| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I have to say that I find it quite difficult to speak in a suitably measured way about what I see as quite unwarranted resistance to the terms of the noble Earl's amendment. I am assuming, of course, that the Minister will continue to resist the proposal, as has been the case at earlier stages. I hope that she will not and thus prove me wrong. The reason I find it difficult to express myself in a measured way is that a clause and debate of this kind puts to the test the ultimate purpose of the Bill.
It is my feeling that putting children first cannot apply only when it is naturally convenient to do so and does not interfere with obligations and duties. The test of the Government putting children first and of the nation putting children first arises precisely at the point at which it is rather inconvenient and difficult. "Inconvenient and difficult" means when there is the possibility—I do not hear the noble Earl denying it—that it could get in the way of our current arrangements for dealing with the children of asylum seekers.
By any stretch of the imagination, the children of asylum seekers are the most vulnerable children among children because they are in a position where their very existence as people entitled to be here is in question. It is precisely because of that high level of vulnerability that I find it really does put the will of this House and of the nation to the test when we are invited to believe that we have a duty that must be placed above our care for those children. I urge the Government to understand that, for many of us, an issue of this kind poses ultimate questions about the seriousness of our intentions.
This is an excellent, really important and courageous Bill. However, it places upon us the requirement that we take its purpose seriously precisely at the point when it is difficult to do so. I urge the Minister to allow the amendment to proceed. If she will not, I seriously urge noble Lords to register their wish that it should.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the arguments in favour of the amendment have been well put and I will not repeat them all. However, in supporting the amendment I would like to repeat two short points. First, this is a modest measure. The duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children is a modest one. As it says in the Explanatory Notes:
"This duty is intended to ensure that agencies are conscious of the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare in the course of exercising their normal functions".
Is it too much to ask that when agencies are involved with children they are conscious of the need to safeguard them? It is a very modest measure indeed.
Secondly, the Minister said on Report that
"a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children could severely compromise our ability to maintain an effective asylum system and strong immigration control".—[Official Report, 17/6/04; col. 996.]
If that is the case, there is something wrong with the way in which refugee children are being treated, and it must be addressed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, explained the amendment so well and went into all the necessary detail so that it is difficult to add anything of substance to what he said. However, I supported him on a previous occasion and I support him again today. If he is minded to divide the House I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, would like to support this important amendment. It is clear that this particular group of children need the protection and understanding of all the agencies. They are undergoing a particularly stressful process. Their well-being, in that now well-used phrase, is almost certain to be under extreme pressure. I hope that we will be able to accept what is proposed.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I would like to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for not being here for the whole of his speech. I rise to support the amendment. I have in the past spoken to the Minister about the position of these children. I did so in relation to the Asylum Bill and the concerns carry through into this Bill. One thing that has been said to me—not by the Minister—is that unless we carry out actions like this, we will not send a message to the other end of the supply chain. I find that an abhorrent concept—that children should be involved in sending such messages.
I have said this before. We used to say this about children in bed and breakfast hotels. We used to say that because their parents deserved to be treated in a certain way because of the consequences of their rent arrears and their fecklessness—not that I necessarily agree with that, but this was the argument—the children should be placed in bed and breakfasts. The Government have worked enormously hard to ensure that those children are now more appropriately—maybe not perfectly, but more appropriately—accommodated.
This group of children are still children. I recognise the difficulty in relation to the policies that the Minister is under an obligation to support and that she may well be in difficulties in terms of her party's policy. However, were the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to divide the House I would certainly vote for the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as always when we discuss this issue, I recognise the strength of feeling and the passion with which noble Lords—not least the right reverend Prelate—have spoken. I
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1464
recognise and understand completely that we are referring to a very vulnerable group of children, to whom we have a responsibility. I have never said—it would be completely wrong to suggest it—that our services do not have a role to play in safeguarding the welfare of children. The question is: how do we make sure that that happens appropriately; and what are the consequences of what we might do in a particular Bill for those services on the ground?
Noble Lords will recognise—certainly it is my experience—that the Immigration Service and NASS encounter many children in extremely difficult circumstances and are aware of the need to ensure that such children are referred to the proper agencies and receive support. I said on Report—I shall not repeat it—that arrangements have been established to ensure that such concerns are dealt with as swiftly as possible. I can assure noble Lords that both organisations understand their responsibilities and are strongly supportive of the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare.
I shall not take up your Lordships' time by again going through the measures that I and Ministers from the Home Office have indicated before; I do not believe that there is a contradiction in where my noble friend Lord Bassam and I stand on this issue. We are both of the view that children and their families need to be supported effectively and that there are real issues relating to asylum and immigration.
Throughout the different stages of the Bill, I have worked closely with colleagues, ministerial and official, in both departments to examine what the consequences would be if the amendment were to be made. I am completely of the view that there would be consequences for our asylum and immigration policy. Noble Lords may feel that that is OK, that it is appropriate and that it is what they want to happen, but we are sure that the amendment would have an impact on what we would be able to do in terms of removals and the ability of people to use the Bill for judicial review. It is for those reasons—and those reasons alone—that I cannot accept the amendment. That in no way suggests that we think there are not duties and responsibilities which rest with the services; indeed, I have outlined them. I worry that sometimes we take the view that our services are not mindful of children and families in the work they do, whereas I think they do an amazing job with them in often quite difficult and tragic circumstances. But, ultimately, we have an asylum and immigration policy designed to support people in the best possible way—and that includes removing families on occasion and resettling them. It could be argued that that is appropriate and in the best interests of the children. Refusal of the right to stay on occasion could also be in their best interests.
It is because we believe that the amendment would directly affect this policy that I urge the noble Earl to think carefully about pressing his amendment to a vote. I can reassure noble Lords that this is in no way counter to saying that this is not a responsibility we
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1465
would wish to see for our services to treat these vulnerable children properly. Indeed, they already have one.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment. The right reverend Prelate was right to emphasise the high level of vulnerability of this group of refugee children. I found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, particularly compelling.
I cannot counter the Minister's essential pragmatic point. It is a disappointing argument in the context of a Bill with such high principles, with which we all identify. She has repeated often that the Bill is intended to cover all children, without exception. It is an issue of principle on which it would be right for me to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 99.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |