Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 34:"After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—" ““IMMIGRATION SERVICE: WELFARE OF CHILDREN    In section 11(1) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31) (arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare), after paragraph (m) insert— ““(n)   a regional office of the National Asylum Support Service; (o)   the centre manager of an immigration removal centre; (p)   the Chief Immigration Officer at a port of entry.”””” The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief at this late hour but also to do justice to the matter. Perhaps I may refer to the debate on contracting out for searches. I omitted to underline the importance of ensuring that Home Office monitors are properly equipped and trained. Perhaps the Minister will write to me on that point. The amendment places a duty on various elements of the Immigration Service to give regard to promoting and safeguarding the welfare of children while performing its functions. I emphasise the duty to give regard. It is a soft duty which is already on the police service and Prison Service and does not interfere with their primary function. I apologise for raising the matter at Third Reading. It does not fit the criteria we have been advised to accept. I hope that noble Lords will understand the unusual circumstances. At a late stage of the Bill, the Children’s Commissioner and the Chief Inspector of Prisons gave oral evidence to Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee. The sub-committee deals with home affairs. They expressed considerable concerns about the welfare of children in the Immigration Service. That prompted me to table an amendment on Report. I am grateful to the Minister for her time in discussing the matter today and for the hope which was offered at that meeting. I refer to Yarl’s Wood as an example where things have not been working. In doing so, I pay tribute to the men and women who work in that institution. The concerns are no reflection on their good will and the wish to do the best for the families detained. It is a reflection on the quality of thinking underlying the establishment of the facility just over a year ago. Improvements have been made but they have been slow and there is still a long way to go. The lack of partnership between the detention centre and local social services and the connection with those making decisions in the Home Office were identified as matters of serious concern by the joint chief inspectors in their report on safeguarding children. I hope that the amendment will contribute to addressing such an issue in future. I recognise the immense difficulty that the Government face. Some noble Lords may have heard Mr McNulty this morning on Radio 4. It is an extremely delicate and difficult matter. In the report by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the death of Victoria Climbié, a deputy manager of social services said that they lost their ability to be social workers because of the time they had to spend dealing with asylum seekers. There were no additional resources to cope with it. One must seek to manage migration in a sensible way and avoid too much pressure on scant resources in certain areas. The Minister expressed concern about the legal implications and the implications for the successful removals of failed asylum seekers and irregular migrants. I hope that the legal opinion I gave her yesterday and circulated somewhat late to noble Lords—I received it only this weekend—may reassure the noble Baroness. It is a mild duty. She has a concern about education, in as much as a child being educated in this country might be removed to a second country that has a poorer education system, and the amendment might be used to resist that removal because a child should not be given a poorer education. That point is already covered by the European Convention on Human Rights. There was a case involving the prevention of the removal of a child. It focused on primary education. That case, the Holub case, was not accepted. I emphasise that this is a duty to give regard—a very weak duty in terms of judicial review. In conclusion, I apologise once again for bringing this difficult matter back at Third Reading and I hope that noble Lords will appreciate the circumstances. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment, or at least give an undertaking actively to review the area, look at guidance and see whether that might be improved. I look forward to her response.