UK Borders Bill

I am sure that nothing would. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has shown great principle and courage over all the years that I have been here, and I know that he has served the House much longer than I have. It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, directs us again to the issue of child welfare and how it should be promoted. We have revisited many of the arguments that were dealt with at the end of day one of Committee, when we looked at Amendment No. 13. The conundrum that has to be resolved is: how does one adequately protect and promote the welfare of children who are affected by the immigration system, while the Government, as their prime duty, protect the people of this country, many of whom are children and to whom the Government also owe that duty of protection and welfare? We have heard some harrowing stories and obviously the Minister will address the particular of those but, looking to the general, I am grateful for the briefing from the Refugee Children’s Consortium. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, that organisation is concerned that the Government have stated that they do not intend to sign up to the UNCRC in respect of the terms of the amendment. The Government said that they believe that their general reservation on immigration and citizenship does not prevent them having regard to the UNCRC in their care and protection of separated children. I appreciate that the Minister gave much of his answer on the first day in Committee, but we need to hear from him again why the Government believe that that is the case. Of course, we have been given the code of practice, Keeping Children Safe from Harm, from the Border and Immigration Agency, and that has been helpful. We considered the code and need to test how far it goes in meeting our concerns. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others have said, we will return to this issue. There are other matters covering the welfare of children, particularly those in detention with or without a responsible adult. The argument of the Refugee Children’s Consortium is that the reservation entered into by the Government means that, in practice, the Government are not able adequately to protect children. It alleges that it allows the UK to pass immigration laws without reference to the convention. For example, it alleges that some of the proposals in the Bill would be in contravention of the convention. Therefore, we need to hear from the Minister why the course that the Government intend to adopt and develop in response to amendments that we have already debated enables them to maintain their reservation without compromising the safety and welfare of children in the system. If the Minister is not able to do that, by the time we get to Report I feel that a head of steam will be building up and that noble Lords will want to try to ensure somehow that there is a core protection. At the moment, the core protection is that encapsulated in Section 11. If the Section 11 proposals could be embodied in the Bill in some strong, guaranteed way, many if not all of the other amendments would not be necessary. I am not wholeheartedly saying that I support this amendment, because there are other ways in which we can address the problem. It was absolutely right for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to bring it forward because the Minister needs to be able to enter his justification.