---

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. That is a useful assurance. The codes of conduct are of material importance to those of us who are anxious about the employment of private contractors generally. It is not simply about incorporating adequate safeguards into the system. Some of us go further: we dislike the notion of employing contractors in these duties because of the risks deployed, as every noble Lord who has spoken has said, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, with his immense experience of children’s issues. We are pleased to hear that there is an equivalent of the Children’s Commissioner in France. It is remarkable that we had to wait until Report stage of the Bill before discovering such an essential fact. The existence of such a person, and the liaison between our own Children’s Commissioner and his opposite number in France, are not the whole answer to the objections that we have raised. We are still anxious that vulnerable people—in particular children—can be in the custody of officials who are subject to only the remotest of controls via the immigration officers at the ports concerned and, through them, to the authorities in this country. It is one removed from the supervision and monitoring that we exercise over, for example, the immigration detention centres in this country, which any noble Lord can inspect and the Chief Inspector of Prisons inspects regularly. We think that it will be more difficult for such oversight to be exercised in the juxtaposed controls. The existence of the private contractors adds an element of risk which does not exist elsewhere. I am sure that we shall return to the subject at Third Reading. In the expectation that we shall have learnt more about the process in the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 31 to 35 not moved.] Clause 41 [Section 40: supplemental]: [Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.] Clause 42 [Information: embarking passengers]: