UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 3: 3: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— ““Detention by Secretary of State (1) Section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (detention by Secretary of State) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1) insert the words ““over the age of eighteen”” after the word ““person”” in the first line. (3) After subsection (3) insert— ““(3A) A provision of Schedule 2 to that Act about a person who is detained or liable to detention under that Schedule shall only apply to a person over the age of eighteen.””.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. It is probably a good idea to draw to the attention of the House that what I say will also cover the rationale for Amendment No. 16, which is in a later group for our deliberations. Perhaps that will mean that I do not have to say so much on Amendment No. 16 when we reach it. The purpose of these amendments is to end the detention of children below the age of 18 under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act powers. Such detention should not happen and it is certainly not in furtherance of the Prime Minister’s powerful biblical reference to an inclusive policy for children in his recent speech to the Labour Party conference. It is contrary to our international commitments and should stop. I recognise that the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is designed to deal with the same issue. I assure the noble Baroness that I shall listen most attentively and carefully to what she says. I also assure the Minister that I shall listen equally carefully to what he says in reply to that amendment, and he can draw his own deductions about how I therefore intend to proceed. At present, children are detained under the same policy as adults. There is no consideration of the fact that they are vulnerable when a decision is taken to detain. Government guidance on detention states that, in all cases, detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary. Despite that, recent Home Office statistics show that a large number of children are being detained with their families each year. Asylum statistics show that during 2006 1,235 children were recorded as leaving detention and in 2005 the figure was 1,580. In Grand Committee, my noble friend repeated previous government assurances that: "““In practice, the vast majority of families are detained for periods of seven days or fewer, most often just before their planned removal from the UK." He argued that the Government want, "““to ensure that children are detained only where absolutely necessary””.—[Official Report, 23/7/07; cols. GC 160-61.]" I have no doubt at all about my noble friend’s genuine intentions in this respect. However, the latest asylum statistics show that, in practice, this is not happening. As at 30 June 2007, 35 children were in detention and, of this number, 10—29 per cent—had been in detention for between one and two months; 20 children—57 per cent—had been in detention for between 15 and 29 days; and only five children—14 per cent—for seven days or fewer. Recent statistics obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from Yarl’s Wood detention centre show that one-third of children remained in the centre for more than seven days and five children were held for between four and six months. I am indebted to the Save the Children Fund for its concern and insight into these matters and also to the Refugee Children’s Consortium for its incredibly hard and committed work in this area of policy. Save the Children Fund research found that the length of time that children were detained with their families varied from seven to 268 days. I understand that a recent letter from the Border and Immigration Agency to a member of the Refugee Children’s Consortium stated that the recommendations of the family removals review, "““have now been agreed and that implementation of the … Review has a target date of 31 December 2007””." However, the Refugee Children’s Consortium is still awaiting clarity on which of the 46 recommendations of the review will be implemented. In particular, it briefed me that it is anxious to have an assurance that all the recommendations relating to the welfare of children will be implemented and that key stakeholders will be consulted in the implementation of those recommendations. Obviously, it is to be welcomed that in Grand Committee my noble friend argued that the key benefit of the pilot to be run as an alternative to detention is that it will, "““reduce the number of children needing to go into an immigration removal centre””.—[Official Report, 23/7/07; col. GC 161.]" It is now necessary to have an assurance that the pilot is a genuine alternative to detention and that it will seek to reduce the number of families with children who are detained, rather than create an addition to detention. It is also essential that my noble friend confirms that any evaluation of the pilot will be conducted independently and transparently and that it will involve key stakeholders. Front-line experience, to which my attention has been drawn—as, I am sure, has that of other noble Lords—suggests that the use of detention is not in proportion to the risk of non-compliance. Refugee Children’s Consortium members have documented numerous cases of families being detained, despite complying with reporting obligations and being low risk with regard to non-compliance or absconding. Research also shows that families are detained without any imminent prospect of their removal and with outstanding issues remaining on their asylum claim. The Government hold that children are detained for the shortest possible time. A statutory limit of seven days on the time that children can be detained would ensure that that occurs in practice. I know that in response to the amendment moved in Grand Committee my noble friend replied that any statutory limit would, in the Government’s view, "““serve to encourage individuals to frustrate lawful removal attempts in order to reach the point at which they would be released from detention””.—[Official Report, 23/7/07; col. GC 160.]" However, current operation instructions on removals and judicial review would make it difficult for an individual to frustrate removal attempts for seven days if removal directions were served at the point of detention. The minimum timescales in place between serving removal directions and removal—in order for the person to seek advice and judicial review if appropriate—is generally 72 hours, including two working days. Additionally, the instructions go on to explain that removal will not be deterred by the threat of judicial review. It is important that an independent welfare assessment and an assessment of the likely impact of detention should be carried out for all children before they are detained. The health-led initial assessment of children on arrival at detention and the forthcoming Border and Immigration Agency code of practice, referred to by my noble friend in Grand Committee, do not replace the need for a statutory independent welfare assessment prior to and during detention. Although it is always damaging for children to be detained, an independent welfare assessment could prevent some of the worst abuses caused by the system. It is vital to have an assurance that an assessment of a child’s welfare needs will be available before and during detention and that it will be taken into account in decisions to detain and throughout the detention process. Any welfare assessment should surely determine what is in the child’s best interests and reflect the views and wishes of the child, in line with Articles 3 and 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It should also be available in all places where families are detained, not just at Yarl’s Wood where there is a social worker in residence. There is, of course, provision for welfare assessments by a social worker at Yarl’s Wood for children detained for longer than 21 days. However, there is much room for concern at the length of detention before an assessment. Experience indicates that families’ legal representatives, detention centre and immigration staff are all unclear about the scope and purpose of the welfare assessment. In the absence of clear instructions and protocols, there is limited scope for assessment to lead to positive outcomes for the children concerned. Introducing an independent welfare assessment would balance the drive to enforce immigration control with the needs of vulnerable children. In the absence of an end to detention of children, which must be at all times the priority, and which is long, long-overdue, statutory safeguards should be put in place to ensure that vulnerable children and their families have at least some limited protection. I beg to move.