Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

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, 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.