Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

It became apparent at Second Reading that, in terms of intent, we all feel this clause to be our own—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, referred to that—so I can be sure that it is generally welcomed and the right way to go. I understand that these probing amendments define some of the details and I welcome the opportunity to debate this important clause, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that immigration and customs functions are discharged ""having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children"." Subsection (4) places a similar duty on the Director of Border Revenue. I begin by considering Amendments 112 and 114, since they both seek to extend the duty to children outside the United Kingdom. As your Lordships know, Clause 51 seeks to replicate the effect of Section 11 of the Children Act 2004, which already applies such a duty to a range of public bodies including local authorities, the National Health Service, the police and youth offending teams. Section 11 applies only to England, whereas the duty in Clause 51 applies throughout the United Kingdom, which sensibly reflects the geographic extent of the jurisdiction of the UK Border Agency. However, these amendments seek to take the duty a step further, and to require the border force to discharge its functions having regard to the welfare of children not just in the UK, but worldwide. On the face of it, this may seem an attractive proposition, but it is not practical. The duty in Clause 51, supported as it will be by guidance which we will discuss later, is based on the systems in place in the United Kingdom and cannot simply be transplanted to other countries, which may have entirely different arrangements. Moreover, it is likely that those countries would consider it to be interference in their jurisdiction if the UK border force were to seek to assume the same level of responsibility for local children as it would for children in the United Kingdom. We think, therefore, that our formal responsibilities under this duty have to be confined to children who are in the United Kingdom. This common-sense approach is in line with, for example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also limits the responsibilities of state parties to children within their jurisdiction. However, we accept that UK border staff have a responsibility to take appropriate action if, in the course of their duties, they come across children overseas whom they believe to be at risk of harm. They might, for example, be suspicious that a visa application for a child was being made for the purposes of trafficking. If harm is suspected, we would expect the staff to inform the local law enforcement authorities and/or deny a visa, as appropriate. The UKBA introduced a statutory code of practice for keeping children safe from harm, which came into force on 6 January. That code sets out the expectation that the border force staff overseas will make referrals to overseas authorities where local or other international agreements permit or require it. Amendment 112A seeks to ensure that the duty in the clause applies to children whose presence in the United Kingdom is for the purpose of transit to another country. I remind the Committee that the duty will apply to any function carried out in relation to immigration, asylum, nationality and any general customs or border revenue function carried out on behalf of the Secretary of State. This will include the handling of children whose contact with the border force is as passengers who are in transit through the UK and who seek a short stay of 48 hours to accomplish that. Passengers who are in direct transit and transferring straightaway to a connecting flight do not need to seek entry to the UK and no immigration function is carried out. The duty would not therefore apply in those circumstances, although the staff will of course involve the police if there are reasonable grounds for believing a child in these circumstances to be at risk of harm. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the extent of Section 11 of the Children Act. As I mentioned, that applies only in England, whereas this provision applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked about training of officials—quite rightly so. Children’s needs feature in the training that we give to entry clearance officers overseas, who also receive briefings from the International Organisation for Migration on trafficking awareness. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked how the UKBA code applies to juxtaposed controls. Section 1.13 states: ""UK Border Agency staff overseas will also refer children to the authorities of other countries where local or international agreements permit or require"." This applies in particular to juxtaposed controls when agreement exists with the French authorities, as the noble Lord mentioned. I hope that, in the light of that clarification and those answers, noble Lords will be content not to press their amendments.