Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, I think that there is a misunderstanding between the Minister and myself. A few minutes ago he mentioned what would happen at the juxtaposed controls if it was found that a child had been the subject of a criminal offence by someone outside the controls—we would hand them over to the authorities in France or Belgium as the case may be. I totally agree with that. But I am not talking about offences which have been committed by someone outside the UKBA against a child, whether it be in the juxtaposed controls or in the country of origin where the child has applied for an entry visa. I am talking about the conduct of UKBA officials and of the contractors who are employed at juxtaposed controls. I am seeking to impose a code of conduct similar to the one that has been issued to those people under the UK Borders Act, and I cannot see what the objection is to that. I am not going to go through the whole Code of Practice for Keeping Children Safe from Harm that applies now in the United Kingdom but, for example, paragraph 1.7 says inter alia that: "““The UK Border Agency will seek to ensure that children … Are seen first, foremost and fully as children rather than simply as migrants subject to immigration control, or as adjuncts to a principal applicant””." Does that not apply at a consulate overseas or in a case where a child is being deported by aircraft to his country of origin? The code says that children must be, "““listened to with respect; and where procedures and services are there to address their needs, a child should be involved as much as possible in applying them to his or her own circumstances””." Can that not be applied other than in the United Kingdom? Are they not entitled to have their experiences taken seriously as well as checked against known records in their country of origin? Is that not applicable to a child who is applying for a visa in Lahore or Dhaka? I simply do not understand why the Government are so resistant to having any code of conduct applied to the UKBA staff and their contractors overseas. I come back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe: what alternative means of protection is there for these children, not against criminals in the countries where they are located but against the misconduct of UKBA staff and their contractors? We have not heard the answer to that question. I am sorry that we have to withdraw the amendment today, but I assure the Minister that this is not the last he will hear of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 57ZB withdrawn. Amendments 57A to 57B not moved.