Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, I am breaking my vow of silence on the last six groups to contribute on this matter. I do not want to give the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, any hope that I would support requesting the Government to accept the amendment, but it is right to bring it back on Third Reading. This is one of those occasions when there is justification for further assurances to be sought from the Minister, because of the developments that have taken place during latter debates on this Bill. As I said on Report, this is an important matter because it affects directly the question of how the welfare of children is to be safeguarded and promoted when they are in contact with immigration services. The noble Earl’s amendment highlighted what I believe is a significant tension between the policies of protecting children as set out in the Children Act 2004 and policies that require the speedy removal of those who have sought asylum here but have not been granted leave to remain. As well as policies that govern the treatment of those children caught up in non-asylum cases, we also have those in relation to asylum cases. I must say that that is a tension that I have found impossible to resolve in my discussion with my colleagues with other departmental responsibilities. So, admirable although the intentions of the amendment are, within the context of the Bill, it is impossible to make progress. However, the underlying issues need to be addressed by us all in future. We need to continue to challenge Home Office policies on that, even when we do not oppose them, to make the Home Office think how it is to take forward the welfare of children within the immigration system. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would let us know whether it is being considered that one way forward could be to have cross-departmental work on the matter. That is often a proactive way forward, where one gets key people who have real enthusiasm for something to happen in departments to work together, so that we can try to reconcile the principles and contradictions between the Children Act and the responsibilities of IND. It would be useful to know what action the Minister for Children has taken and will take on the matter. If the noble Baroness is undecided on the matter, I should be happy if she were to write to me. That is something that we need to consider in future. As a result of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, bringing forward the amendment at our previous stage, I immediately tabled a Written Question asking the Government how many children were detained in February this year in asylum removal centres. I was told that internal management information showed that, as at 20 February 2006, 37 children were detained with their families under Immigration Act powers, all of them at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre. We would expect that. The children were all detained as part of families whose detention the Government considered to be necessary as a group. I was certainly interested to read the report by the Children’s Commissioner of an announced visit to Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre last October, which was the basis of the evidence given to the Select Committee to which the noble Earl has already referred. It is important at this stage to note that disturbing conditions were highlighted in that report of children having to go through locked door after locked door. One needs only to read the report to see what picture is built up of the impact of detention on children. As    ever, we say—at least, I say—that there are circumstances in which I must support detention. I know that I may part company with the noble Earl on that; however, I feel that, although the parents have chosen a particular road that leads to their detention, it is not the children’s fault. Despite that, governments have to take hard decisions and one of them may be to detain children who are part of a family group. I was very interested to note in the conclusions that Yarl’s Wood was trying to take significant steps to improve the conditions for children in its care. As a result of that, it is important for the House to ask the Government today not only to respond to the points of the noble Earl and say whether the Home Office has been able to take forward recommendations about how children’s conditions may be improved but also, outside the remit of the Bill, to take the matter forward by pressing the Government in a series of debates. I return to where I started by saying that I cannot support the noble Earl, because I cannot see how the Bill will resolve this especially difficult issue.