Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 28, line 29, after 'family', insert—

'in so far as to do so would be in accordance with Articles 1 to 40 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child'.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 274, in page 28, line 29, at end insert—

'10B In section 10A, ''a member of the person's family'' shall not include a child born in the United Kingdom before 31st December 2002 to a person to whom removal directions have been given under paragraphs 810 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.

10C Where directions are given in respect of a person under any of paragraphs 810 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, directions to the same effect may not be given under paragraph 10A in respect of a member of that person's family if he is a child born in the United Kingdom, who had remained in the United Kingdom for five or more years since his birth.'.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

This brief and probing amendment is

based on the proposition that the decision to remove a dependent child under the provision should be taken according to principles and procedures that accord with international norms in the rest of Europe.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

We support the amendment. Amendment No. 274 is designed to tease out the position of children born to parents who do not have leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The circumstances in which such children can be subject to the powers need clarification.

The formula that we propose in amendment No. 274 would have several effects. It would prevent the power from becoming retrospective and allow a period for advice to be given, as we believe that this will be a sensitive area. I hope that the Minister will clarify the general point about the UN convention on the rights of the child, which, as I suggested, we support, and the position of children who may be affected by the new power in the clause.

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

On amendment No. 227, when removal directions are given to an illegal entrant, overstayer or person who is in breach of their conditions, subsection (1) allows the IND to give directions to their UK-born children. The amendment would prevent the IND from giving such directions if they were contrary to the UN convention on the rights of the child. The amendment would undermine the UK's reservation to that convention. The purpose of that reservation is to make it clear that nothing in the convention is to be interpreted as conferring rights on children who do not have such rights under immigration law. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment, but I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will recall previous debates in which we have said that consideration is always given to children in such difficult circumstances.

I turn to amendment No. 274. At present, there is no power in immigration law to remove a child born in the UK to parents who are illegal immigrants, or who are port applicants who have been granted temporary admission. The clause will streamline the arrangements for the removal of children born to illegal entrants, or to people who are present on temporary admission. However, the practice of removing such children is not new, and it is therefore unnecessary to protect against retrospective application. Moreover, it might be confusing if different powers could operate where a family has children born either side of the 31 December watershed.

We already take account of the length of time that a child has spent in the UK, when deciding whether to take enforcement action against a family group. In 1999, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) announced that enforcement action would not normally be appropriate where there are children who have been living in the UK continuously for seven or more years. That announcement represented a reduction from the previous figure of 10 years, and we are not persuaded that a further reduction is justified. If Opposition Members are seeking a complete ban on removal of children who were born here and have lived here for

five years, the amendment would not achieve that, because there are cumbersome arrangements at present that could continue to operate. The clause merely streamlines them.

I hope that with those assurances will persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.