[back to previous text]

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.
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]
AYES
Blunt, Mr. Crispin
Brake, Tom
Burns, Mr. Simon
Green, Damian
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Walker, Mr. Charles
NOES
Anderson, Mr. David
Gwynne, Andrew
Hamilton, Mr. David
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McDonagh, Siobhain
Prosser, Gwyn
Wilson, Phil
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 55 disagreed to.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Duty 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.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 17 June 2009