Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 66:"Before Clause 43, insert the following new clause—"    ““FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS: SUPPORT    Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19) (failed asylum seekers: withdrawal of support) shall cease to have effect.”” The noble Earl said: The amendment would delete Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. That created a new group of failed asylum seekers with a family. I very much share the concern of the Refugee Children’s Consortium over the amendment. I wish for the section to be withdrawn because I believe it is unhelpful, but I would also like to hear from the Minister what progress has been made in the evaluation of the important pilots under that section and when we are likely to hear the results. That would be most helpful. I recognise the challenges for the Government in terms of immigration and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the system, and the danger that if that is lost, even more draconian measures may be introduced. I also recognise the important improvements that the Government have made in asylum processing in recent years. The Government established three pilot areas under the treatment of claimants Act and I welcome their decision to take that careful approach. I was also grateful during the passage of that Act for opportunities to speak with the Minister and other colleagues of hers about the concerns of myself and others over that sensitive and controversial piece of legislation. Under Section 9, families who are denied asylum can have all benefits and all support removed. In those circumstances, the children may be protected under the Children Act, in particular, Section 17, and it is possible for human rights legislation to be applied to ensure that families have protection. But the application of those mechanisms is complex and a careful assessment needs to be made. A number of local authorities involved in the pilots wrote to the Government last summer expressing their deep concerns about how that would be implemented. They are concerned that, in effect, that will pass the burden for those families from the National Asylum Support Service to local authority budgets, which are already overstretched. They are also worried about how that squares with the principles of the Children Act and paramountcy of the welfare of the child. I shall concentrate on one aspect that I fear is a flaw in the Government’s perspective. The Government have consistently said that if the children come to any harm, that is the responsibility of their parents. The Minister, Mr McNulty, in the other place said in October in deliberations on the Bill that if anyone is at fault in those proceedings, it is the parents. To my mind and to that of many others, that is incorrect. Here, I cite Diane Abbott, a Member of the other place. She said that the Government,"““wholly underestimates the desperation of the people with whom we are dealing””—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/03; col. 1645.]" I absolutely agree with that. Lord Russell expressed it very well during debate on that Bill. During the Bill’s passage, I met parents at the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. I spoke to one mother, who told me how her children had seen on the television reports a terrible incident in Serbia, where three children had dogs set on them by Serbians. The children were driven into a lake and drowned. In the subsequent commotion, 30 people died. It is understandable why families should feel so concerned. Those families have gone through a thorough, objective asylum process and appeal, but it is their subjective view, given their experience, that may well prevent many of them from returning voluntarily to their home territories. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture gave a case history of a family from central West Africa, where the eldest, a 17 year-old, had been a child soldier and experienced terrible trauma. Through different means, all the family had arrived in England and been reunited, which was a very therapeutic experience for them. However, the mother still experienced continual suicidal thoughts. That family had had its application for asylum rejected and was being considered for appeal. That is an example of the thought processes, the subjective views, of some of those families. In a pilot, so far, 100 families have started the process, among them 10 or so families from Zimbabwe and another 10 or so families from the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to Barnardo’s, 35 of those families have simply disappeared. Mr McNulty was saying that in October, 38 to 39 families had had their financial support removed and that, as far as he was aware, no family had returned voluntarily, so to speak, to its home country as a direct result of the legislation. We must consider the risks that those families expose themselves to by disappearing in this way: their children not entering education; families living quite probably in poor, overcrowded, shared accommodation; children experiencing poverty; parents may be poorly paid for working illegally, long hours. I suggest that that is counterproductive. In wishing to return those families we lose all contact with them and there is no opportunity even to detain them for removal and there is no opportunity to continue the process of reassuring them that it is safe to return. In conclusion, I welcome that the Government have established the careful evaluation of the pilots. When will we have the information from those evaluations? In particular, perhaps she could say how many families have been returned to their home territories as a result of the pilots. I beg to move.