Refugees and Human Rights — House of Commons, 2018-01-24
Topic: International Affairs
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): In the limited time available to me, I want to cover three points First, I am proud of the help that we have given to refugees in the region. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), I will focus my remarks on Syria. I also listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). We have indeed been very generous: we have helped 5 million people to have access to clean water in the region, and our money—the £2.5 billion to which my hon. Friend referred—has helped millions of people there. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the Chairman of the Select Committee, referred to disabled refugees and those in need. I am proud that we are taking people directly from the camps. If we take only refugees who make the dangerous and perilous journeys, we largely take only fit young men, not the more vulnerable and those who need our help. I am pleased that we have chosen the approach we have. In addition, a clear case is made for meeting our international aid obligations so that in crises we are able to be generous, as the hon. Member for Bristol West said, and to help those who need our help, without having to take money from domestic budgets I do not think the shadow Secretary of State answered the question put by her hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) about the United Nations and what we do when a conflict is supported by one of the permanent five members of the Security Council with a veto. One of the features that has made the UN almost useless in dealing with the Syrian conflict is that one of the P5 is an active supporter of the Syrian regime. We have tried hard and the British Government continue to try, but we have to confront what happens when the UN ceases to be useful. George Osborne, the former Member for Tatton, drew attention in a powerful speech in this House in December 2016 to the fact that, although there are costs and risks when we take action, there are costs and risks when we do nothing. One could argue that, on Syria, the decisions this House took—or rather, did not take—on sending a clear signal to the Assad regime have made the crisis worse and made sure that there would be hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—more refugees, who we will have to deal with Finally, I want to say a little about our asylum system. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who expressed great concern about the system, was not concerned enough to trouble himself with the debate or to stay to hear an answer to the point he raised. Despite the fact that not a single Liberal Democrat is in the Chamber, I will answer his question. There is a clear reason why we do not allow asylum seekers to work: if we did, unfortunately, a lot of people would then come to Britain as economic migrants claiming to be asylum seekers To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol West, when we accept that someone is a refugee, we let them work, we give them education, and we make them welcome in our country. If an asylum system is to command public support, it must be generous and welcome those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. When people are not fleeing persecution—when they do not have that well-founded fear referenced in the 1951 convention—and they are not given the right to stay here, they should leave, and they should do so voluntarily. They should not insist that the taxpayer has to spend a lot of money removing them from the country; instead, they should accept that their case has been listened to and that there was an appeal mechanism. If they are found not to have a case, they should leave. That is how we will command public support.