UK Borders Bill

I seem to have spoken an awful lot before actually speaking to my amendments, for which I apologise—but I was trying to assist the Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It would certainly not appear at first sight that my amendments would be directly relevant to Amendment No. 27A but, as he appreciates now, if we accepted his Amendment No. 27A, my Amendment No. 28 could not be called. I know that in Committee it is unlikely to happen, but we live in hope that the Government might accept amendments on occasions. I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 66. It was helpful that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke to his Amendment No. 30. When we had a briefing meeting for all Peers before this Bill began to pass through the House, it rapidly became clear from the views expressed by the outside organisations that Clause 16 is one of the most controversial parts of the Bill. The questions that lie behind this larger grouping that was originally made by the Government are as follows. Which people are the Government trying to target by introducing this far more stringent set of conditions? Do they really have a justification for introducing them? Will they be properly applied to what appear to be two narrow categories? Do we really need such a scattergun approach as is provided by the Government’s amendments if they are trying to target two groups only? Whoever is to be covered by this tougher group of conditions, are those conditions appropriate or disproportionate in how they will operate? The new provisions introduced by the Government would introduce reporting and residence conditions for those who have limited leave to enter or remain. Those persons would include refugees, work permit holders, highly skilled migrants and family members of those who are already settled in the UK. I am not sure that the wide remit of these provisions has been properly understood by the public. That is my concern. The whole thrust of the Government’s press release system on this has been to present this as a Bill that attacks illegal migration. Of course, the Government need to do that because they need to impress on the public that they are doing what they can to secure this country. But it means that those who will be affected by Clause 16 may not appreciate what is about to hit them. It is important that we discuss these matters. The reporting and residence conditions could include daily reporting to an immigration officer and curfews. They are therefore far more intrusive than the conditions now available under Section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971. Those more limited conditions encompass prohibition from working, no recourse to public funds and registration with the police. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded the Committee that when this clause was debated in Committee in another place, at col. 303 on 13 March, the Minister, Joan Ryan, stated that the Government initially intend to apply these further conditions only to two categories—to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and to those foreign prisoners whom the Government are unable to remove from the UK. My amendments probe the extent of the conditions that the Government intend to impose on whether they are likely to be effective or proportionate. Amendment No. 28 would require that any condition imposed on residence should be reasonable in the circumstances. As we heard earlier, points were made about how easy or difficult it will be for people to travel to those reporting places. Amendment No. 29 would disapply the power to impose residence conditions if the residence indicated by the Government was more than 25 miles from the nearest reporting centre or would unduly interfere with the person's ability to keep their employment. Amendment No. 66 would require the chief inspector of the Border and Immigration Agency to report on the way in which the new restrictions in Clause 16 have been imposed and the effects on the individuals affected. The Minister in another place claimed at col. 304 in Committee that the Government would apply these reporting and residency conditions to children only when strictly necessary, either for their own welfare or with a view to closer contact management as they approach the age of 18. That appears to be exactly what the noble Earls, Lord Listowel and Lord Sandwich, were talking about. The Government want to keep tabs on these children because they think that they are going to abscond. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was correct in trying to tease out from the Government whether absconsion is what really worries them. We need to know, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has asked, whether the Government think that there is a problem with the absconsion of children. If there is, we need to tackle it. This may not be the right way to do that, but we must tackle it, because their welfare will be at risk. We have heard stories about children absconding from the care of social services and going straight back into the hands of traffickers. That is something that none of us wants to happen. The methods that the Government are adopting may be the only way of preventing that and we will have to consider them, but we need to hear from the Minister what other avenues they have sought to use to safeguard children in these circumstances. The Minister will have read the briefing from the Refugee Council, which makes the point that, at the moment, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that minors are more likely to abscond than any other category of non-national. On the contrary, the Refugee Council argues that it is in the children's interest not to abscond because they are more likely to be dependent for their survival on support from the social services. They have a vested interest in staying put. The Refugee Children’s Consortium has particular concerns about this measure being applied to unaccompanied children. Children who seek asylum alone in this country are by their nature very vulnerable: they often do not know the language; they cannot understand or navigate complex systems of support and they may be very traumatised by their experiences. How does the Minister believe such children are best addressed by these proposals? It may be that they are, but we need to know how. The worry is that the impact of imposing reporting and residence requirements on these children will be immense and make them feel even more fearful. The Minister in another place claimed that the Government would be reasonable in dictating where a person should live or where they should report, but where in the Bill do we find any assurance that the powers to be used will be limited in that way and for a limited definition of people? At the moment, the provisions in the Bill go very wide and give the Government the opportunity to pick and choose the timescale of rolling out the proposals to any specific group of people or to all people. We need to know the Government’s plans and their justification. I appreciate that it was misleading for the Deputy Chairman—we have had a change of Chairman in the interim—that the original grouping has been maintained, but it is helpful. I know it was a slip of the tongue from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, when he said he was moving Amendment No. 30; like me, he was simply speaking to it. When we come to the amendments in their place we will not move them, but at least I hope it will give the Minister the opportunity properly to answer the debate.