Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I shall speak to my question whether Clauses 40 and 41 should stand part of the Bill. I share the concerns of the Refugee Children’s Consortium on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has described the effect of Clause 40 and the significant powers of these authorities. Clause 41, among other things, includes a new criminal offence punishable by about six months in custody for seeking to escape from detention when being examined by the authorised officer. I am concerned about the vulnerability of children in certain circumstances; for instance, when they arrive in a lorry at Calais or Dover. In the debate in Standing Committee in the other place, Gwyn Prosser said:"““Anyone who has witnessed the searching in, for example, my home port of Dover, and who has seen some of the tragic scenes of the back of a lorry opening and families of asylum seekers with young children coming down the ladder, will know that they are traumatic incidents which must be dealt with sensitively””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 25/10/05; col. 223.]" It is crucial that officers discovering such children and families act sensitively. My concern therefore is that whatever we do we ensure that officers are appropriately trained and equipped. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others have expressed concern about private contractors. My proposal extends concerns to include customs officers and police officers as well as immigration officers—so moving beyond immigration officers. This is because it takes such a lot of effort to ensure that immigration officers have adequate training—for instance, an adequate understanding of child protection—to work sensitively in these environments. I am concerned, first, that we need to establish this fundamental capacity, for instance, in child protection, and adequate Criminal Records Bureau checks before one starts introducing different professions into this role. In considering safeguards for children and the history of this area, one looks at staff in children’s homes. In 1998, 70 per cent to 80 per cent of staff in children’s homes had no relevant qualification to work with children. Most children in custody are in young offender institutions; that is to say, they are cared for and managed by prison officers. Yet it was only last year that for the first time there was a specialist training for prison officers—the Juvenile Awareness Staff Programme, developed with the Trust for the Study of Adolescence—to equip prison officers to work sensitively with these vulnerable children. We have a real problem in this country in properly equipping professionals to work sensitively with vulnerable children. I think again of The second joint Chief Inspectors’ Report on Arrangements to Safeguard Children, published in the summer of last year. It was particularly concerned about Yarl’s Wood removal centre and the very inadequate safeguards for children in that setting. I visited Yarl’s Wood in October of last year and it appeared to me that significant steps had been taken in the right direction in managing those vulnerable children. I recall seeing a new family with young children arrive and passing the barred doorway to enter the Yarl’s Wood centre. A mother said to me that her child had said to her, ““What have I done wrong? Why am I being put in prison? What is my offence?””. One has to work so sensitively in these areas. We have a poor record in ensuring that people working directly with vulnerable children and families are properly equipped. There must be concerns, particularly when one talks about recruiting private contractors, who, for instance, may be working on the Continent, that they are up to the right standards. I ask for reassurance from the Minister on that particular matter—that at least we know that they are properly trained in child protection and that there are proper Criminal Records Bureau checks on officers working in this area. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I just add that in the Children’s Act 2004 the Government resisted the inclusion of immigration authorities in the Section 11 arrangements to safeguard children. So there is all the more reason why we should seek at this stage to get absolute assurance that we can be confident that officers working directly with these vulnerable children and families are properly trained to do so.