UK Borders Bill

When the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered these issues, we heard far too much distressing evidence that asylum-seeking children suffer a lower level of protection in relation to a range of rights compared with other children. In our deliberations, which are there in our report, we consider that one way in which to attempt to address that unequal protection was to extend the duty contained in Section 11 of the Children Act which requires public bodies, as has been argued by noble Lords, to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when discharging their functions and providing services so that it includes authorities providing support for asylum seekers, the Immigration Service and immigration removal centres. The committee in its recommendation stressed that the Bill should be amended by the addition of a new clause extending the duty in Section 11 of the Children Act to those providing welfare and support services to asylum seekers, including, as I have just said, the National Asylum Support Service, the Immigration Service and the immigration removal centres. I was strongly identified with that work and with the recommendation. Having listened to what my noble friend the Minister said, I believe that it be would churlish not to say that he has endeavoured to move a long way to meet precisely those anxieties. He should be commended for that. I sometimes think that an effective form of pressure, although I may not be very good at it all the time, is to encourage people in the logic of the direction which they have set. Rather than always saying, ““Oh, but the bottle’s still half-empty””, it is better to say, ““The bottle is half-full; now let’s fill it””. In that spirit, the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, were very powerful. It would therefore be a pity if, in the spirit of trying to meet anxieties which the Minister has displayed, he were simply to reject the amendments. They genuinely endeavour to strengthen his resolve and to turn what might be seen historically as aspiration into effective action. I share the anxieties of both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that ““have regard to”” is not the way in which one makes things effective. It would be quite wrong in Committee deliberations of this kind to become emotional, but I say with all the conviction that I can muster—and here I speak for myself, but know that I speak for other members of the Committee, as well—that we were appalled by how children became casualties of systems. We were appalled at how the identity, personality and individual needs of children, despite the good intentions—and the sadness of it is that very often the good intent is beyond question—of officials and others, were somehow neglected and looked at as a management problem, to be resolved by finding the right solution at a management level. I began to think in the middle of it all that what really was needed for a child in this situation—let us think how intimidating and formidable it must be for the child concerned—was a champion for them: somebody whose job it was to make absolutely sure that the child’s interests came above everything else. I also became convinced that, in terms of the obligations which we have in good faith given in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we have an absolute duty to keep the overriding interests of the individual child central to the operation. We should ask not how we find a solution to a problem, but what will really be best for the child. A lot of things need to be done to that end, but the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have taken on board—they might perhaps have been a little more forthcoming and generous in their observations—the momentum which the Minister has established. We should build on that. Their amendments could be extremely helpful in securing effective results rather than expressing administrative aspiration.