UK Borders Bill

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue. I think that I will disappoint him, but I doubt whether he would ever be surprised at that. I am unable to accept the amendment for the same reasons that my honourable friend in another place, Liam Byrne, gave during the Public Bill Committee on a very similar amendment. The Government are clear that there must be certainty in the process, which is crucial to the effective administration of the provisions. I have heard what noble Lords have said, and I respect their views. But focusing on a foreign criminal’s age at the time that they offended, rather than at the date of conviction, would reduce that certainty, because it is sometimes difficult to pin down exactly when a crime has taken place. It may have occurred over an extended period, which is particularly likely for some drug offences and perhaps for sex crimes. Or the victim may be unable to provide a precise date, as in some cases of child abuse. Accepting the amendment about when the offence took place and delays in decisions on whether automatic deportation should apply would not, I believe, be in the interests of justice. For those reasons, we cannot accept it. Some questions and points were raised, to which I should try to respond. My noble friend Lord Judd asked whether illegal entry would attract automatic deportation. That is not the case. The maximum penalty for illegal entry is six months, and that offence is not on the Section 72 list. My noble friend also said that if the Government are deporting children, we must be satisfied that there are proper arrangements in place for their destination countries. I agree; the Government are at one with him. We would not seek to deport a person aged under 18 unless there were more than adequate reception arrangements awaiting their return. That would be our policy approach. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether any of the offences in the Section 72 order were technical immigration offences. The only immigration offences under that order are serious offences, attracting a maximum penalty of 14 years, such as facilitation and trafficking. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, as ever, was concerned about the relationship of this clause with age and age determination. The court will have been able to use the statutory procedure set out in Section 99(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. If necessary, the court will also have been able to consider both domestic and foreign documentation. The noble Lord almost made a case for us having proper procedures, or procedures that were as rigorous as possible, in coming to a view about a person’s age. We had that important debate last week. Anything that we can do to sharpen that up—this goes back to the debate that we have had on a couple of occasions about using medical records, dental records, and so on—we should do, to get a proper or as accurate an age determination as we can. That probably covers all the points made. It is perhaps worth saying that when a person who is apparently under 18 is before the court, the court can make due inquiry as to their age and must take into account all evidence available to it. That is an important consideration. I hope that, having heard what I have to say, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment, although he may be disappointed.