second point, the Government said that local authorities were no

longer able to provide foster places. Well, I think there is a

grave misunderstanding on the part of the Home Office if they actually

believe that, because I've known local authorities leaders who say

they are happy to take more. And indeed up and down the country. I'm

not saying all local authorities can, and they have financial

difficulties, but in principle local authorities have said they can do

more. So on both counts, I think the Government are wrong. We are going

to report does not return to those issues, but Wendy. Good morning,

Lord Dubs. We've talked a little bit about 350 figure. I just wanted to

ask you, do you acknowledge though that the 350 figure is an additional

figure for capacity for local authorities, on top of the about

5000 that they welcome every year through existing schemes, and

through presentations at our own borders? Yes, it was always intended

to be an additional scheme. That was the basis of the amendment to the

immigration act. At that time we understood from save the children

that up to 95,000 unaccompanied child refugees to Europe. And the

idea was that we would take some of them. A figure of 3000 was based on

what our share would be, other than estimates of 2000 to 5000. The 3000

figure had to be adopted when it went to the Commons. The Government

chose not to wave financial privilege, so we had to adopt the

3000 figure. But the 350, well... I think 3000 figure was still a figure

which people understood as having been in the original amendment. I

don't think 350 was anywhere near the commitment that Parliament felt

was being made at the time, nor indeed did the Government think of

the time. But it was on top of the 5000 that generally XP -- speaking

we accept each year. Well, they were not necessarily from Europe, and

there was a difference between those we take from Europe, the subject of

my amendment, and those we take from elsewhere. And of the ones on the

amendment, some will have come illegally. In Calais I spoke to some

Afghan boys, and I took their details back to the Home Office,

because they all seemed to qualify, and by the following week three of

them had got over on the back of a truck. Very dangerous indeed. And on

the 9th of February the Home Secretary said that the Home Office

meets with you on a regular basis alone with children's charities.

Have you, in those meetings, been given any sort of assurances about

the numbers that the British would take? Well, I have met Theresa May

when she was Home Secretary twice in the course of the passing of the

amendment. I've met the Lords and ministers as well, and more recently

I've been having fairly regular meetings with Baroness Williams in

the Lords. And I'd also had meetings with other ministers, to do with an

amendment -- a possible amendment to the children's Bill, and the

Government actually improved upon the amendment I had put down there.

As regards figures, we have discussed with ministers the figure,

and which -- I have asked why there was so little prose -- progress, and

clearly there were difficulties between our authorities and the

French authorities. And I'm not in a position to know who was most at

fault, I think at one time the French were, and at other times the

British. But there was a lack of access to refugees in Calais. I

think there is better access to refugees in Greece for example.

Thank you very much indeed. Pauline. Lord Dubs, are you -- do you think

the option for resettling in the UK through immigration act provisions

is now closed. And do you think there is any prospect of more

children beyond the 350 still to come to the UK under your amendment,

bearing in mind that, as Wendy said, we are already taking about 5000

additional children anyway? Well, it is my understanding that the

Government have said the scheme is closed, it is my belief it should

not be closed, and all I can say is there is a lot of pressure outside

Parliament that we should continue to press the Government. But what I

think should happen is this. I think the Government should keep the

scheme open, but accept children under section 67, at the speed which

would local authorities can provide places. So that there is no pressure

to find places where local authorities feel they can't. Local

authorities can come forward, and they need to be asked about this.

Then we should accept them, to keep the scheme going. I think that would

be in the spirit of the amendment, and also in the interests of

children. So how many children do you estimate on top of the 350 would

still be eligible to come to the UK under the terms of your amendment?

In other words, children that arrived in Europe before the EU-

Turkey deal on the 20th of March last year. In a macro I can't give

precise estimates, -- we think there are about 2500 unaccompanied

children, there is a much larger number of children in Italy, but

they are a bit scattered in Italy and not so easy to pin down. And of

course there are still those in France who have worked their way

from where the friends relocated them back to the Channel coast,

which is quite alarming. -- the French relocated them. I can say all

2500 will be eligible; there might be other considerations, but sadly

2500 is the figure we are working to. We've done an assessment, and

it's by no means compensate, but from that assessment we believe that

roughly half of the children of the unaccompanied -- the unaccompanied

children in Greece, would have family elsewhere in Europe and

therefore it would not be in their best interest to necessarily

transfer to the UK. But that still leaves well over 1000 unaccompanied

children, many of whom don't have access to the accommodation

shelters, and therefore I speak -- sleeping rough and in informal camps

and in serious vulnerability. Could you tell me what your definition of

children is? What other ages? They are up to 18. So although

technically they are children, they are actually mainly teenagers who

are unaccompanied? And mainly boys? If I could just come back one step.

We have the children coming under section 67, but we also had what we

call the W three children, that is a Europe wide achievement whereby

children can be, if they are family members they can be reunited with

their family members. That might mean that the family members are in

Germany or wherever, but there are those children as well. Now, as far

as their ages are concerned, my understanding is that when the

original controversy arose because of apparently older Afghan boys,

they were not under section 60 seven. -- 67. I defended it by

saying that if one of them is 19 instead of 17, OK, the world does

not come to an end. But it did affect public opinion, and one of

things I was keen on was that public opinion should be on our side in all

this. So it was not good for public opinion to have the accusation that

they were all older, but in fact the ones that came under section 607I

understand we are all much younger, girls and so on. -- section 67. But

the original was not a successful public relations thing. But much

younger, do you mean three or four-year-old? As I understand the

youngest unaccompanied child was eight years old in the camp. So

there are very young children in the camp. But that's unusual. It wasn't

the normal? It certainly isn't the average age of unaccompanied

children in Europe. It is obviously quite a harrowing journey that they

undertake to get a Europe, so a child arriving here at eight years

old, we would seriously question how they got here. And it's likely to be

through trafficking and people smugglers. It's not the average age

profile, but children are children until they are 18. That is what we

have in UK law. And there are varying degrees of vulnerability to

do with mental health issues, to do with trauma, that we would all

recommend them for the section 67 process, if they are highly

vulnerable. As a 17-year-old, we would still consider that a good

case to be transferred to the UK. Typically we are talking older than

eight. We are probably talking about 12, 14, 16 years probably.

Thank you. Thank you very much Lord Dubs for

coming to the committee. You said in answer to Mr Latham's question, you

consider the Dubs arrangement closed.

I didn't, the Government considered the scheme closed.

Fine. I am looking at what Amber Rudd, the

Home Secretary said, that: The Dubs amendment is not closed. Why do you

belief that the opposite is the case? That was said at some point in

early March, I think. . My understanding is that the

scheme what was to be closed at the end of March, by which a further 150

would have been taken on top of the 200, 150 mainly from Greece. But the

Government said 350, and then it would be closed. That is my

understanding. Wendy? I was thinking of a

clarification, the issue of age and the point that Lord Dubs made that

is helpful to get the indication that 12, 14, 16 is the typical age,

rather than younger children. I think so. It is very difficult if

they are very young to have made their way halfway across the world.

So they have to have been a bit older to manage it.

And you mentioned your contacts with the local authority leaders, do you

have a sense of the sorts of numbers that the local authorities are

prepared to take? Not easily. Many local authorities, I have to say,

I've been in touch with parties in Scotland and politicians in Scotland

more optimistic about the numbers than the officials, not

surprisingly. I've been told some of the London local authorities and

second hand, I have heard from others. We are talking about a small

number per local authority. But it adds up.

Definitely. I have to say that Hammersmith

council, where I live, I know them well, they have certainly stepped up

to the mark very much and are willing to take more and I've been

assured that they will do that. Can I coming from this morning and

for remembering where you came from. The criticisms of the politicianses

is that they park their life stories and it is very important that your

commitment to this is as a person that is in this country because we

had a view of the way we treat these refugees and I thank you for the

service you have done to our country.

On a specific question, the FT suggested that the reason for the

Government shift in opinion is that public opinion changed. In the

spring there was a great deal of public support and sympathy, in

relation to child refugees for what we know in terms of the horrendous

imagery. But there is a sense that the public opinion shifted and now

Government believes there is a greater political cost in taking the

refugees, than not taking the refugees. What is your judgment

about whether that is Government's view that the public opinion shifted

and do you believe that it shifted? Thank you for what you said. I think

public opinion in so far as I can judge it is still on the side of our

taking child refugees. Why do I say that? I say it on the basis of a

large number of e-mails and letters that I have had. Mostly in favour,

few opposed. I say it on the basis of when I go to localas to speak

about this, I get the sense there is quite a lot of support. I would have

thought given the sensitivity of anything to do with immigration at

all, I would have thought if there was hostility it would have hit me

hard, people would have told me. That's the feeling I have got. The

people I have spoken to say that they feel the same thing. These may

be the people that I mix with, maybe not the most objective judges but I

am confident that public opinion still believe it is is good to take

unaccompanied child refugees. I think there is a substantive issue,

we focussed on that so far. There is also the question of the

relationship between the executive and Parliament. We reached the

decision and inclusions in different ways. This was unusual as it was

based on verbal assurances that ministers gave to you but also

repeated in the House of Commons, in the House of Lords.

What's been subs scently said, really, is that you and others

misunderstood the assurance that was given about this particular category

of unaccompanied child refugees. How do you feel about that assertion? In

your own mind was it absolutely clear the assurances you were given

privately and in public in terms of the Government accepting the 3,000

figure? Is there room for am big youity? There is room for am big

youity of the 3,000 figure. We didn't have a figure. On the other

hand in my earlier discussions with government ministers there was no

sense that they would stop at that point. Of course, they wanted the

scheme not to last indefinitely. But I have to say I was quite surprised

as well as being dismayed when the figure became 350. Look, may I

repeat, James brokenshire, a decent man, gone to Northern Ireland, of

course, he assured me on the phone that the Government would accept the

letter and the spirit of the amendment. I heard it repeated on

the floor of the Lord's and no doubt in the Commons. I took that to mean

that they would not arbitrarily close it down so quickly. I was

shocked. Nearer the time I was getting hints that they were trying

to find a way of bringing it to an end. But can I expand, I try to

understand when I disagree with the Government, and politically, I am

bound to be in that position but at least I understand why they are

doing what they are doing even if I don't agree, in this case I honestly

don't understand why they have done this. We are talking about small

numbers. We know if we take children fewer of them are trafficked. At the

time of the Jungle, the more that came legally, the less came on the

back of a truck, so I don't understand in my heart of hearts why

Government decided to close it down this way. They could have easily

have kept it going for a bit longer and taken more.

When we reported on the Syrian crisis in January 2016 we recognised

many of the unaccompanied children in Europe from not from Syria. Of

the 750 children that came to UK from the Calais Jungle, ten came

from Syria. So is it right that we concentrate on the right of children

to come from Syria in the vulnerable settlement scheme? It is right that

more of the children and others in the Jungle, I was there twice, were

from Afghanistan, Ethiopia and so on. In Greece there are more Syrians

it is the nature of the geographical proximity.

So I, my feeling is that there is a need to look after an unaccompanied

child refugee and the Syrians play a large part in that but they are not

the only part it in. Sometimes we can get hung up on age. As a mother

of two children, whether whether they were aged 8, 10, 12, 14, I

would not want them unaccompanied in Europe. I think that children are

vulnerable whatever age. As chair of the disability of the party group

I'm interested in the resettlement, the vulnerable disable children, it

has been reported that UNHCR has been asked to temporarily limit the

request of disability children, so do you have any knowledge of how

children with disability are being reprocessed under the scheme? I saw

the article, I'm dismayed that we cannot take at least some of the

disabled children, as I thought that my approach to it was to take

vulnerable children and here are some of the most vulnerable. I don't

know if Beth can talk about that? This is a UNHCR programme but our

thought is that these are children at risk. And therefore children

should not be ruled out simply for having a disability because of a

capacity issue. That commitment was cast-iron it would be 3,000 children

at risk transferred it is deeply disappointing if that is the case.

We were told by people working in Calais and elsewhere, that when they

get to safety, say, in this country, that they will be shocked and

traumatised by the experiences but that they may not be visible,

obvious but what happened inside, they could be in turmoil after their

experience. There was one Syria who had seen his father killed in front

of him in Damascus. We were aware of that. That requires more, eve

finance they are not handicapped as you required but it requires help

and support and it is harder for the local authorities. But the local

authorities I spoke to understand that. If they are fostered, and in

the first time for years they have a loving home and environment, that

they will be vulnerable. This shows more when they are in the camps and

they have to put a tough ex-steer yore on them.

When I visited the camps in Lebanon, some of the children were so

traumatised that they could not speak for weeks, eve months, that

they required intensive support. That is something that we

understand. Do you know how many children with disabilities have come

to the UK from Europe. It is something that I asked Amber Rudd on

the floor of the house and was guaranteed she would write to me but

I have not had a response. We don't know.

So it may be that vulnerable children with disabilities are

falling through the gaps in terms of the system at this point in time

without the figures? Judging by that article in the Independent, yes,

they may well be. There was a mention of children

getting to Italy but they only felt safe when they came to this country.

Now I have great difficulty understanding that query. I didn't

think Italy was an unsafe place to be. But I wonder if you can

acknowledge weather rescuing 10,000-plus children from Syria,

from war-torn Syria, is much more akin to the kinder transport than

bringing children from peaceful allies in mainland Europe? Italy is

a peaceful country. People from this country wouldn't go on holiday every

year if they didn't feel it peaceful? So why is it you feel that

the children who are in Italy cannot be safe until they get to England?

It's the only safe place in the whole of Europe is to come here? I

just don't understand that rational? Can I deal with that... Look, first

of all, I never said we should take them all. Indeed, the 3,000 figure

in the amendment can be seen in the context of 95,000 unaccompanied

children. That was not the question to be

fair. I am saying why is not Italy not seen as a safe place, or Greece,

when actually thousands and thousands of people from this

country go on holiday to these European countries? Why are they

only safe when they come to Britain? It's the only safe place in the

whole of Europe, is it? I'm sure they are safe in Sweden, Germany.

But not Italy? Greece I can speak about. I have been to the camps in

Greece in January. I could see the people there and to meet them.

I think that the difficulty is that even in Italy, it is alleged by

Interpol that 10,000 of the unaccompanied children had just

disappeared. There are no, there are few in camps in Italy, they are

adrift anywhere in Italy. Italy is a wonderful country, of course but if

you are on your own, you are a child and vulnerable to criminality, being

taken into prostitution, so on, it is pretty difficult. All I felt was

that we should play our part in finding safety. The majority, I dare

say, will stay in Italy but we felt we should take some of them, Greece,

Italy and France were the obvious places.

And Italy, the sheer numbers of children in those countries, it is

not about saying take them all here, they are not safe in Italy but the

sheer volume of numbers in Greece and Italy, merits us taking a small

proportion. 3,000 is a small proportion.

In the camps in Greece, the situation is pretty desperate. The

temperatures are minus 12. They are on industrial estates. They are

warehouses. There is no proper heating. It is a pretty desperate

situation. To be an unaccompanied child in that situation is awful.

Even though Greece can be wonderful for a holiday.

As can Italy. I'm sure that some will find safety in France, some in

Italy, some in Greece but in the Greece in particular, the Greek

authorities are under pressure. They are finding it difficult to cope

with it all and are not getting as much international help as perhaps

they should. So we know that roughly 25,000

unaccompanied child refugees arrived into Italy last year. Of those, only

just over 2000 of them made it into the formal care system in Italy. So

that means the vast majority of the children don't have access to care,

and are then traffic on through or, you know, taken by the people

smugglers to find somewhere that will give them accommodation and

safe protection. And they are at huge risk of traffickers and

exploitation in that process. But in Italy now you say just under 5000

unaccompanied children are in care currently in the UK; Italy is now

dealing with 14,000 in their country, and Britain last year had

roughly 4% of the unaccompanied children arrive in the UK, largely

through some spontaneous means. So it is a tiny fraction of the larger

issue, it is certainly not all of the children, but it is really a

mixture of access to the care and protection. -- issue of access. Most

children don't have access to that. Wendy. In terms of schemes, another

focus of this morning is very much around your scheme, I touched on the

5000 but regularly come through other schemes. I just wondered what

your thoughts are on the Middle East and north Africa scheme, which

settles about 3000 children. If that's something you welcome?

Because that is separate to Dubs. Of course I welcome that, and 20,000

scheme. I think they are all positive and good. I would like the

20,000 scheme to be a bit larger, but I think these are all positive

ways people can find safety. I think they add up to a decent policy, but

on a smaller scale than I would like Nigel. Good morning. How much do you

think the photograph of that absolutely tragic four-year-old

child was a game changer in public opinion getting behind, wanting to

see more child refugees being admitted? I think it was. I've had

misquoted so many times by people who said they were shocked. But can

I say, in addition to that of course, we saw photographs on our

television screens of boats in the Mediterranean of people thinking and

so on, and I think what it does was it wakened up a humanitarian

instinct in our people, and people felt they had to do something. And

then along came a child refuge -- the child refugee issue. I think we

just thought we are in a country could do something. Of course that

is the photograph we saw, so many thousands of other issues --

incidents where we know it is happening on a daily basis. And I

think that has been an important factor in public opinion, staying on

the side even though public opinion may not generally be sympathetic to

increased immigration I think that has helped to inform public opinion

and get it staying in support. What was your reaction then when the Home

Secretary said, but if we go a long with the Dubs amendment it is

actually acting as a pull factor, enticing more people to make those

journeys? I think there is very hard -- very little hard evidence they

would do that. The Government said the cut off date is 20th of March,

and children had to be in Europe before then to qualify, there might

be something in it but I don't think there is much in the argument. I

think these are more spontaneous movements, for safety and so on,

aided and abetted by traffickers quite often. Do you think enough is

being done to tackle the problem of traffickers? It isn't, but it is

extremely difficult. Everybody's tried. I suppose -- for example I

was on one of our subcommittees in the Lords, and we looked at

operation Safir, which was clearly intended to catch traffickers. It

did nothing of the sort. Our navies didn't go to Libyan territorial

waters, so traffickers had a field day. -- operation Sofia. -- our

navies could go. So operation Sofia saved a lot of lives, but it didn't

catch any traffickers, and I think we can only do that if we get an

agreement to do something in Libya itself, because the traffickers are

operating in the safety of Libya. Do you think it is more effective for

us to spend our aid money on support for these youngsters in the region,

or indeed those who had made the tortuous journey to actually support

them in the countries where they first round, as opposed to bringing

them to their leftist kingdom? I think as members of this committee

you will know better than I do that there are technical regions where

aid money should not be used in Europe. But it certainly can be used

in the region. -- technical reasons. Do you think that is more effective

to to spend the money there to make sure they do not make torture and

experience? I know we are a generous donor in terms of supporting the

region, and I think that is a very good thing. And I hope our money is

being spent effectively there, yes. But there are still other issues

when they get to Europe. Final question, Lord Dubs. Are we doing

enough? I don't think so, we are a risk -- rich country, and as long as

public opinion stays with us in terms of doing this, then I think we

could be doing a lot more, and as long as local authorities are

willing to work -- help, yes, we could do more. Wendy. We have

mentioned different schemes this morning, I wanted to ask you, well,

both of you actually, if the Government takes no more children

through Dubs, what do you think consequences would be? Bearing in

mind there are other schemes. Well, there is not much to help in the

camps in Greece, and there are not much to help in Italy where I think

the children are on the whole spread over Italy and heaven knows where

they are, and heaven knows who is providing the safety of everybody.

-- of anybody. I fear they will stay in Greece, the situation is pretty

bad. There is an EU relocation scheme which works after a fashion,

but I heard of one man who was offered relocation to Bulgaria, but

the part he said I would be leaving a cab in Greece for a camp in

Bulgaria, where there are no job opportunities either. So I think

they would stay there, and as many as possible will drift. Some have

got to Serbia where the conditions are as bad as anywhere, I

understand. I've not been there. And they will try and make it to Serbia,

but most of the Borders are now closed, and there are very few ways

out. From Italy I think they can move more easily. And I guess they

will just move along and try and find some work, and some will get

Channel coast. I think just to just to add to what Lord Dubs said, in

France we are seeing the consequences already of the closure

of this game, and the failure to properly implement... Of 60s --

Section 67, of the Dubs scheme. Yesterday we found out that another

unaccompanied child had died. He is the fifth child now to have died,

trying to reach the UK. He died trying to climb on the back of a

lorry on a busy motorway. And this is the consequence of closing down

safe and legal routes to protection for these children, they will find

other means, they do not feel safe where they are currently. They have

no access to former accommodation and care, and therefore they will

take crazy risks because their -- they are children, they are

teenagers, and they don't always make the most rational decisions. So

I think we will see more children falling into the hands of

traffickers and people smugglers and more children dying.

Clearly nobody wants to hear the tragic stories that you've just

shared with us this morning. But do not think it would be better,

because clearly those children, those teenagers moving across Europe

for a better life, and I don't blame anyone for wanting to improve their

outlook and their livelihood. But do not think it would be better to go

back to source, and help at source, and by doing that, to try and

mitigate some of that risk of trafficking, and the movement as

well? Rather than coming up with more and more schemes that are

schemes which... It worries me that it does encourage them. Blue -- I am

optimistic about the capacity we have as a country to help.

And we've done so before, we have 10,000 children from Europe -- had

10,000 children in the 1930s. The children are here now in Europe,

they are vulnerable, and we know often where these children are. We

have a handle on them right now. But if we do not offer them safe and

legal routes to protection, if we do not offer them places in the care

system, they will simply disappear. That what happened last year when

Europe also 10,000 children were missing. It will happen again if

these routes are not available. -- row attempt to -- Europol.

We know that a lot of our local authorities are taking the brunt of

this particularly in the south-east children first woman to the UK. Do

feel that were extra capacity is found, there should be a priority to

at least help those local authorities that have... Are dealing

with these high numbers, to help them to move some of those children

around the UK first, to try and alleviate some of the pressures of

those authorities that we know are in some cases struggling? I think

everybody is aware of the situation in Kent. It's very tough. And I

don't think any of the Section 67 children should go to Kent. And it

did the Government as a relocation scheme, and I think some of the

pressure on Kent should be lessened. -- and indeed. I think that should

be part of the process, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the

Section 67 children who are still some -- somewhere in Europe, or at

least some of them. Beth, that child that you cited, was that child, do

we know he was eligible for the Dubs scheme? We believe he could have

been under the criteria just published on Friday, the revised

criteria for 67. -- Section 60 seven. He was transferred out of the

Calle jungle into one of the centres, and then he was from

Afghanistan and not under the age of 15 and therefore told that he wasn't

eligible at the time for the Dubs Amendment. Now we believe he

probably would have been under the revised amendments. He had been in

the Calle jungle before then. -- Calle. -- Calais. You've obviously

had the conversation with Hammersmith Council, they say they

believe they've got capacity for more. Have they made that case to

the Home Office themselves? Yes, I have seen letters from the leader of

the council to the Home Office about this, and indeed other councils are

willing as well. I know Ealing... Service is formal representations

that have been made? Well, certainly from Hammersmith, and I understand

other councils have gone public. Whether they have all written to the

Home Office I don't know... Do you know if that was done before the

announcement or after the announcement, the announcement about

the 350 children? Well, there is a lot of discussion as to the nature

of the Home Office consultation, and it is the subject of a judicial

review going on in the High Court at the moment, as to how well the Home

Office did the consultation and I think one can be a bit critical that

some of it was such a low-key manner that local authorities might have

responded better if there had been a more passionate plea from the Home

Office. But be that as it may, my understanding is that Hammersmith

offered all along, and they redoubled their efforts when the

scheme was closed. I think I've got the sequence of events correct.

The leader of Hammersmith is one of a number of Government witnesses who

gave evidence to the Home Affairs committee on this issue on the 7th

of February. After the answer was made? Yes.

I'm pretty certain that some of the local authorities, they have said

absolutely that they are willing to take numbers, not large numbers...

Obviously what we are talking about, you said yourself about the

vulnerable nature of the children that would be coming across, the

things that they have seen, the trauma that they would have

suffered, that they would need specialist care. It is clear we need

that capacity before setting a figure, as it were and making sure

that happens. Yes.

Coming back to the factors that Mr Evans was talking about, I was in

Greece last year. You were having similar conversations about the fact

when the boats are coming across, a Navy cutter cuts them off, often

therein rately upturning the boat, tipping them into the water so they

are plucked out, some of the people I met in the hotspots in Lesbos, it

occurred to me that the conversations that we were having,

that their expectations were raced, so when you say that the Dubs

amendment had a specific cut off date, you thought there was no pull

factor but the details of that case may not be getting through to people

on the other side of Europe who are being fed stories by human

traffickers who had unrealistic expectations that they could leave

Lesbos to go to Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, not often the

UK but those other countries but then they found they were stuck in

Athens, Lesbos or some of the borders with Macedonia as they could

not get out of Greece? The 20th March was Government's date. It did

not come from me. But it was intended to lessen the eligibility

for the scheme so that others would not come along.

I honestly don't know. There is a view that Britain is a

great country, which it is but there is a view among these people that it

is also good. I have spoken to people in the Jungle asking why they

don't want to come to England, what about claiming asylum in France, and

quite a few of them in the end decided to do that. But I think

there was a problem. I asked some if they had been approached in the

early days in the Jungle by officials who told them their rights

under the Geneva Convention, and so on, they said they had not. If they

don't, then the people traffickers say that the only way out is to go

to England. So we should give more information to the people in the

Jungle, that should be happening in other camps as well.

So finally, were you aware of work being done in Calais to avoid

trafficking that maybe specifically UK-funded or supported? No.

We know that 90 million pounds was spent in the last two years on

Calais but that was spent on the wall and on defence and there was

only one official ever appointed to work in France on Dublin and Dubs

cases. So the imbalance of the spending is pretty clear, I think.

Final question, Lisa? Thank you, you recently travelled to Greece, what

did you find there and was assistance provided to children to

apply for Dubs or Dublin transfers to the UK, evidence of aid money and

did you find any child specialists working there. A long question, I

know! Oh! Certainly at the British embassy, there is one woman whose

job is specifically to work on this but it is only one woman. A great

person but there should be more. The other questions... ? What did

you find in Greece? And did you see evidence of your aid money providing

sport? And what assistance provided for children applying for Dubs?

There was UK aid money but it was limited. There was accommodation

provided for #50 550 of the children but we know that there are several

thousand and there. That is time limited to a year. So there is a

problem there. What approaches were being made? Well, the Greek

authorities are talking to the children but at the point I was

there, there were not any from Greece under the scheme. So when the

government say that they will bring 150 in the month of March I'm not

sure how it is working. We are not aware of any children being

transferred from Greece. Not any at all? No.

Final word? I just to say thank you. I really appreciate the chance to be

here. I appreciate the committees showing interest. And I'm delighted

to tell you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good morning and welcome.

We have got 40-45 minutes and sixas that we are seeking to cover. You

heard the first evidence session. My colleague, Nigel Evans, made an

important point around the strength of the UK's investment in the

region, in the UK, second only to the US in support of refugees and

those in Syria in the region. Clearly we have been talking about

legal routes for refugees to come to the UK.

What, in terms of the refugee crisis in Syria keeps you up at night? What

do you think are the gaps in the system that should be of greatest

concern to us as the international development committee. Please

introduce yourselves when you answer.

I'm Melanie Teff with UNICEF UK, senior humanitarian and migration

advocacy and policy advisor. With regards to the funding it is true

that the UK funding both in regions of origin and also some of the

funding in Europe for refugee children has been extremely

important. It has, it is making a difference in

terms of improving physical conditions. I'm focussing on Europe

at this point. It is providing more shelter, places

for uncompanied children it is ensuring that children have access

to education and better protection mechanisms for children are being

developed. But there are still big gaps. We have been talking a bit

about Greece and Italy this morning. It's clear that the child protection

systems in these countries are really overwhelmed by the numbers

that arrived. What I look at is on the one hand

the physical conditions in accommodation and services, where

there have been some improvements but there are still big problems and

secondly about processing children's cases and finding solutions for

children. That is the second side of the equation. So on the first side,

I give the example of Greece, where there have been, there has been some

progress and looking a at the situation of uncompanied children,

UNICEF estimates about 20100 children unaccompanied from Greece

as at mid-February, and there is now a situation where more than half of

them have an official place in an official uncompanied children's

shelter but that means that there are still over 1,000 children

without a place in a shelter. Those children who are not in shelter,

what happens is that they may be waiting in effectively a detention

centre or custody in a police station, so that means detention or

in the reception and the identification centre, many of which

are closed centres. As well as that, a recent mapping by UNICEF indicated

that about 600 children were in squats around Athens with an average

time of staying there of eight months. Those were children waiting

for a place in an uncompanied children's centre -- unaccompanyied

children's centre. These are children many of them with

needs, medical needs, support needs and there are other gaps in services

to medical care. There is no specialised medical personnel in the

children's shelters, no nurses and no disabled access. I heard your

concerns about the issues for the disabled children that is certainly

a big issue. In Italy, as we heard, there are

many children out of the official system. One of the reasons for this

is my second point. You are answering almost every single

question in the first answer. It might mean we are finished quite

soon. The second point was about the

processing of the cases. That is why many children are out of the system.

They drop out of the system because they find out, they realise that it

just takes too long for their case to be dealt with, their asylum case

and to have their asylum case dealt with is the gateway to having your

family reunification case dealt with. So as a result with delays in

the system, the children give up. The system for family reunion can

take a year. That's hard enough for an adult. It is almost impossible

for a child to wait for a year, so it is unsurprising that many of them

drop out of the system. Melanie, thank you. We will explore

some of those in specifics. Michael? Primal Bochenek from Human

rights Watch. My colleagues and I have seen a lack of access to

information, a lack of real information about how to apply for

asylum. A lack of guardians and all of these things are again in France,

reasons why children who are relocated from Calais, as well as

those more recently arrived, have chosen to leave the system and seek

their own means of moving onwards. This is a very big factor, and of

course not just in Italy but in France and snernl Greece where the

system is fragile at best. Another issue with respect to Greece that we

have concerns about that has not been mentioned is the effect of

recent legislation, recent prosowsed legislation that changes the asylum

law and would have the effect of having many more people remaining

longer on the islands or a wherever they are, children as well as the

adults. It means lengthy waiting procedures, and the fracking of

asylum procedures limiting the right to appeal. In all a flawed EU Turkey

agreement that could result in many people being sent back to Turkey in

situations where they are not receiving the sort of support, or

indeed the kinds of access for example to registration to work to

education, that will allow them to have a stable, secure place in

Turkey. On that last point, I think, and this gets to the question about

the region and assistance within the region, which has been in broad

terms generous from the UK as well as from other European countries as

well, that the big flaw and what keeps me up at night about the very,

very large numbers in the region is precisely the lack of stability, the

lack of access to status. So restrictive residency requirements

in Lebanon or Jordan or Turkey, restrictions on access to work

authorisation for adults that push children into child labour,

sometimes very dangerous forms of child labour. Consequences for

education and formal restrictions on access to education in at least

Lebanon, if not all three countries. These are the kinds of things that

ideally, the UK, as well as other governments would be pushing for

change on. Loosening the registration requirements, ensuring

that money, not only money is spent effectively on education but also

that there is effective access to education. We know most refugees

stay close to their homes, that most tend to go back at some point, the

numbers in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan are huge and they far outway the

limited numbers that have come illegally to the United Kingdom. So

making sure that they have not just a safe but a dig anified and a

secure life while they are there is crucial. I this it is one that

certainly the UK could encourage. Thank you for that.

We visited a leather and Jordan in December as part of the education

enquiry. And as you scale of the numbers in Lebanon and Jordan is

astounding. Your point is good that more needs to be done. Particular

with the access to jobs. Add conditions for children in France

improved any, when it was taking ten or 12 months in a tub under the

Dublin regulation. First move quickly to make temporary

accommodation centres. This effort was laudable. They placed nearly

2000 children in those centres. When I visited and my colleagues, we saw

varied conditions. These were intended to be temporary so one

expects that some are better than others, better staffed, professional

stabbing in some and frankly whatever they could get in others.

Basic services, things I would consider basic, within this

population, it would include having an interpreter is available in some

way. Almost universal, it was not the case. Aid workers were duly

getting with crude gestures. That limited getting information to the

children about their prospects in France. They were not getting the

information they needed about their possibilities there. Both for these

very practical reasons but also because, whether a policy or not,

certainly a practice, of choosing to hold any French process until the UK

process was ended. With the apparent idea that as many children would go

to the UK as possible, and then they would start the process of assigning

guardians, putting people into a quite complicated system. Certainly

quite lengthy and discouraging for any child as you can imagine. From

what you have described it could be hopeless for children. How many

children are still in reception centres in France, what is your

assessment of their well-being? Those who are they have their basic

needs provided, shelter, food, they are in a safe place. There are many

fewer, than the 1900 originally transferred. Many have left. We have

not got good numbers from the French authorities but anecdotally

different centre directors say they have four or five leaving every

couple of days. Anecdotally we also know many children have gone back to

Calais Dunkirk, but they did not know what was going on and did not

get information. When not giving any reasons as far as they were

concerned to stay so they have taken matters into their own hands. What I

been leaving to? And the disappearing -- are the

disappearing? We hear about this in Europe, they have hopped the walls,

not return to where they were staying. And have somehow made their

way up to the areas I mentioned. Where they are often hiding in the

woods. I hear from colleagues and from others who work with children

that many are sleeping during the day and hiding in the forest at

night to avoid detection. If they are found in Paris are Calais, there

are bands and giving aid to children and adults found in this situation

-- and is -- bans. The police have been confiscating things found on

children and adults in this situation. And many children from

what you described returning to Calais, given what you are

describing, why are they returning there? What are their hopes? What

people have told me, children have told me, either in those

circumstances are considering it, they see no future in France. Their

experience of the French state is that the police beat them and nobody

gives them information. They have given up on any official prospects

of recognising their staters. They are seeking informal means of making

it to the UK. I have heard the discussion about the potential pull

factor, the biggest being it is the UK, it is English, there is a

perception among many that this is the place to be. Many people have

closed or some family members are some community in the UK and not in

France. Given the lack of support in France particularly by the police,

to me it is not a pricing they are choosing to do this no matter how

dangerous or unwise. There must be a better solution if this is their

choice. Of the children you have met who have come into the UK from

France, how do you say they are settling in and being supported in

this country? Local authorities have a duty to refugee children under the

Children Act as they do for any child in their area for a

conurbation. -- accommodation. In many areas, we see children are

slipping through the net in France in terms of the child protection

services they are receiving. Once they have reached the UK, we have

seen, depending on where the child is, as to the level of services they

are receiving. Local authorities are trying to provide services but there

are some in key areas, three areas we have noted having access to

quality legal advice, once the children going through their asylum

applications while they are here. A second area has been the issue of

mental health care, getting access to good and prompt mental health

support when needed. The third is hard access to education in some

areas. Under 16-year-olds have found a school place immediately, but over

16 there has been a problem in some areas. How does this compare with

other EU countries? Not France, they have failed, what about Sweden,

Germany, Denmark, other countries who have taken refugees? You have

some of the numbers on Sweden and Germany. We are also looking at in

terms of the numbers countries are receiving. Whilst in the UK does

take quite a number every year, it is not the numbers that Sweden has.

We are talking about in Germany and Sweden tens of thousands per year.

Of unaccompanied children. The system in Sweden, which received

quite a number, 80 or 90,000. In 2015 was under considerable strain.

Last year was a time when they were dealing with a lot of these

arrivals. We are not seeing anything like the, for the most part, the

system in Sweden is very good. But the standard in Europe and elsewhere

is the problem. In the aftermath of the large arrival numbers, they have

been some difficulties in terms of finding people for those and making

sure that guardians once assigned to too many children. -- were not

aside. Policies for introducing children to the culture, how you do

things like manage money, go shopping. Unaccompanied children who

come to Sweden want fruit because they are used to fruit and it is

expensive in Sweden, so they have to learn to manage the money to get

through. That is an incredible problem! A real plan for transition

to independence, and to the 15 and 16-year-olds, a transition through

early adulthood so that people have not only the legal staters they need

-- legal status. But also a sense of the career track. You talk about

guardians. How many children, typically, would a guardian be

helping? These are independent officials, they wouldn't be living

with them. Depending on the edge, their situation, some would live in

foster families but many, particularly older children in

dormitory type settings will stop in some cases. The type of facility

would depend. They would move through different facilities,

sharing several children with someone coming in on a daily or

weekly basis depending on how long they have been there. The Guardian

is someone, not a Government official. Outside of the official

process that are given support when they need it. The better approach

was to have no more than four or five. As a measured at the time of

the large influx, we learned that there was some guardians with too

many, somewhere in the region of ten or more. What about Germany? Germany

I know less about. They have a similar process in general. And have

mobilised quite a lot of resources in terms of finding places for

children around the company and sharing the burden in a way that

ensures that no one municipality local entity is taking on too many.

There were challenges that only in the sense that because many children

had relatives, friends and community members in other areas, there was

sometimes a question about why they have to be sent to Munich if their

support was elsewhere. But in general, quite generous. Not over

strained in the last couple of years. Quite a good one. The

transfer scheme year, hopefully once extended to the rest of the UK, that

will help relieve the burden of some of the authorities here. And assist

with some of the problems. It has just been a good? It has just been

England? Yes. I am aware of the long-standing generosity of the

Swedes. Policy and law changes, has that had an impact in terms of what

you have described in unaccompanied children. It has not had an effect

in their staters. At a time when many of the children that Mac

they had heard comments by politicians saying they were going

to restrict numbers. As I understand it from the Government, the intent

was never to affect unaccompanied children. Many children took it this

way. Unless there is secure status by children that is processed

reasonably quickly, we will not see... Children will have fears,

worried about their future that they will not be able to benefit from

services. That goes for the state is even in the UK that they are not

receiving long-term status. That is unfortunate. In relation to Greece

and Italy, very interested to know how money is being used in terms of

supporting unaccompanied children. And not sure if you have the

experience of seeing the money used effectively. And moving children to

more appropriate accommodation? I can speak to how the DIFID money

is spent in Greece and rowera, former Yugoslav, Macedonia and

Serbia, there were DIFID funds given to UNICEF and this have been used.

Four mainars, one is child protection. Child protection

centres, known as Blue Dub centres along the Balkan route where

families and children can go to get legal assistance, referred for

mental health assistance and child friendly spaces where children can

play with qualified supervisors. Sos that has been a very important

area of work. And giving technical advice to the governments to improve

the reception of those children in thesters. -- in the centres and how

the workers and the reception centre staff are dealing with the influx.

Another area is in healthcare and knew traditional status for

children, especially young children. A third area is education, providing

some informal education for children out of school and working with the

local authorities to enable an integration of children into the

formal education system. There has been progress on that in Greece.

Fourthly, water and hygiene facilities in reception centres and

basic supplies like warm clothing. We saw the awful photos from Serbia

of people in minus 15 degree conditions, so giving out warm

clothing in those situations. In terms of the shelters, I was saying

that in Greece we are now at the situation where there are about

1,000 unaccompanied children who are waiting for a shelter place. That is

before than before but obviously still very concerning. So you still

have got some children who are in protective custody, as was

mentioned, in the police stations and some children stuck in the

reception and identification centres, many of which are closed

centres. I was in Greece a coup of months ago. While I was there on the

islands there was a riot in one of the centres when the children were

present in that centre and in another centre there was a fire and

a child died, so it shows the problems with the conditions,

especially on the islands in Greece where the centres are overcrowded.

Do you have knowledge as to whether or not DIFID are working with the

Foreign Office to supply pressure to the Greek government in terms of

moving children as soon as possible from inappropriate accommodation? Is

there any diplomatic representation being made? I don't know anything of

conversations happening, I know that the agencies such as UNICEF

co-ordinate regularly with the Greek government and advocate for children

to be in appropriate shelters and not in detention. I think it is

really important that the funding conditions for the alternative

detention shelters. If there is a shortage of shelters, there is a

risk of some children being kept in detention centres.

Is there an argument, you listed theas that DIFID is contributing but

we don't know outcomes, is there an argument for saying that maybe DIFID

can consider how it can add value in situations like alternative

accommodation? I think it is important that the people on the

ground are talking regularly with difficult anied, discuss writing the

funding is going. We don't have criticism with the way that DIFID is

directing the funding. You were not sure about Italy, do

either of you have knowledge what is happening in Italy, specifically

with relation to DIFID support? I don't have information about DIFID

funding with Italy, I'm afraid. I have knowledge of the situation in

Italy where the authorities have a longer standing organisation for

refugee children, however they've been overwhelmed and 91% of the

children arriving in Italy have been unaccompanied. So that is a huge act

to deal with. The problem is the numbers of children dropping from

the system, we are talking up to 7,000 children dropped out of the

system, they are sleeping in train stations often. Now that there are

more deportations from Switzerland and France many are in transit camps

near the border. We also have a lot of reports to us of children being

involved in child Prost tuition and labour exploitation in Italy

sometimes to fund the journeys. One of the reasons we think it is really

important to have safe and legal routes to avoid children being

exploited in that way. In terms of the unaccompanied Syrian

children, do you know the figures for that in Greece? In Greece, in

2016 it was 26% of unaccompanied children were Syrian. So 26% of

about 2,000. In Italy, it's small numbers of Syrians. The European

Commission statistics were 218 unaccompanied Syrian children. In

Italy last year in 2016, there were 3806 unaccompanied Eritrean

children, and of course many of them are likely to be eligible for

asylum. Thank you very much. I was speaking

to an NGO in Slovenia last year, talking about the situation in their

country where they had 200,000 people going through effectively

fields to get through to other parts of Europe and in a population of 2

million, that is a substantial chunk. You mentioned the conditions

in Serbia, I wonder if you can talk about the Balkan route about the

conditions there? Of course the situation we are seeing with the

border closures in March of last year, many people are trapped in

countries that they were intending to pass through. So it is a

different situation. There has been a lot of tensions growing because of

the fact that people have become stranded. In Serbia, as at

mid-February, UNICEF estimates there were about 8,000 refugees and

migrants, including 3103 children. There are a number of official

reception sites, 16, official reception sites in Serbia but

according to the European Commission, as many as 1200 people

are staying in unofficial sites in very poor conditions.

I think it comes back to the problem of the lack of trust in the system

that many people have. That because the processes take so long, people

dropping out of the official system which results in them staying in

very dangerous conditions. It reached minus 15 Celsius a month or

two ago, that was a great concern. The DIFID funds were spent on

dealing with shelter and warm clothing and improving the

conditions on the official sites and providing essential services. The

situation would have been worse without the DIFID funding,

certainly. Are you finding a sense of

improvement? There may be improvement in some of the

conditions, the trouble is, that as time goes on, people become

frustrated and tensions rice and people give up on the system and

start moving on their own and taking risks, risking their lives with

smugglers and traffickers. With regard to Serbia, we are seeing

the violent pushbacks from Hungary. So a lot of people are stranded with

no place to go, not in official shelters but sleeping rough where

they can find space. We were hearing, not from Human Rights Watch

research, something like 30 cases a day of pushbacks from the Hungarian

border, including children as young as 13 or 12. Also because of the

cold in January in particular, people dying because of the cold. So

quite a difficult situation made worse by Hungary's policies of a

very, very violent reaction to asylum seekers over the border. And

the new Hungarian legislation that allows the auto mattic detention of

asylum seekers within Hungary, so if they made it into Hungarian

territory, and these are asylum seekers aged 14 and above, as well

as adults who are automatically now allowed to be detained in so-called

transit zones, which are places of detention, of course, as well as

allowing some returns from within Hungary to the border. The New York

Times as had been editorial that describes the situation and

describes Hungary's flagrant refusal to abide by any international

principles that apply here, including those with the respect to

protection of children, and says that Hungary is playing the European

Union. I think that is accurate. Obviously when they closed the

border with Greece and Macedonia, the camps that a colleague of mine

visited, he was shocked by what he saw. Do you know of an up-to-date

situation on what is happening in the camps in that area? I don't.

Have I'm aware in the former Yugoslav, the Republic of Macedonia,

there were two transit centres at the end of 2016, about 300 refugees

and migrants there, about half of them are children, and again they

are stuck. But I don't have details about the conditions, I'm afraid.

Thank you. What other EU countries help child

refugees? Are they sending money and pornel out there to help where there

is urgent need and how do you see the UK's contribution compared with

that of its neighbours? Well, one point, I can't speak as to the

technical assistance that the other countries are giving to some of the

places we've talked about but stlernl is more of an acceptance of

the idea that other countries will take on unaccompanied children in

larger numbers, so an unfortunate situation in the UK where the UK is

taking with respect to the humanitarian provision in section 57

a very, very modest number as co-compared with the tens of

thousands that are seeing in countries like Sweden and Germany.

Even France, which we criticised with the implementation of the

protection measures, the failure of the shelters, the failure to provide

guardians on a timely basis, the lack of information about asylum in

and other procedures for staying in the country, illegally, even France

has taken on a large number of children whereas the UK has a

relatively modest number in comparison.

What about personnel and money going from... I mean there are many more

EU countries other than Sweden and France. Are they sending money? What

is happening with their help? Some are sending secondments to the EU

asylum support office. Where is that based? I don't know

where it is based. It has staffing in Greece, Italy, all of the

countries which are dealing with large numbers of people. I'm not

sure about the basis, probably Brussels, I would think.

In terms of funding the UK is certainly one of the countries

providing a high level of funding. OK. So what would you say that the

EU are doing? The EU, not European countries, the EU and is it doing

enough to address the refugee situation? In terms of humanitarian

funding, the Education Minister U echoed the European Commission's

humanitarian funds, that has been a key source of funds for the refugee

migrant crisis in Europe, in terms of also the EU's scheme, the

relocation scheme which the UK has chosen not to participate in, that

scheme has been important, although it has not lived up to the full

expectations so far. As at the beginning of February, there were

nearly 12,000 people relocated from Greece and Italy to other EU Member

States, of that, though, of the numbers only 249 of them were

unaccompanied children. So there has been a short fall in the number of

places for unaccompanied children. 248 from Greece, one from Italy. And

then there was also the European resettlement scheme. But that is not

dealing with inside Europe. How much was the Echo Funding?

Initially in 2016 they announced 83 million Euros worth for Greece. 22

million for the Western Balkans Nothing for France? I'm not aware of

the amounts for France and Italy. I'm afraid that I don't have those

figures. I don't think so. Thank you.

Paul? I went to Lesbos with the Council of Europe migration

committee last year, we were had Greek representatives when we looked

at a hot spot and thesas, people from the EU commission, there seemed

a real disjoint from the discussion that they were having about funding

getting through. I got the sense that there was a humanitarian fund,

as you said, and the fund that was tapping migration but that the two

did not connect, when actually, the subject was inacceptable. I wonder

if there is a view on how the funding is going? Greece is a

country that is really not in the best shape as a European country to

be taking on this huge problem? If you have seen improvements over the

last year or a sense of that? My colleagues in Unicef Greece have

seen progress in improving some of the conditions in some places. I

think most people would agree that there are more problems with the

operation in making sure that there is an equal standard across the

country for refugees and migrants. I do agree but I am meaning about the

funding available for them. They believed that they were, the Greeks

were saying we have not got money. There seems to be a barrier between

them. I don't have the information about that. In general, it is not

surprising there would be a disconnect, potentially, between

funding streams. Also a policy framework that is in many ways

against the cancer protection we are asking for. We have talked about the

flawed EU- Turkey deal. And redistribution process of asylum

seekers overall. A target of 160,000 to be redistributed from Greece and

other places they were concentrated. Talking about adults primarily, but

of course some children. Only 5% of the target had been met at you end

of last year. And children, and action plan for unaccompanied

children that technically inspired in 2014. Never been renewed or

updated. Really is no overarching policy framework that guides the EU

overall. Or potentially its member states in terms of where they direct

their assistance. I wouldn't be surprised to see this kind of

disconnect. That would also go along with some of the political

declarations we saw coming out of Malta in January which spoke about

migration control and had little attention paid to protection of

unaccompanied children and other vulnerable refugee populations and

the like. On that slightly gloomy note, that brings it to a close.

Thank you both very much indeed for the evidence here today.

We are joins by Seamus Morse and Michael