IT IS often forgotten that the Chamber in the House of Commons is a place of debate and of great speeches. I was reminded of the power of great orators when, during the debate on Lord Dubs’ amendment to the Immigration Bill, I changed my mind on how to vote.

As many are aware, this amendment would have required the Home Secretary to admit 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children from Europe into the UK.

I was incredibly sympathetic to what this amendment was trying to achieve.

It cannot be right that tens of thousands of children are living in squalid conditions, at risk of violence or worse.

However, I had my concerns.

Only a couple of weeks ago, we saw again in the news reports that more boats carrying refugees from North Africa had capsized in the Mediterranean.

Hundreds of desperate adults and children losing their lives.

There is undoubtedly a risk that, by admitting these children, we would enhance the pull factors which drive these refugees to take such risks.

We would be lining the pockets of people smugglers and putting more children at risk on the Mediterranean.

I thought it was better we should continue focussing our efforts on those in the camps in the Middle East and North Africa.

In doing so, we would be helping those who are the most vulnerable. It is right to welcome the announcement the government will be seeking to take 3,000 children from these camps on top of the 20,000 which we have already pledged.

We were also creating a £10million Refugee Children Fund which would target children and refugees in Europe, complementing the £2.3billion already committed to the region.

As such, I went into the Chamber of the House of Commons with the intention of voting against the amendment having already publicly made my position known.

However, sitting there and listening to powerful speeches from all sides, and in particular from MPs Keir Starmer and Stephen Phillips, I questioned my beliefs.

The decision we all faced is whether the cost of action, which could encourage more refugees to attempt the perilous journey across the Mediterranean, outweighed the cost of inaction, of leaving these children alone at the mercy of people traffickers.

I came to the realisation that in my heart, the risk of more refugees attempting to cross into Europe was a price worth paying to help these vulnerable children.

I couldn’t not support this amendment, even if it meant going against the government.

An estimate has been made that there may be as many as 95,000 unaccompanied child refugees in Europe, the majority afraid, lonely and highly vulnerable.

Europol calculates that 10,000 children disappeared last year. This was after they had been registered by the authorities of the country they were in.

Every night, it is estimated that 1,000 children are sleeping rough in Greece, alone and at risk of trafficking, prostitution, abuse, rape, forced labour or worse.

We have a proud record as a nation of helping those in need, let this be no exception.

Yes, we are probably doing more than most other countries. Yes, we need our European counterparts to fulfil their obligations.

However, this is no reason not to do more.

It is not easy voting against the government and colleagues, and not a decision I took lightly.

By voting for the amendment, I believe that not only was I voting with my conscience, but also that ultimately I will be proven to have made the right decision.

When this amendment comes back from the Lords to the Commons, I will support it again and I hope that as many of my colleagues as possible will also support it.