Paul Rowen (Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I would like the Minister to clarify a few points about the clause, which amends section 21 of the UK Borders Act 2007 and extends to a larger number of officials the duty of care regarding children in clause 57. Obviously, that applies to those transferring over from the Customs function, but I have looked at the impact statement and I could not see a specific listing about this, although I may have missed something. More than 3,000 staff will be transferring to the Borders Agency; what additional training on child protection issues will they get and where has that been costed? I cannot see that in the impact statement. Given recent concerns in the press about particular people, it is important that the duty of care is reinforced, and that we have evidence that those staff will get the training that they need to deal with minors.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on spotting an important point. This is slightly confusing, but it is because of our good intent, not because of any desire to hide anything. We think that this is a positive part of the Bill—as indeed are all the other parts. The measures in part 1 are intended to come into force on Royal Assent, but clause 57, which relates to the duty regarding children, will not because we are publishing a consultation on how the new guidelines will work so that the House and wider interest groups will have the opportunity to influence them. Given the importance of this issue, I did not want to bring those new guidelines in on Royal Assent without first having given people the opportunity to consider them. Similarly, I did not want the guidelines to be wrong or deficient in any way because we had rushed them out, or to have unintended consequences. That is what I am trying to do.

The hon. Gentleman asked about training. I have already discussed the overall strategy for training, but he is right to ask for assurances regarding transferring officers who have not had that training but will have related issues in their job descriptions. As he knows, not all the people he mentioned will be engaged in this area, but many will, and we will include in the code of practice the obligations that officials have regarding the care of children and keeping them safe from harm. Indeed, one area covered by the code is staff training.

Keeping children safe is what we refer to in management speak as a three-tier learning and development programme designed to ensure that staff have the knowledge to safeguard children. Tier 1 is an electronic package designed to raise awareness of the issues around children, and is compulsory for all UK Border Agency staff, regardless of grade or department. Tier 2 is a classroom-based course where staff will have regular contact with children or children’s issues, or conduct substantive interviews with them. Tier 3 involves job-specific training for officers.

This is an important point, given that children do come into our care. As ever, it is not the child’s fault, whatever the state or the parents have done. That is why the clause is important. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I want to follow up on that briefly. As the Minister rightly said in response to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale, it is not the child’s fault. Clearly, under the Bill and the general provisions, we would not want children themselves to suffer in any way. Would he take this opportunity to let us know the state of play with funding for local authorities that are particularly affected by being in charge of unaccompanied minors who find themselves in this country?

The Minister will be aware that responsibility falls disproportionately on a small number of local authorities, notably Kent and Hillingdon but others as well. He will also be aware, as I am, that, to put it crudely, they thought that a settlement had been reached about a year ago but it seems to be not quite falling apart but fragile at best. This might be an opportune moment for him to reassure the Committee and, through the Committee, the local authorities concerned about the state of play.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I hope you will allow me, Miss Begg, briefly to answer that question. It is related to the clause.

Arrangements are made through the Local Government Association committee, which is helpful and pragmatic. The directors and councillors are very helpful. My answer to the latest parliamentary question on the matter stated that we were satisfied with the arrangements.

I know that Hillingdon in particular has had some concerns. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the recent press reports. I am not denying the importance of the reports, but they relate to a period that was covered by the old agreement. There is a new agreement for the period covering the last financial year and this one.

We have designated officials who liaise with the key authorities. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, I will check whether there is an outstanding problem. I do not believe that there is, but, if there is, we clearly have an obligation to reach an agreement.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I am grateful for that reassurance, and the councils involved will be as well. Could the Minister write to me with the results of his check? That would be helpful.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

Yes, of course I will do that. We had meetings with Hillingdon prior to the press coverage. To be fair to Hillingdon—I praise its staff and their professionalism—the implication of the press report was not actually the case, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The incidents, serious though they were, related to the previous period. I will write to him.