---

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

A distinction should be made between the Children’s Commissioner ““thinking”” that the arrangements in France are robust and being ““satisfied”” that they are. The words have a different meaning in the English language. If you say that someone is ““satisfied”” that something is a fact, that means the person has inquired diligently and looked at all the evidence into the assertion that it is a fact, whereas if you say that a person ““thinks”” it is a fact, that is just a thought. From what I have read in the newspapers, it appears that the French have in place just as good a mechanism for ensuring that sex offenders do not work in the wrong places as us. I am sure that the noble Baroness can see the distinction between the two. It is good that the noble Baroness has agreed to consult the Children’s Commissioner about the whole range of problems raised by every noble Lord who has spoken. It is worth noting that no Member of the Committee has risen to defend the Government’s proposal. Every speaker apart from the Minister in this debate—as she would, of course—has expressed concerns about not only the effects of these clauses in general and the extensions of powers to private contractors which so far have been limited to professionally trained officers, but also the particular dangers that this proposal may have for children. I think that the noble Baroness is in no doubt about the strength of feeling on the issue and will convey the flavour of our debate to the Children’s Commissioner. I hope that she will be able to report back to us on those discussions before we conclude this Committee.