In 1939, a young Czech boy, Alfred Dubs, was put on a train out of Prague by his family in the hope that he could be rescued from the dreadful fate awaiting many Jewish children. Among the 669 children brought to the U.K. as part of ‘Kindertransport’ — an organised movement to save thousands of mainly Jewish children before the outbreak of the World War II — the boy was later reunited with his family and went on to become a Labour MP and then a member at the House of Lords.
Unsurprisingly, it was Lord Dubs who mounted a challenge to the immigration legislation last year, pointing to the country’s “proud tradition” of helping those most in need. His initiative forced the government to commit to bringing an unspecified number of unaccompanied refugee children to Britain. His proposal — known as the Dubs Amendment — had originally called for 3,000 children to be welcomed. This was thought to be Britain’s fair share of over 90,000 unaccompanied young refugee children in Europe.
Less than a year later, it has emerged that the government has brought in 200 children to the U.K. under this scheme, and will take just another 150 — just over a tenth of what had originally been hoped for. The government has blamed it on two factors — one, it is dependent on what local government bodies say they are able to provide for; and, two, taking too many children could act as a “pull”, encouraging traffickers to bring more children to Europe. These are arguments the government has struggled to sell both in public and in Parliament.
Policy under attack
Over 53,000 people have signed a petition — delivered to Downing Street by Lord Dubs — deploring the decision, while the policy has come under attack from across the political spectrum, including from within the Conservative Party. A legal challenge is already under way, with the charity Refugee Action questioning whether local authorities were as unwilling to provide support.
The controversy has refocussed eyes on Britain’s refugee policy in general at a time that the issue is in the global spotlight following U.S. President Donald Trump’s suspension of that country’s refugee programme. Britain has to date defended its record on refugees, pointing out that it has committed itself to bringing 20,000 Syrians by 2020, half of them children, and a further 3,000 from West Asia and beyond. The government has also said it is the second-biggest provider of aid to Syria, having promised to provide £2.3 billion. However, critics argue that Britain is less willing to provide direct support by taking its share of people in need. Britain has welcomed less than 1% of the world’s refugees.
A study conducted by Oxfam last year found that while Britain well exceeded its “fair share” of funding commitments, it only took around a quarter of the refugees it should have. Also, a parliamentary committee concluded last year that Britain’s contribution to humanitarian relief did not absolve it of responsibility to provide more direct support to Syrian refugees already in Europe.
The pressure on the government is clear: having opted for Brexit, the U.K. has chosen to take back control over its borders. However, there is great public pressure in the other direction too; Lord Dubs’s petition and a legal challenge coming from aid workers at the Dunkirk refugee camp have both received strong support, while around 200 public figures — including actors Ralph Fiennes and Keira Knightley — have signed an open letter calling for the Dubs scheme not to be closed. “The country we know and love is better than this,” reads the letter.
