---

The Earl of Listowel: I wish to express my concerns in this area of detention and the detention of children. From discussions with inspectors, there is a view that arrests of families may be on the increase because it is a way for companies operating in this area to show that they are detaining a number of people in one go. It is simpler for them to detain a family than it is to detain individuals. On the other hand, it has always been held much less necessary to detain families because they are easier to keep in contact with, whereas individuals can easily be lost. I have heard that concern raised by inspectors. I would be grateful if the Minister could
 
17 Jan 2006 : Column GC246
 
find out what the trend is regarding the number of families arrested and detained over time. The figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on children in detention centres are suggestive of that rise.

Lord Dholakia: We have dealt with Amendments Nos. 66 to 68, so I now intend to speak to the Question whether Clause 46 shall stand part. I support the points already made on a number of other amendments.

This clause takes us back to the debates on Clauses 1 and 11. Section 10 provides the power to issue removal directions. It is against the decision to issue removal directions that, once variation appeals are abolished, an appeal will be made on the part of those refused variation of leave. The decision to cancel leave in those circumstances raises the same problems as raised by Clause 11.

There has been a good bit of discussion about benefits, financial or otherwise, for asylum-seekers. We now see that the invalidation of a person's leave also stops access to any benefits that may have been conditional on the leave, even when that leave was obtained by deception in the first place. The clause stops that access at an earlier stage in the process.

This is part of the same package of provisions that we debated on Clauses 1, 11 and 13 and has already been discussed extensively. The Minister was very encouraging on Clause 1, but it would be helpful to know whether she has any further comments. Also, the Minister said previously that "compliant" people would not get passports stamped. Who does she mean by "compliant"? By what process under the Bill will they be recognised?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was absolutely right to move Amendment No. 66 at this stage. I declare an unpaid personal interest as a trustee of UNICEF UK, whose work focuses on children's rights and welfare.

I would welcome from the Minister a progress report on the pilots. As the noble Earl said, it is important to know what the process of evaluation is, what stage we have reached and when that period is likely to end. At what stage will information be available to other people for their consideration? We need to know what role this House may play in debates on those matters. This is a very valuable opportunity to discuss the issue. Other noble Lords have commented on how vexed the issue was when it was raised during debates on the 2004 Act. The noble Earl quoted the Minister in another place as commenting that it was the fault of the parents. Well, yes, it is the parents' fault but it is not the fault of the child. That is how our arguments were focused when the matter was debated in 2004.

Can the noble Baroness put on the record how the Government believe the measure complies with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? That would help our consideration of those matters.
 
17 Jan 2006 : Column GC247
 

I wish to comment also on Amendment No. 67, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I am very grateful to the Refugee Children's Consortium for its briefings and to BID, which has performed a very valuable service. There are always instances where detainees for whom English is not their first language know little or nothing about the judicial procedures here. I certainly sympathise with how the noble Earl presented his case. He said that automatic bail hearings were perhaps the only way of ensuring fairness in the system. On the other hand, I also welcome Clause 45, on the inspection of detention facilities. I would be interested to hear how the Minister feels that might ameliorate detainees' current position of uncertainty and ignorance—I use that word in a factual rather than a pejorative sense—of their rights. There are perhaps ways in which Clause 45 could give some, but not total, reassurance on bail problems.

I know that the hour is late. Members of the Committee will wish to return to this on Report. It is right that we should be able to have this matter aired in Grand Committee. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us a good progress report on Amendment No. 66 and some pointers as regards Amendments No. 67. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, hopes that his amendment might be superior to that of his noble friend. I have to disappoint him because I rather prefer that proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: That was a very interesting and full debate. I shall try to tackle as many of the issues as I can with the information that I have, with the promise that where I fail to do so I shall write to Members of the Committee appropriately with the information. I shall not go over the long debates that I know took place during the passage of the Bill. Let it suffice to say that the Committee will recognise that it is important to understand that the people whom we are describing have been through a full process.

It is important that we stand as one in recognising the contribution that people who come to us make in our society and recognising our obligations to those who seek to be refugees or asylum seekers with good cause. But we are talking about a small number of families for whom that is not the case, where we have four written warnings telling them that their support will end and that they have gone through the entire process and are not, under any circumstances, entitled to stay here. Regardless of the emotion involved and what the people concerned would like, they are not in fear of their lives or are at risk because they would not have gone through this process and ended up in such a position. They are people who do not have a right to be here.

I say that only because it is important that we distinguish such cases from those of families for whom our hearts would go out instantly, particularly for the children who fear those concerns. I also accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, which is shared by all Members of the Committee who spoke; namely,
 
17 Jan 2006 : Column GC248
 
that in this process the children are innocents and that, therefore, we have to be mindful of them. But it is important that parents, as well as government, take their responsibilities seriously. Where children can be settled back to a place where they can grow up and get involved in their local communities and so on, that is surely a better option.

Governments are always trying to grapple with the need to make it absolutely clear that there comes an end of the road when people have to go. They have to grapple with what that means, what it involves, the point at which we say, "Actually, we no longer support you", and a recognition of the issues concerning children. One of the jobs of government is constantly to grapple with that. I make no apology for it because if the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, were in my shoes, she, too, would grapple with it, and maybe do a better job than I am doing now. Certainly, it is a real issue that needs to be addressed, which I accept. I do not make an apology for saying that the Government have to deal with it as best they can.

Perhaps I may deal with the specific questions asked about the evaluation. Clearly, that is important. Whatever happens I must wait for the evaluation before being able to talk further about this amendment. The Children's Commissioner has met the head of IND to discuss Section 9. The observations that he made will form part of the evaluation. As regards whether the pilot areas are being compared with non-pilot areas, the pilot included an equal number of control cases outside Section 9, which is an important question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. On whether the evaluation would consider the effect on children, it will take into account the representations and views of NGOs and local authorities. My brief does not tell me whether children will be interviewed. I do not know the answer to that, but there will be opportunities for children's organisations to make representation.

Lord Avebury: Does that include the ADSS, whose views would be particularly important in that regard?

7.45 pm

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I can confirm that it includes the ADSS. The evaluation criteria will look at whether there is an increase in voluntary departures and removals, whether there is a decrease in support costs and whether there is a more efficient end-to-end process. Those are classic statistical evaluation criteria which will form a part of the evaluation. If there is further information on the evaluation, I will put it in the Library of the House and send copies to Members of the Committee. As I understand it, Ministers will receive information on the results of the pilots probably—I cannot be certain—by the end of February.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about whether the families were aware of what was happening, if I have any details or letters I will place them in the Library as well. I understand that some 116 families were included in the pilot and that in 42 cases the decision to terminate was taken. The
 
17 Jan 2006 : Column GC249
 
termination actually took place in 21 cases. However, at this point I do not know what happened beyond that. Those are just a few bald statistics which I hope will be helpful.

7.45 pm

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me about compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. If the parents co-operate with the process, there is no reason for the family ever to be split, which I am sure that the Committee will appreciate. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness will be entirely satisfied with that answer; indeed, I am not sure that I am. But we have to look at whether remaining here with their children when the parents have no right to remain is in the best interests of the children and addresses the rights of the child. Again, we return to the dilemma of considering the best interests of the children. If you have no reason or right to be here, it is arguable that the child should be taken where they can and should be looked after rather than remain in a place where they should not be. I fear that that is an important aspect of this issue. Where I can do so, I have undertaken to put further information in the public domain. I hope also that I have been able to provide at least early answers to the questions raised.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me about the trend in the number of families arrested and detained over time. I do not have details of a trend, but I do have a commitment that there are improving statistics which will include families held in detention. When they are prepared to the required standard, they will be included in the published statistics. That this information will be made available in the right form should provide at least a crumb of comfort for the noble Earl.

I turn now to Amendment No. 67 and the issue of automatic bail hearings. Noble Lords have pointed out that this was part of the legislation brought forward by my right honourable friend Mr Straw at the time. It was never enacted because, on reflection, I understand that it was considered to be unworkable and it was repealed. Noble Lords would be astonished to hear me say anything other than that the Government have no intention of reversing that decision in this legislation. That is not least because I am not convinced that the system would be more competent if, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we already have difficulties in terms of the representation of individuals or families in this context.

The underlying question here, one referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is how people make the decision whether to apply for bail. When I discussed the matter with representatives of Amnesty International, who raised it, the critical question for me was: how do people get hold of the right information in the right languages to let them know that they can apply for bail? At any time they may apply to a chief immigration officer or an immigration judge, and they may apply as many times as they want. On detention people are provided with information
 
17 Jan 2006 : Column GC250
 
about bail rights within a pack. They are also given details on how to make contact with the services providing free legal advice and representation.

However, what I should like to explore more fully on behalf of the Committee is how we ensure that that is being done as well as it might be. However, whereas other Members of the Committee approach the problem by saying that if it were an automatic right we might achieve that, I would say in response that, first, I do not think we have the resources available and, secondly, I am not sure whether it would deal with the underlying aim mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of ensuring that the system is competent. Thirdly, having looked at the proposal, we did not consider it to be workable. But the issue is how those people know that they can apply for bail and whether they are given the right information, support and advice. I will undertake to look at that again, which I hope will go some way to addressing these concerns, but perhaps not as far as noble Lords would like.

Finally, I will look at Amendment No. 68 and the question of judicial oversight. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has said about his bottom line of what might be done. There is no question that the amount of resource magistrates would have to put into weekly visits is not achievable; we would do nothing else in terms of our magistrates. It would not necessarily achieve what the noble Lord wants either. I will look at the proposals that he added on as his alternatives, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, part of what we are seeking to do in Clause 45 is address some of the issues that noble Lords have indicated are important in terms of the inspection of facilities. I am not sure that is where the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is, in that he is asking for a specific aspect to be dealt with. I am not in a position to say whether we would support that or find it achievable. However, as he raised two other ways of approaching it, I will happily look at it and see, but I do not do so with any commitment. We should explore those areas.

---