UK Borders Bill

I would like to be able to give the noble Earl an answer because he is trying to make a fair point. However, I do not have that information, and I do not think it is collected in that format. It is not frequently the case that people come in and out of detention. It may well happen from time to time, but I do not have data on it. I will see what further information we can provide. We want to ensure that children are detained only where absolutely necessary. I think it is accepted that that is the case. The code of practice on how the Border and Immigration Agency will help to keep children safe from harm will include specific reference to the arrangements for taking decisions to detain, and to the assessment of children’s welfare while they are in detention—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, were getting to. The agency has developed arrangements with Migrant Helpline to provide an alternative to detention for children. The scheme will be run in conjunction with NGOs, which will work with families to help them plan for their return home without needing formally to detain the family in an immigration removal centre. We are grateful to that organisation for its assistance. The key benefits of the scheme will be to reduce the number of children needing to go into an immigration removal centre, coupled with an increase in the number of families choosing to return home voluntarily. I described the system of ministerial authorisation for the detention of children beyond 28 days, announced in December 2003 to ensure more rigorous oversight of the detention of children. Robust processes are in place to identify and manage families with children entering immigration detention. Removal centres are required to play a positive and active role in this respect and are required to provide information about such detention to the central Management of Detained Cases Unit that oversees the detention of families with children. In the rare event that detention is protracted, the outcome of a thorough process of assessment and consideration is reflected in the advice that the Minister of State receives. He decides on that basis whether detention should continue.  Amendment No. 63 imposes a requirement on the agency to report to the Secretary of State and Parliament on children in detention. The report would cover all children detained as a result of the activities of the agency, together with the numbers of children who the agency has attempted to deport and of those remaining in the United Kingdom. This would be an extremely resource-intensive exercise and would serve no practical purpose given the short period of detention of the vast majority of children and the safeguards already in place. Since relatively few children are detained for longer periods, it would be difficult to make public a meaningful report of the type suggested. The agency is currently considering ways to improve the statistical information available on detention of children. On Amendment No. 64, I have already set out the systems in place to protect children in detention and the reasons why detention is necessary. I am concerned that the terms of this amendment would invite unwelcome and perhaps spurious legal challenges motivated solely for the purpose of delaying removal. That would not be in the best interests of children. For this same reason, we are maintaining our reservation to Guideline 11 of the Council of Europe’s Guidelines on Forced Returns.  We entered our reservation on the basis that, even as a non-mandatory, non-binding guideline, we were concerned that, if accepted without reservation, its various elements would still be advanced as a basis for legal challenge designed solely to prevent and frustrate removal. It would regrettably become a means of fruitless and expensive challenges in the courts which would have very little, if anything, to do with genuine concerns for a child’s welfare. For those reasons I hope that noble Lords, having heard my rather lengthy commentary, will feel able to withdraw their amendments. I ought perhaps to add a comment or two on some of the questions asked or points made. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and others were extremely concerned about some of the reports made and heard about Dungavel House. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons said: "““We found centre staff to be extremely supportive of the families and children held at Dungavel. Living accommodation was good, and the crèche was well-run … Overall, Dungavel is the best-run IRC we have inspected. Within the limits of their responsibility, managers and staff have gone a long way to try to create a generally supportive and decent environment for some extremely vulnerable people; and they are greatly to be commended for this””." I have similar sorts of comments on exactly the same—