Damian
Green: I want to respond briefly to the Minister’s
remarks. Almost as a side issue, he is quoting from the UKBA website
the remarks of senior and distinguished figures of the judiciary, but
presumably they made those remarks somewhere else, so that seems
slightly odd. Presumably some of them would have had the opportunity to
contribute to the debate in the other place, so that is the root of
where I think he has got it
wrong. The
Minister rightly said that the purpose of the other place, as it
currently functions, is to provide a level of dispassionate expertise
that may not be available at the rough end of this place, which we
occupy. He agreed with me, and indeed anyone who has read the debate in
the other place would testify, that it was an extremely serious debate,
conducted on both sides by people who have thought about the issues for
a long time and come to some deep conclusions. He accepted all that but
is inviting us to reject entirely the conclusion reached in the other
place. We can all cite authorities, but ultimately, if their lordships
are addressing an issue with particular expertise and come to such a
convincing conclusion in a vote, we should heed them. It is not a
particularly partisan issue, as we all agree that there are significant
problems with the immigration courts and with delays, and I would
welcome practical moves from the Government to resolve them. At the
moment, however, they are looking at the wrong end of the
pipe.
I am glad
that the Minister agreed that one of the problems, and one which would
actually make a very significant difference to the delays, is that when
the legal advice is
provided— [Interruption.] He says from a
sedentary position that he had sympathy with the argument—I can
see the subtle difference between that and actually agreeing with me.
He will be aware of experiments in this country and other parts of the
world showing that the early application of significant legal advice,
particularly in an asylum application, can mean that in the long run it
is decided more quickly and accurately. It might never get to court and
certainly would not get to appeal, so the advice serves many
purposes. Mr.
Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): Does my hon. Friend
share my surprise that 85 per cent. of applications for judicial review
are rejected, and does such a high proportion not make one question the
quality or motivation of the legal advice being given to people seeking
judicial
review?
Damian
Green: There is some validity in my hon. Friend’s
point. Indeed, I have heard that view expressed with a degree of
enthusiasm by the Minister, who is not known as the biggest fan of the
legal profession, particularly the part of it that deals with
immigration and asylum cases. I am, as a habit, gentler on the legal
profession than he is, not least because I am married to a lawyer, so
perhaps for no other reason than self-preservation, that seems an
appropriate course of action. Nevertheless, there is a point; we all
know from our constituency cases that there might be a degree of abuse
of the legal privileges afforded to those going through the immigration
system, particularly the asylum system, and it would be better to stamp
it out. The question is whether the clause is the best way to do that.
I suspect that it is not, as it would not solve the problem that my
hon. Friend and the Minister have noticed, and would give rise to the
other problems that I have mentioned.
I return to
the point, which is germane to my hon. Friend’s intervention
too, about the stage in the process at which we should concentrate our
legal advice. I seek to minimise the effect on the public purse, as
would the Minister, and to maximise the speed at which people go
through the system, because delay promotes both injustice and expense.
As I was saying, experiments in this country, and many experiments
overseas, have revealed that if someone receives decent legal advice at
the start of the process, their case will not only be concluded more
quickly but will be much less likely to go to appeal. If they then end
up being removed from the country, they are more likely to accept the
situation. The problems with delays and with many people refusing to go
and causing violence on planes are driven out of the system. Sweden has
a successful return rate of more than 90 per cent. We could learn from
that, and in doing so we would also save public
money. The
Minister disagreed with me about the timing, but he did not
particularly convince me. It seems very early in the life of the new
unified tribunal system to be proceeding down such a path. I note that
one of the authorities he quoted is in charge of the tribunal system,
but I would expect the person in charge of the tribunal system to say
that it is all working marvellously. Indeed, I would be worried if they
did not. Nevertheless, we should give it more time to bed down. In the
end, much wise advice was given in another place about this matter, and
I think that this House should listen, so the clause should stand part
of the Bill.
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
9.
Division
No.
4] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 55
disagreed
to. Clause
56 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
57Duty
regarding the welfare of
children
Tom
Brake: I beg to move amendment 1, in
clause 57, page 45, line 22, after
‘Kingdom’, insert
‘or the responsibility of the UK
Government or UK agencies
abroad’. It
is a pleasure to speak in favour of this straightforward but powerful,
I hope, amendment, which touches on the welfare of children who are in
contact with UKBA. We do not always have a particularly positive record
that we can be proud of on children, as with the detention of families
in detention centres. This small amendment would perhaps redress that
balance and ensure that we gave greater priority to children and
provided for the welfare of children in and outside the UK. I wrote
down something that the Minister said earlier today. He
said—this is a direct quote—that we are
“effectively exporting our borders.” Clearly, that is
what we are doing at entry clearance posts and juxtaposed controls, or
perhaps in the course of an escorted removal. If we are exporting our
borders with the acceptance and acknowledgment of other countries, can
we not also ensure that the standards we apply to the welfare of
children within the UK who are being looked after by UKBA, also apply
to children from outside the UK who are in contact with
UKBA?
5.30
pm This
is a straightforward proposal, which is welcomed by the Refugee Council
and others, and it is hard to see why the Government would not want to
support it. Is there any reason for UKBA to have a different attitude
to the welfare of a child who is being escorted outside the UK, from
the approach to welfare issues that it would take for a child within
the UK? It is straightforward.
In an earlier
sitting we had an interesting debate about whether the Independent
Police Complaints Commission should have any powers abroad. We asked
whether it should be possible for someone to make a complaint about
something that happened abroad, and for the IPCC to pick up and deal
with it in this country.
Currently it cannot, and I suppose a certain logic says that if suitable
policing or reporting arrangements apply in another country, we should
allow that country to deal with any complaints. The
Minister’s own words are that we are “exporting our
borders”. We have a relationship with many countries which
accept that officials of the United Kingdom are able to process things
abroad. Of all the people that UKBA comes into contact with, we should
be most careful about the welfare of children. It is clear that the
very high standards—broadly speaking—that we have here,
regrettably do not apply in a number of other countries. Therefore, we
cannot assume that the local safeguarding children board, or whatever
structures another country has in place to look after children, will be
able to deal appropriately with the welfare of children, as that is
simply not the case. In many countries there will be no safety net or
local authority able to take on those responsibilities.
I hope the
Minister will accept that this is a valid and well-meaning amendment
about promoting the welfare of children—something that the
Government recognise as a responsibility of UKBA within the UK. Surely,
it is just a small extension to ensure that that responsibility also
applies outside the UK. I hope the Minister will respond
positively.
Damian
Green: I want to put down some caveats. I sympathise with
the motives behind the amendment, but I wonder about the
practicalities. Perhaps the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
or the Minister will pick up on some of these points. The Minister will
be aware that in this country, local authorities are essentially
responsible for the welfare of children who come through the
immigration system. In some cases, many of those local authorities
would prefer that responsibility to be taken by UKBA, as there would be
funding implications to that. I wonder about the practicalities of
assigning that duty of care to the UK Government in a general sense, or
to UK agencies abroad. What sort of agencies are we talking about? What
criteria would have to be met for the child to become the
responsibility of the UK, as opposed to the responsibility of an agency
in the country in which our agency is based? In principle, if a child
is in his or her own country, surely the responsibility for their care
must lie in that country’s jurisdiction rather than in this
country.
Tom
Brake: Perhaps to put the hon. Gentleman on the spot, does
he believe that that would apply in the case of an escorted removal
when a child is being transported to another country on a plane? At the
moment that that plane lands, does the responsibility lie with the
country where the plane has landed?
Damian
Green: Presumably, if the child is still airside, there
would be a question as to what jurisdiction they were in, but that is
clearly a small example of the wider point that I assume the hon.
Gentleman is making about where children come
from.
Mr.
Woolas: The answer is yes.
Damian
Green: The Minister can give his own answer to the
question if he likes.
There is a
serious question about the guidelines that would need to be issued to
UK staff based overseas. Essentially, all my caveats boil down to what
would happen in practice. How would the measure be a practical way of
enhancing children’s welfare? I take the point that the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington makes—we will have higher
standards in this country than there are in some others—but he
will recognise that if we made the amendment, extra pressure would be
put on British authorities in other
countries. I
approach the matter with a questioning mind. One cannot impugn the
motivations behind the measure, but would it be a practical solution
that could be operated in the real world?
Mr.
Woolas: I absolutely acknowledge that the intention of the
proposed amendment is good. There was a significant debate in the other
place regarding the duty that is being put on by the clause.
Let me remind
the Committee of the primary purpose of the duty. We are attempting to
ensure that UKBA has a duty that is the same as that found in section
11 of the Children Act 2004, thereby bringing the agency in line with a
number of other public bodies in the UK, so that they can share
information and concerns about children. The agencies that also work
overseas do not have that duty placed on them overseas, partly for the
reasons the hon. Member for Ashford gave. I recognise that that is not
an argument in and of itself because the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington will say, “Well, they should have the duty as
well,” which I understand.
The
application of the duty that clause 57 places with regard to children
overseas was also the subject of a very good quality debate in the
other place. Our point of view then, as now, is that the duty is based
on the systems in place in the UK and that it cannot be transplanted to
other countries, which may have entirely different arrangements.
Moreover, it is likely that other countries would consider it an
interference in their jurisdiction if UKBA were to seek to assume the
level of responsibility for local children as it would for children in
the UK.
A useful test
in this area of policy is to imagine the reaction of one’s
constituents if things were the other way around—if an agent
from another country were to take such an attitude in the UK. To
reassure the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, I remind him
that the UK does not and cannot deport children—he referred to
escorts and deportation—to countries where it is deemed unsafe
to do so. We are not allowed to do that. We believe that our formal
responsibilities under the duty should be confined to children who are
in the United
Kingdom. I
hope to reassure the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, because
I heard what he said about the Refugee Council. We—the taxpayer
rather—fund that body to the tune of around £17 million a
year to do that work. Sometimes, when I read the newspapers, perhaps I
bite my tongue, but that is quite right in a democracy—the
council does a great job and we work with it on the Gateway project
very effectively. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the United Nations
convention on the rights of the child also limits the responsibility of
states parties to children within their jurisdiction. That is something
that we take seriously.
My second
point is to reassure the Committee that none of that means that we do
not take appropriate action to ensure that our officials overseas take
appropriate action with regard to children. Indeed, the statutory
guidance that accompanies the duty sets out the expectation that UKBA
staff overseas will make referrals to overseas authorities where local
or other international agreements permit or require. In addition, our
staff going to work overseas receive training in children’s
issues as part of their induction. There is much voluntary
co-operation. As it stands, the practical points made by the hon.
Member for Ashford are
pertinent. As
the amendment stands, it would introduce an undesirable lack of clarity
into the work of the agency, since it would be unclear which children
and when would be the responsibility of the UK Government, when UKBA
would be responsible for children outside the UK, or which UK agencies
were being referred to. Take, for example, the juxtaposed controls in
France, which are covered by French law, subject to treaty agreement;
we believe that the best way of achieving the duty upon our staff there
is through the implementation of the code of practice. If I were to go
to France and tell the French that our law was to overrule their law,
they would very quickly tell me where to put my juxtaposed
controls—if I can put it in English and not in
French. There
are some practical difficulties. Similarly, consider an overseas
posting into which a child, accompanied or otherwise, may be sent to
apply for a visa. Do our staff have a duty of care? There are practical
arrangements that could cause
difficulties.
|
