UK Borders Bill

This observation is felt as well as meant: I could not be other than moved by the cases referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Clearly, that is not best practice and it is not what we want to hear. I cannot comment on individual cases because it would be wrong of me to do so, but the Committee will record its gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for being as assiduous as he is in pursuing us in government with those issues and drawing our attention to what he and others quite rightly view as malpractice. I congratulate him on doing that and it is right. One feels extremely uncomfortable listening to disturbing stories of that nature. Whatever the justification, they make one feel very uncomfortable indeed. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made the point that officials find themselves in difficult circumstances when dealing with families who have different family needs—children of different ages requiring different things, where someone has become hospitalised or is in poor health, or where both parents are absent for whatever reason. Clearly, those are distressing circumstances and not easy for anyone to resolve. However, overarching all that must be the consideration that we must look after the best interests of the children concerned—that whatever the outcome of each individual case, their welfare and care must be of primary importance. We come to the amendment and its effect and the issues that were so neatly drawn together in her concluding comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who quite properly draws out the issues relating to core protection. Numerous bodies are charged with the care, protection and welfare of children in this country. Local authorities, education and healthcare professionals are among them. All these are bound under domestic legislation to provide the same standard of care to all children, irrespective of their immigration status. We are satisfied that children subject to immigration control and present in the United Kingdom receive comprehensive care, protection and support in the main. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made or that occasionally there are circumstances when those standards are not met in the spirit of domestic legislation. The amendment would require every decision to grant, refuse or vary leave involving a child to be made so that it is compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, with a view to that child’s best interests. However, this wording is too vague; it is not clear how it would be interpreted, and it is quite likely that because of this vagueness it will be used as another avenue to remain in the United Kingdom by those who have no right to stay. The Secretary of State is entitled to query the purpose of the amendment. We have already established that it cannot be so that children who are subject to immigration control receive the same care, protection and welfare as other children in the UK. Our domestic legislation provides for that. The amendment can only be designed to prevent the carrying out of immigration functions, yet that is the very reason that we have an immigration reservation in respect of this convention. We could not operate an effective immigration system unless its functions—under powers given by Parliament—were not able to supersede other benefits that a person gets simply by being physically present in the country. If it did not matter how you got here, whether or not relatives who could look after you were here or whether or not they had obeyed the laws of this country—if all that mattered was that you should be physically present and claiming to be under 18 and that the immigration functions no longer applied to you—our system could not operate effectively or efficiently and another reason for impeding it would have been found. No doubt those who support the amendment will say that the second part of it still allows a deportation order to be made, so some of the immigration functions can be carried out; for instance, a child who is a family member of a person who is being deported would not be covered by the convention. Deportation is the last resort in the exercise of immigration control and is hardly ever, if at all, applied to children in their own right. Cases involving children as a family member of an adult who is being deported are, of course, considered very carefully and with specific reference to the effect on the children; the Immigration Rules require that. The amendment would not change anything of practical consequence. Taken together, this would work against the effectiveness of our immigration control. The Government believe that the reservation remains justified to maintain effective immigration control. Further, the amendment would go beyond removing the Government’s reservation; it would, to a limited extent, incorporate the United Nations convention into domestic primary legislation and make it justiciable in UK law. All that said, it does not mean that we are not responding to the concerns expressed that the functions of the Immigration Service do not carry with them the same obligations to take account of children’s needs as other agencies. It is for that reason that we have introduced a new duty for the Border and Immigration Agency to have regard to a code of practice to keep children safe from harm while they are in the United Kingdom. That has been welcomed. I recognise that noble Lords will be disappointed at this response, and I accept that there is more for us to do in the field of protecting the interests of children and child welfare as a primary issue. But we have to return to the point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred: the duty to protect citizens of the United Kingdom. That is one of the primary purposes of immigration control and, however uncomfortable that may feel from time to time, we have to have firm principles in place and a clear basis on which to operate. That is why we have adopted the current position.