Tom
Brake: May I put a concrete example to the Minister? If he
is able to say, “Well, this couldn’t possibly
happen”, I shall at least be reassured on that point. The view
put forward by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association is
that the failure to promote the welfare of children abroad may have
results as harmful to the child as any failure in respect of the child
in the UK, including granting a visa enabling a child to be trafficked
to or via the UK, or handing a lone child over to the authorities in
another country that has not made arrangements for the child’s
welfare. Is the Minister saying that those circumstances could never
arise because of the safeguards that are currently in
place?
Mr.
Woolas: It is a difficult point. I take that very
seriously. What the hon. Gentleman is asking, in effect, is whether one
of our officials could be misled or duped in some way into being party
to the trafficking of a child and whether there should be an obligation
set out in statute that that should not be the case. My answer would be
twofold. First, if our current practices did not cover that, I think
that hon. Members would want to know why. If the case was that we did
not currently have procedures in place to check that, then that would
be the difficulty. If a child was brought in legitimately and then
abandoned, as happens from time to time, would the member of staff be
subject to legal action rather than disciplinary action because he or
she had been duped, and what would the consequence
be?
5.45
pm The
difficulty, therefore, is again one of practical arrangement and of
intent. Also, in the situation that the hon. Gentleman
described—I can think of others,
such as escorting—the member of staff would have an obligation,
which stems in part from that duty through the statutory code, to refer
it to the relevant authority in the country in which he or she was
based. For those
reasons, which I am satisfied are good ones, we do not want the
amendment on the statute book, given those reassurances on the
obligations that we place on staff. I think that the overwhelming
argument is that conflict with the laws and
practices—particularly the laws—of overseas countries
would render the amendment difficult. There has been no objection, I
think, to the purpose of the clause itself, so I will not speak on that
point.
Tom
Brake: I have listened carefully to what the Minister and
the Conservative spokesman have said. Clearly, significant practical
issues would arise if any attempt were made to introduce the amendment.
I hope that the Minister can confirm that the scenario outlined cannot
happen in practice because of the safeguards that are in place; he
might be able to write to me on the subject.
I acknowledge
the significant practical issues that might arise, so I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Damian
Green: I beg to move amendment 60, in
clause 57, page 46, line 3, at
end insert— ‘(5A) The
Secretary of State shall collect and publish statistics regarding
detention of children during the relevant period, on a regular
basis.’. I
hope that I can restore friendly relations along the Bench with the
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, as my amendment is identical
to one tabled in another place by his noble Friend Lord Avebury and
supported by my noble Friend Lady Hanham. The purpose of the amendment
is to gain further assurances from the Government that they will
collect and publish data relating to the detention of children under
Immigration Act powers and, we hope, commit to a timetable for doing
so. We have had various discussions about the amount and quality of
statistical information available in the field, and I am sure that even
the Minister would admit that things are not perfect, to put it no
higher.
The amendment
would make a small step forward in one of the most sensitive
areas—the detention of children. The Minister will be aware that
the Refugee Children’s Consortium, a joint body of organisations
and charities that deal with children, such as Save the Children, the
Refugee Council and many others, is concerned about the limited scope
and poor quality of data kept by UKBA and its contractors on the
children that it detains, both those detained with their parents and
separated children whose age, and disputes over whose age, are
essential to deciding how they are
treated. The
Refugee Children’s Council contends—I have some sympathy
with this contention—that without such information, it is not
possible for UKBA to meet its duty under the code of practice or the
new duty that we are discussing under the clause. If it does not have
comprehensive and accurate information, UKBA is in no position to
monitor how its policies are affecting children and any underlying
trends. Similarly, the lack of information impedes the
Government’s ability to
comply with their reporting obligations under article 44.2 of
the UN convention on the rights of the child, which requires
that: “Reports
shall also contain sufficient information to provide the Committee with
a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of the Convention
in the country
concerned.” The
collection, presentation and publication of such information is now
imperative in light of the welcome recent withdrawal of the
Government’s reservation on immigration and nationality matters
with regard to the convention on the rights of the
child. At
the moment we get a limited snapshot in the quarterly statistics, which
are aggregated into the annual statistics. We get a snapshot of the
children who are detained with their families. The key is that it is
not possible to track cohorts or to know how many children were
detained over a given period, the cumulative length or outcome of their
detention, the children’s nationality or where or at what point
in a child’s asylum claim they were detained. The most recent
figures were published on 20 May and they demonstrate the paucity of
information that is currently available to us. They show that for the
first quarter of 2009, 30 people detained solely under Immigration Act
powers were recorded as less than 18 years old. Twenty of
them had been in detention for less than 29 days, five for between 29
days and two months, and the remaining five for between two and three
months. During
her inspection of Yarl’s Wood, the chief inspector of prisons
obtained more illuminating figures that seemed to justify the concerns,
but she highlighted alarming inaccuracies in the data. I have personal
experience of that; it has been some time since I have been inside
Yarl’s Wood, but last time I was there I looked at the data
collected on how many children were detained for more than 28 days.
When I asked in a parliamentary question for a regularised version of
the data, I was told that it was not collected, but I have seen
it—I know that it is collected. I know that it is at
Yarl’s Wood, so to be told that the data were not available
seemed
questionable. Given
the Government’s view that the detention of families with
children whose asylum claims have failed and whose appeal rights have
been exhausted is necessary for their removal from the UK, statistical
information should be made available to allow scrutiny of the
Government’s policy of detaining families. Data should show the
number of families removed from the UK after their detention and the
number of families temporarily released or with other outcomes after
their detention. In that context, like the Minister but unlike the
Refugee Children’s Consortium, I accept that in some cases
detention of families with children may be necessary at the moment.
Given that at present we do not have adequate alternatives to
detention, I think it is important that such facilities are available.
None the less, it still seems necessary that we should make available
proper information about what is happening to those families, and
particularly their
children. In
another place it was stated that without comprehensive information it
is impossible to determine whether or not the Government’s
stated policy—that detention must be used sparingly and for the
shortest period necessary—is being adhered to. On Third Reading
in the other place, the Minister made a commitment to the
House that UKBA would continue to review and update how it collates and
updates its statistics and guidance. He
said: “We
can do better and we are putting in a lot of effort to do better to
underpin the new duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all the
children with whom UKBA comes into contact. I have asked the agency to
set up a round-table discussion involving representatives of the major
children’s charities”.—[Official Report, House
of Lords, 22 April 2009; Vol. 709, c.
1539.] That is
clearly a step forward. We now need, and I hope to gain from the
Minister today, a timetable for producing the comprehensive cohort data
that we, the children’s charities, and the wider public need to
assess what is happening: the total length and outcome of detention,
the children’s nationality and at what point in their asylum
claim they were detained. It is unacceptable that such data are not
routinely gathered either by immigration removal centres, if the
Minister decides that they are not—though, having seen the data,
I have my doubts—or centrally by UKBA.
We also need
data in one other area—the number of age-disputed young people
who are held in detention and the number of disputed cases subsequently
found to be children. Once again that is a central point about
transparency and accountability. It is the UKBA’s
policy, “not
to detain [unaccompanied] children other than in the most exceptional
circumstances”.
However, UKBA
says: “Where
an applicant claims to be a child but their appearance very strongly
suggests that they are significantly over 18 years of age, the
applicant should be treated as an adult until such time as credible
documentary or other persuasive evidence such as a full
‘Merton-compliant’ age assessment by Social Services is
produced which demonstrates that they are the age
claimed.” All
that is fine, but we do not know how many have that test put to them
nor how many are then found to be under 18. If statistics are not
collected on the number of such cases, the number later found to be
children and for how long they are in detention, we do not believe UKBA
can itself know or be satisfactorily held to account by anyone else on
the effectiveness of its policy. The central purpose of the amendment
is that it would require the Secretary of State to collect and publish
the data.
Not just
Members on the Opposition Benches, but very many people who are
concerned with the detention of children, think that without the
provision of that essential statistical information it is impossible to
know how effective Government policy is in this area. If it is
impossible to know, suspicions will flourish. I am sure everyone is
uneasy about the detention of children, possibly for long periods, and
to do that under this cloak of secrecy makes it all the worse. It
certainly damages the reputation of this country around the world. I
hope the Minister will take the amendment very
seriously.
Tom
Brake: I am not easily offended, so I will be happy to
support the amendment. It rightly seeks to ensure that we have much
better quality data about what is happening to children within the
system. It would be helpful if the statistics were to cover, for
instance, escorted children abroad and that might address some of the
issues I raised earlier. It would enable us to have a better picture of
how those children are cared for. It is a sensible proposal, although
it could have been
more specific regarding the frequency of publishing the
statistics—perhaps on a monthly basis—and the sort of
information that it might be useful to provide in regular
reports.
The hon.
Member for Ashford raised an interesting point about children who are
considered to look over 18 and therefore are treated as adults. I hope
the betting industry is not used as an example, as 95 per cent. of the
test purchases made in betting shops by a 17-year-old were successful.
A much greater number of children may be falling foul of the looking-18
rule than we know about. It would be useful to have a feel for how many
children are considered to look 18 when many may be much younger. I
hope the Minister will be able to provide us with a positive response
to a sensible
proposal.
Mr.
Woolas: I have thought about the matter, and the hon.
Gentlemen are right. We should publish statistics based on the average
length of stay, as well as the ones we currently publish that give a
snapshot. It is common sense; it is decent. I think the political
criticism that we get as a Government is ridiculous. We should publish
the information and I shall explain in a moment what we intend to do.
In addition, publishing the statistics will provide a better
explanation of policy.
6
pm On
the point just made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
about children, the statistics will show that lots people aged over 18
claim to be children—I think that someone aged 31 recently tried
to do so—and there is a dispute among professionals about how to
ascertain a child’s age. Some of the children that I have seen
in detention look pretty old and are pretty big and strong, but I make
that point just to put the issue in
context. Let
me give the reassurances that the Committee wants. I think that hon.
Members are speaking as both constituency representatives and as
spokespeople for their parties. The issue was debated in the other
place where we gave some commitments, and I have of course looked at it
since then. I am glad that the amendment has been tabled as it draws
attention to the need for more accurate and up-to-date recording of
data on the detention of children, and it also informs the
debate. Any
Government must justify the detention of children, and I think that
there are safeguards in the Bill. There is justification for the
argument that the legal system and, sometimes, legal advice prolong the
detention. We have had a debate about judicial reviews, and the
detention of children at Yarl’s Wood is meant to be the final
stage in the process, but sometimes delays are caused that are outside
UKBA’s control. The matter is in everybody’s interest, as
well as in the interest of
accountability. We
share the real concern that statistics on children in detention are not
currently published in a way that enables the length of detention to be
clearly identified. That is what the House, the interested parties and,
I think, the public are looking for. The problem has arisen because we
have not been confident that the data held centrally are robust enough.
The Government have an obligation to produce published official
statistics, either through the Office for National Statistics or
through our own Home Office statisticians, who are
themselves independent from Ministers. As the Committee knows, I have
sometimes found that very frustrating and I have justified my point of
view to the Select
Committee. For
published national statistics, there is an inescapable need to ensure
that the standards set down by the UK Statistics Authority are met. The
standards are rigorous, and are designed to create confidence that the
information presented is accurate and objective. For example, if a
family is taken to Yarl’s Wood, then taken out, and then put
back in again, we have to get the statistics right, but I am not hiding
behind that point, because the issue can be
addressed. The
hon. Member for Ashford asked why the Yarl’s Wood data are not
published. I asked the same question following my visit to
Yarl’s Wood, and there is a good reason: we are now quite
rightly strict about having only one case file for each case. The
legacy cases that we often talk about are cases and not individuals, so
a legacy case of 150,000 probably relates to around 100,000 people,
even though the number of cases is 150,000, so misrepresentations can
be made. In the case of Yarl’s Wood, that means that whenever
anyone makes a decision involving a child they have all the previous
information available to them so that the consequences of their
decisions are
understood. However,
I do not wish to over-egg the pudding; the Home Office statisticians
have already commenced work on the project to develop statistics on
children in detention, and they plan to publish additional statistical
analyses on the number of children in detention—by age, gender,
nationality and place of initial detention, which is something that I
think the hon. Gentleman has previously raised—and the total
number of children leaving detention, so that we can see the full
picture. The statistics will appear in the August 2009 issue of the
quarterly “Control of Immigration: Statistics”
statistical bulletin, a document read more widely than its name
implies. The
plans were discussed with relevant voluntary organisations on 21 May
and the resulting statistics will be published, as I have said, in
future statistical bulletins. The plans include expanding the details
about those leaving detention, to show the time periods involved and
the reason for leaving, whether that be removal to another country or
another reason. I hope that I have satisfied the
Committee.
| 
