UK Borders Bill

That is very good news. I shall speak to the clause as a whole, which is a classic example of having been designed for the convenience of Governments and not human beings. We know one reason why it is being introduced: it is a convenient means of keeping track of young people or unaccompanied children pending removal. There would have to be a legitimate reason for that and, drawing on the JCHR evidence, I cannot see how the reasons listed in Article 8 on respect for family life and Article 11 on freedom of association under the Human Rights Act can apply to unaccompanied asylum seekers—reasons such as national security, public safety and the prevention of crime and so on. In fact, this clause could apply to anyone with limited leave to remain—even spouses, I understand. In my view, while it might apply to those who committed serious crimes, it would be excessive, an unnecessary addition to the Bill and prejudicial, in particular, to the character of young asylum seekers. The Refugee Children’s Consortium believes it to be unnecessary, unfair and costly, and says that it is damaging and inappropriate to seek to legislate for open-ended reporting and residence requirements for those children. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already asked for reassurance, but I hope that the Minister can assure me that the clause will not be used for asylum seekers or those with refugee status.