UK Parliament / Open data

UK Borders Bill

Proceeding contribution from Damian Green (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 29 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bills on UK Borders Bill.
Again, I have no objections in principle to the amendment, but I seek clarification from the Minister. The amendment would"““designate an adult as the person responsible for ensuring that a child complies with the requirements of the regulations””." I am genuinely unsure who the Minister means by a ““designated adult””. Would that include a foster carer? I am sure that he, like me, has met many people who have been foster carers and who therefore deserve our admiration and support, which is particularly true of those who take in unaccompanied children who have come to this country. Such children may not speak the language; they may have experienced trauma in their lives; and they may experience difficulties in adjusting to a new society. Will the Minister clarify whether the ““designated adult”” could be a foster carer? If so, and if the child were involved in an infringement, would the adult be in any way responsible, as the amendment suggests, and would that ““designated adult”” be subject to penalties, which would give rise to even greater difficulties than those we face at the moment in persuading people to become foster carers? Secondly, I want to ask the same question in a different context. If the designated adult were appointed to represent an individual child by the local authority in a legal case involving adoption or another matter involving children, would the sanctions apply to that individual child only, in which case what is the point of designating the adult? As it stands, the amendment is confusing; it does not appear to achieve anything very much. If my second assumption is right and the designated adult mentioned is a guardian appointed by the court, I should say that there are only so many courts to go around and they are extremely hard-pressed at the moment. If added work and pressure are to be put on the court system, there may well be resource implications—in respect of not only asylum-seeking children, but children generally. Such examples are hypothetical, but they go to the heart of what is not clear in the amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister cleared that up.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

465 c538-9 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top