Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

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 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. 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 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.