UK Borders Bill

My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that it is impossible to say that we can avoid detaining children altogether, but I disagree that we can place on it a statutory time limit of seven days. I am sorry to have to say that because I bow to nobody in my hatred of the need to detain children in whatever circumstances, but if we are to have effective immigration control, there are relevant circumstances, such as when a family needs to be detained together to facilitate its removal. We shall come on to that when we think about alternatives, because my noble friend will move an amendment to implement the destruction of Section 9. You cannot say that we will not bring extreme pressure to bear on people to depart voluntarily if you destroy the ability to remove them compulsorily. One has to consider the two propositions at the same time, however much we loathe the idea of bringing children to a place such as Yarl’s Wood. I agree with the right reverend Prelate, but it was not my meeting that we both attended. It was organised by a number of women’s groups to hear from people who had to put up with the conditions in Yarl’s Wood and who gave some pretty scarifying stories about them. Every one had a heartbreaking story to tell about their own experience and that of their families—their children, generally speaking. Of course, there was the extreme case that the right reverend Prelate will remember of Janipher Maseko, who was detained apart from her two children. They were separated from her at the time of her arrest and not restored until an enormous fuss was made by various women’s organisations such as Baby Milk Action, Black Women’s Rape Action Project and so on. The awful thing was that we already had an undertaking from the Minister that women would not be separated from breast-feeding infants except in the most extreme and exceptional circumstances. Yet, after two cases had been reported to the Minister, a third happened under our noses. That was so horrendous to all of us who listened to the facts that we could not believe that a civilised agency of the Government was capable of perpetrating such an injustice. Now, thank goodness, the instruction is embodied in the operational enforcement manual that women who are breast-feeding infants will not be detained separately from their children, except under extreme and exceptional circumstances, and we hope that that will be observed. One of the problems is that these things are put into documents—guidance or instructions—and then something goes wrong, and it does not happen at the coal face. From the stories that I have heard about Yarl’s Wood—I dare say that it is exactly the same in any of the other establishments one looks at, whether Campsfield House, Harmondsworth or Tinsley House—things go wrong, so one should keep the detention of children to a minimum. I was rather hoping that the promised guidance on how children should be treated would have a lot to say on this subject, so I was eagerly looking forward to receiving it. I got my copy at about 3.30 this afternoon—the copy that had been promised by Ministers in Committee and which we were told would reach your Lordships before we had to debate these matters on Report. I did not expect it to come to my hand at 3.14 or 3.30 in the afternoon, just before I had to come into the Chamber to discuss it. I have had only the most cursory opportunity of looking through it, but I shall summarise my anxieties about this document. First, it does not specifically mention detention. All this afternoon’s proceedings and the debates we had in Grand Committee on detention might well have been lost on those who constructed the document. I regret that it is not more precise. Secondly, it provides that staff must only have regard to the code; it does not state that they must observe any of the provisions. Thirdly, it does not make clear whether the code applies to private or voluntary contractors who are undertaking functions on behalf of the BIA. Fourthly—I am sure that this will annoy the noble Lord, Lord Judd—it says nothing about the need for an independent welfare assessment of children’s needs, a matter that has been highlighted many times, not only in your Lordships’ House but by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and others, including, I think, the Children’s Commissioner. This is a disappointing document but, even worse, it represents only a high-level draft that may be amended before being issued for formal consultation. It is not what we were promised at all. It is only a further stage in the process of drafting this document, which is an inadequate response to the promises that we were given in Committee. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will press his amendments. Even though I do not agree with the detail of them, it is a salutary exercise for the Government to be made to answer why the detention of children is not conducted in a more humane manner, what steps they are taking to minimise the time that children are kept in detention, and why it is necessary to detain them at all. I am glad to know of the measures being taken to pilot alternatives to detention, and I hope that we shall hear more about that from the Minister when he comes to reply. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in the spirit of his amendment, even though I cannot support him on the detail.