Clause 52 - Family
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
6:45 pm
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.