UK Borders Bill

Just in case we lose sight of the foreign national prisoners covered by this clause, too, who were referred to in this debate only by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I reiterate that I wanted to know something from the Minister about the nature of the problem—which applied, according to Joan Ryan, only to a few tens of persons—I suppose she meant per annum. Was this principally a matter of difficulty in documenting foreign national prisoners as they approached the end of their sentences, either because their nationality could not conclusively be identified or because the countries of origin were difficult or obstructive in redocumenting those whose passports had expired? I wanted to know whether it was the intention of the Government, in using this clause, to allow foreign national prisoners to be released from custody. At present, because the arrangements for their removal have not been completed, they frequently remain either in the prison or in an immigration removal centre for some further time. I said that if the intention was to avoid that kind of situation, this clause was an excellent idea, but the Minister did not respond to that. Perhaps I can look forward to receiving something in writing. Coming back to UASC, questions remain unanswered and there are additional concerns over the way that these conditions are to be applied to them, which we have not adequately explored during this short debate. The Government’s consultation document, Planning Better Outcomes and Support for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children, which has been mentioned, also leaves many questions unanswered. In fact, it says nothing at all about reporting, although we are told that the clause is aimed particularly at UASC—and we have discussed that at some length. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, reminded the Committee that the intake of UASC applying is said to have remained at about 3,000 a year in the past three years, with 6,000 in the pool, because 3,000 come in and 3,000 go out. That is the population of UASC being looked after, while the total number of asylum seekers has declined sharply. I wonder whether the Government think that the global visa regime introduced in 2006 will have any impact on the arrivals of UASC. It would be doubly remarkable if the number of UASC remained stubbornly at this level while the number of asylum seekers sharply declined and continued to do so while the global visa regime, which is intended to have an effect on the numbers, begins to have an impact. From the sparse information that we have—and I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will provide further details—it looks as though a fairly large proportion of UASC may arrive here from other EU countries and, therefore, be sent back to those countries under Dublin II. I would be grateful if he could provide a single table of applications by UASC in the asylum statistics and for that to be extended to include the outcomes—particularly the number who are granted limited leave to remain, analysed by age, as is the case in many other categories in the quarterly asylum statistics. The UNHCR handbook says that an adolescent aged 16 or over may be regarded as sufficiently mature to have a well founded fear of persecution, but children of a lower age are presumably all granted limited leave, unless they came from another EU country. I would be grateful if the noble Lord confirmed that as well. As the consultation document says, the unpredictability of demand for accommodation and other services for UASC makes it difficult for local authorities to invest in procurement strategies, and there may be merit in the suggestion that provision should be confined to a few local authorities with specialist capacity for dealing with UASC. I was surprised that no one mentioned that during this debate, because the reporting restrictions, which have been severely criticised, could be intended to make sure that the UASC reside in the areas of those specialist authorities, if that proposal finds favour with the LGA and the local authorities concerned. It would be useful to hear what the local authorities have said about that in response to the consultation document. As the consultation finished at the end of May, it ought to be possible for the Minister to tell Members something about it today. If there is a consensus in favour of the specialist local authorities, a child could be directed to reside in one of them where it has been agreed that that local authority would provide the specialist accommodation and services for UASC. If they were required to report, under new Section 3(1)(c)(iv) a local officer of the BIA could be established in the area, perhaps in one of the offices of the local authority. I am giving the Minister a useful argument that he might like to use if he can provide us with that sort of information.