Britain (must) accept its fair share of child refugees

David Cameron came under mounting pressure last night to give sanctuary to child refugees stranded in Europe following a humiliating rebuke from the House of Lords.

Thousands of child refugees who have made it to Europe were thrown a lifeline by the peers.

Members of the Lords voted by a majority of more than 100 – by 279 to 172 – for Britain to accept its fair share of unaccompanied child refugees.

The move comes after the Commons rejected plans to welcome 3,000 desperate youngsters into Britain. The knife edge vote was won by just 18 votes and was met with cries of ‘shame’ in the Commons chamber.

Last night, peers stripped out the specific number of refugees that Britain should take.

This will stop MPs from invoking ‘financial privilege’ – which would have allowed them to veto any amendment if there are financial consequences. Labour’s Lord Dubs originally proposed the amendment, having fled the Holocaust as a child refugee himself in the 1930s.

James Brokenshire, the Home Office minister, said the Government did not want to ‘inadvertently create a situation in which families see an advantage in sending children alone, ahead and in the hands of traffickers’.

Ministers have instead said they will take in 3,000 child refugees directly from camps in, or near, Syria and other war zones.

Last month, the Daily Mail highlighted the plight of hundreds of children living in squalor in the Calais jungle.

In a leader, the Mail called for a one-off amnesty for them, saying: ‘It may be that some of the boys have been sent on ahead cynically by families who hope to claim their human right to join them if they make it to Britain.

‘But they are young and they are desperate. Which is why this paper suggests today that in a one-off amnesty – a one-off, mind – we should offer refuge to the children who have been through so much to reach Calais alone.

‘Meanwhile, to avoid cruelly raising false hopes, our authorities should make it absolutely clear that no more will be allowed in.’

Earl Howe, the Government spokesman in the Lords said there was ‘no argument’ that Britain had a ‘moral duty to help those in need’. He said: ‘We’re simply saying, physically transporting unaccompanied children from one part of the EU to another is not the best or more effective way of fulfilling our duty.’

But Lord Dubs warned that thousands of youngsters were not safe just because they had reached Europe. The 83-year-old said the current Tory government would ‘have probably said no’ to taking child refugees fleeing the Nazis.

‘These children are being left to their own devices at best and at worst they’re in trouble,’ he said. He blamed David Cameron, saying: ‘I think the Prime Minister has put his stamp on this.’

Speaking to the Mail, he added: ‘The longer this goes on, the harder it is for the Government as they will think they’re losing face. But it’s a win-win for them. Helping child refugees is wildly popular.’