UK Borders Bill

The noble Earl is entitled to interrupt me—that is how the Committee works, and it is a perfectly reasonable point to make. I shall try to deal with the issue as I go through the arguments. I say the same to my good and noble friend Lord Judd. I hear his question, but the state has a responsibility. Monitoring children in these circumstances is done for good immigration purposes but, equally importantly, for good child protection reasons, too. It is not our intention to take over the valuable work done by social services, but it is our intention to complement that valuable and important work. As my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland made clear at Second Reading, we will not impose conditions that would end up pulling children out of school to attend reporting conferences far away. We envisage these procedures working sometimes in a light-touch way; it may be that reporting can be done by telephone and outside school hours for children. On that point, I believe that it was the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who raised the question about things such as travel expenses for those with a reporting obligation. We currently pay travel expenses to some of those on temporary remissions who have to report. Although there is no express power allowing the Secretary of State to pay travel expenses to those with leave to report, we are giving some more consideration to that welfare issue. It is something that we are keeping carefully under review. We also intend to apply the new powers to foreign criminals who cannot be removed at present due to legal barriers. The need to monitor such people with a view to eventual removal is clearly in the public interest. That case has been made before. I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 28 and 30A, as the arguments for resisting them can be quickly made. These amendments would add nothing to Clause 16 beyond that which is already provided in domestic legislation and international agreements. The Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with convention rights—hence we cannot lawfully impose such restrictions where to do so would be in breach of the refugee convention or infringe rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Reporting and residency restrictions can lawfully be applied to those recognised as refugees. There is also a general legal requirement on public authorities to exercise their powers in a reasonable and, I argue, proportionate way. This would apply to the exercise of the new powers in Clause 16 as it stands. Amendment No. 27A seeks to limit the application of conditional leave to specified circumstances and does not allow the flexibility that we would need to attach reporting and/or residency conditions to individuals falling outside those criteria. The amendment would also limit the application of the clause for child protection purposes, which Amendment No. 30 also seeks to do. As we have already explained, we want to be able to apply the clause to minors, with a view to improving child protection. Granting leave with reporting and, where needed, residency conditions should mean that the absence of a child from care is noted at an early stage, the reason for the absence established and all reasonable steps taken to locate the child. That would not be possible if this amendment were in place. We also intend to use Clause 16 to ensure good contact management with those we may want to remove at a later date, but believe that it would not be right for the Government to have to show that there was a risk of absconding. There would be arguments about the level and timing of risk. In fact, those on limited leave may not be likely to abscond in the short term, as some Members of the Committee have already mentioned. We believe that it is right to maintain closer contact with older children whose leave is about to expire. That will allow us to ensure that appropriate arrangements are made for their removal from the UK or for further applications for leave. We will continue to seek to return young people who no longer qualify for leave when they reach 18. Sending children to the United Kingdom who do not have genuine asylum claims in the hope that they will establish a footing for the rest of the family in this country is an abuse of the asylum system and exploitative of the child. Returning those who have been sent in this way when they reach adulthood will deter this unacceptable practice. The contact management aspect of Clause 16 will also help prepare young people, ahead of their 18th birthday, for removal after it. Amendment No. 29 would allow the Border and Immigration Agency only to apply a condition about residence on someone who lives within 25 miles of a reporting centre. It also states that, where the location is relevant to a person’s employment purposes, that will take precedence over our ability to restrict residence. Accepting this amendment would severely undermine the condition about residence and the usefulness of the provision in terms of contact management. If a person chose to live more than 25 miles from a reporting centre, they would not have to tell us their address, and we would not be able to approve the address at which they wished to reside. We would not be able to use the clause for child protection issues in these circumstances either. Others living within 25 miles of a reporting centre might be able to argue that we did not need to know of or approve of a change of address because their employment made a new location suitable. Under current reporting arrangements for asylum seekers, individuals are not generally expected to travel further than 25 miles to report. If there is not a reporting centre within 25 miles, there are alternative options—requiring the person to report to an immigration officer at a local police station, for example. We anticipate that a similar policy will be adopted for persons with limited leave who are required to report. The amendment as drafted would preclude any alternative reporting options for any individuals residing over 25 miles from the nearest reporting centre. Once they had moved, reporting conditions would be modified accordingly so that they could report to a reporting centre nearer to their new home. Amendment No. 66 would place a specific duty on the chief inspector of the Border and Immigration Agency to consider practice and procedure in setting conditions under Clause 16. Clause 47(2) is drafted in such a way as to allow the chief inspector to consider the practice and procedure in making decisions in all aspects of the Border and Immigration Agency’s work. Where there is a specific area of concern, the Secretary of State will be able to ask the chief inspector to investigate and report on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked one or two specific questions. He wanted to know how unaccompanied children got into the United Kingdom and whether we had figures on how many were involved. I do not have those data today. There are many routes for immigration, as he knows. However, I will ask officials to undertake some research and interrogate the numbers that he made reference to.