UK Borders Bill

Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 in this group are in my name. Amendment No. 63 deals with record keeping. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Avebury, have made clear why it is essential to keep being better informed about how many families are in these settings and about how long children are being held. I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading about speaking with those families. I spoke to a 16-year-old woman who had been in detention for five months and to another mother whose children were there for a second term. Amendment No. 63 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report regularly to Parliament on the lengths of stay of children in detention centres and to provide other related information on children in the immigration and asylum system. It is a probing amendment to discover how far Her Majesty’s Government have improved their statistics since the report of Sub-Committee F of the House of Lords European Union Select Committee—HL Paper 166—on returns of asylum seekers last year. The report expressed concern about the quality of information kept on detained families. It records the evidence from the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Children's Commissioner and their common concern about the quality of monitoring of the stays of these families. The Children’s Commissioner, for example, could not determine how many children were held at Yarl’s Wood over Christmas. Members of the sub-committee were surprised that a system for logging stays, which is normal in many hotels and is employed throughout the prison system, was not applied in these circumstances. It is recognised that a small number of families have been permitted to stay for an unnecessarily long time in detention. Clearly both Parliament and the Government need the right information to avoid repetition of this. For example, Anne Owers, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, said that the problem is that statistics are, "““a snapshot of the number of people detained at one moment in time””." She continued: "““What we do not get are regular reports on population … how many people over a year, how many children over a year, were detained in total, and for what lengths of time they were detained””." Professor Aynsley-Green has talked about the same matter. He says: "““We need much more information generally about the whole journeys of children through the system. At the moment there are no child-centred statistics or facts, and as was said just now, they are often invisible—they are seen as appendages to families and not as people in their own right. So we would ask for much greater clarity: how many children and young people; the breakdown by ages, country of origin, family structure; how long they have been there, where they have been detained and their experience of detention””." I shall make one aside as we discuss this matter of information. Families are troubled about the information with which they are provided about the progress of their case. The remarks in the report are what I have heard from families in this setting. It is also what the managers in these settings say. They would welcome the opportunity for families to have better access to information. I join the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in encouraging the Minister to visit Yarl’s Wood if he has not yet had the opportunity to do so. He would find it very helpful. Amendment No. 64 would give statutory force to Guideline 11 of the Council of Europe guidelines on forced returns of children and families. For example, Guideline 11.1 states that, "““children shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest period of time””." Guideline 11.5 states that the, "““best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of children pending removal””." This is a probing amendment, the purpose of which is to learn why Her Majesty’s Government have placed a reservation on this particular section of the guidelines. The Council of Europe document has no statutory force, and this particular section appears to be very much in line with the Government’s own wishes. Surely the Minister can now agree to withdraw the Government’s reservation. The House of Lords European Union Select Committee raised this matter in correspondence with the Minister’s department, and it was a recommendation of its report. The guidelines are an annexe to HL Paper 166, if your Lordships wish to see it. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I reiterate that we need the best information possible on these families in these settings. Otherwise we cannot be reasonably certain that they are being cared for properly. It is costly to hold families in these settings. The Government recognise that there are difficult issues around documentation. I hope that the Minister will find this helpful in achieving his own aims of saving money and safeguarding children.