Orders of the Day — Immigration and Asylum Bill

House of Commons, 9 November 1999.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must draw it to the attention of the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 1, 14, 135, 152, 164, 167, 174, 180, 183, 184, 189, 191, 193, 194, 250, 275, 279 and 287. If the House agrees to any of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

New Clause

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

It may be helpful if I first explain the effect that amendment No. 135 would have if it were left in the Bill. It would restore social security benefits to all asylum seekers until such time as the average two and four-month targets for asylum cases had been met. Social security benefits would be available not only to those who now receive them as port applicants, but to those who are not at present entitled to them following an initial decision or who have claimed in-country. In that critical respect, the amendment, which Conservative Members in the other place supported with the full backing of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), would overturn a key decision in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to remove the right to social security and any other benefits from those who claimed in-country. We estimate—those estimates have been made available and have not been challenged—that the amendment could result in about 40,000 additional asylum applications in a full year. The costs of supporting that number of cases would be about £500 million. It would be a complete reversal of the legislation which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, among others, helped to guide through Parliament.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The Home Secretary said that the figures had not been challenged. I would like to challenge them and many of the interested groups and experts who gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee also challenged them. The figures that the right hon. Gentleman has cited are an estimate drawn up by himself with no credible supporting evidence. It is purely finger-in-the-air stuff from the Home Office to get at the Conservative party for supporting the amendment in the House of Lords.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

First, the figures were not drawn up by me—although I do take an interest in statistics, as is famously known—but by officials. Secondly, although I understand that, on the whole, the Liberals are not in the least bothered about the cost of their promises, because they will never be in government, the Conservatives—at least in the past—were concerned about costs. One of the main reasons that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) argued for the removal of the entitlement to cash benefits for half of asylum seekers is the simple and straightforward fact that, if cash benefits are available to asylum seekers, they act as a pull factor and an encouragement to those asylum seekers who want to abuse the system. There is a significantly higher rate of take-up of cash benefits—including by many people who make fraudulent claims—than there is of benefits provided in kind. I point out to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and to Conservative Members—whose spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, actively supported the Lords amendment, as she made clear to the House on 26 October—that a consequence of a measure to restore cash benefits to in-country applicants could be to provide an inducement not just for many fraudulent asylum seekers to come to this country, but for some people already in this country, who hold British passports or rights of residence, to invent new identities in order to claim social security benefits. The amendment drives a coach and horses through the arrangements that we are establishing; it is an open encouragement to fraud, and there is no question that the costs would run to £400 million or £500 million. However, we shall not find out for certain whether that will be so, because we invite the House to reject the amendment. Amendment No. 135 would overturn all the arrangements that we are setting up in the Bill, including one of the key arrangements made by the previous Administration—to remove cash benefits. When the Conservative Government proposed changes to the previous system of support, they did only half a job. They decided to continue cash benefits for those who applied at port; they took away the right to receive cash benefits for those who applied in-country, but they failed to provide any alternative safety net. That was a profound defect in the legislation. Instead of making alternative arrangements, the Conservative Government appeared to believe that in-country applicants would be able to rely on friends and their own community for support. Only a later decision of the courts—to the effect that asylum seekers should not be left wholly destitute while they were pursuing a legitimate claim for asylum—resulted in asylum seekers gaining access to assistance from local authorities under social services legislation. That legislation was never intended for such purposes, and reliance on it has led to huge problems for the local authorities concerned, especially those in inner-London boroughs, and several in Kent—including those in Dover, Folkestone and throughout the southern part of Kent. The pressure on housing and other social services both from asylum seekers and those housed by local authorities in those areas is intense and unsustainable. It results in problems for London local authorities, and indeed for Kent local authorities, in discharging their duties towards local homeless households under homelessness legislation. Asylum seekers themselves often end up in extremely poor conditions. No one—including some of those who oppose other aspects of the Bill—believes that such concentration of asylum seekers in one part of the country is sensible or defensible.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Home Secretary will know well that a borough such as mine is confronted daily—as are those represented by inner-London colleagues—by the pressures that he describes. One way of dealing with those matters, to take the pressure off local government, would be for the Government to take the view that, until a decision has been taken on those asylum seekers who want to stay here, responsibility for them could, and should, be taken by the Government. The Government could fund the asylum seekers and ensure the repayment to local authorities of any funding that they have to disburse in advance, while the decisions are made. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition, and that is exactly what the Bill would achieve. I hope that he will perform the same U-turn as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, appreciate the error of his ways and of the course adopted by his noble Friends in another place and support our motion to reject Lords amendment No. 135. Our measures are designed to remove responsibility from local authorities, relieve pressure on the hon. Gentleman's borough and many others, and establish a national system of dispersal in which the Government take responsibility. Implicit in amendment No. 135 is an assumption that the new support arrangements will be in some way inferior to the current arrangements; I do not accept that. Under the new arrangements, asylum seekers who are destitute will receive good-quality accommodation appropriate to their needs. That may take the form of full board and lodging, or self-contained and self-catering accommodation suitable for families and others who are able to look after themselves. In the latter case, the support will include vouchers, in addition to a cash allowance of £10 per person per week, to meet the asylum seeker's and his dependants' living needs. Asylum seekers will have access to a wide range of outlets throughout the country in which to redeem the vouchers.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

My question about vouchers is prompted by a letter I received from Dr. Alison Elliot, who is the convener of the Committee on Church and Nation of the Church of Scotland. She argues that such a system will be costly and cumbersome, and…demeaning. There is speculation in Scotland that the voucher system will not be implemented north of the border. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, or is that speculation without foundation?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I was going to deal later with one matter of speculation about the voucher system: the interim arrangements that will apply from December to 1 April, when the new full arrangements are due to come into force. However, for the convenience of the House, I shall deal with that now. In a consultation paper issued in August, the Government proposed that the amount of cash support that local authorities are able to pay under existing arrangements for in-country applicants be limited to £10 per person per week in all cases. Many of the responses to the consultation paper objected to changing the arrangements currently applied by local authorities for a period of only four or five months. Those responses included representations from the Child Poverty Action Group and many other bodies. After heeding the consultation, the Government concluded that, during the interim period before the new national system comes into force on 1 April, local authorities should be able to continue to give all support to families in cash for their living needs, as they choose. Some local authorities operate in that way under the current arrangements, whereas others do not. The £10 cash limit would continue to apply in the case of the single asylum seeker. I should make it clear that, under the arrangements established by the National Assistance Act 1948, local authorities are not allowed to provide any cash at all; therefore, our proposals for the interim period provide additional flexibility. As for the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) about whether the new full arrangements to be rolled out from 1 April would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, or whether the use of vouchers would be abandoned in Scotland, the answer is that they will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The Home Secretary mentions families held under the current arrangements until April 2000. Does he mean until a fixed date of April 2000, or until the point at which the time limit is down to six months, which is what we previously understood would be the time that families would come under the new system?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall answer that point in a minute.

Maria Fyfe (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am puzzled by the news my right hon. Friend has just imparted, because local government is one of the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and separate arrangements have always been made for Scotland. If the legislation is to apply UK-wide, it should have been discussed in the Scottish Parliament and there should have been discussions between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers; yet, as far as I am aware, no such discussions have taken place.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

With great respect to my hon. Friend, she and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde dealt with this matter at some length in interventions in the debate on the timetable motion. I believe that no one—not even the Scottish National party—could argue with the fact that if we have a Union, questions of immigration and asylum must be a reserved matter, not a devolved matter. However, the issue does have an impact on local authorities, so we have held detailed discussions with the Scottish Executive. In response to a point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, we propose that there should be a concordat to inform and govern the relations between ourselves, the Scottish Executive and Scottish local authorities. We recognise the local sensitivities. We are grateful for the co-operation that we have received from those bodies as well as from the relevant bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In setting up the new support arrangements, we are providing a level of support that is broadly equivalent to that which asylum seekers could expect to get, were social security benefits still available to them. Under those plans, support for children will be equivalent to 100 per cent. of child benefit levels. We have amended the Bill to place a Secretary of State under a duty to meet the accommodation and essential living needs of families with children under the age of 18. Members on both sides of the House will recall that that was a matter of concern; we have ensured that we have met it. The assistance that families receive will be comparable to that provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. All the other safeguards for children contained in that Act will continue to apply. New arrangements will ensure 24-hour cover so that families always have somewhere to turn in an emergency. The House knows that we propose to disperse most asylum seekers away from London and the south-east, to relieve the pressure on those areas. In doing so, our aim is to make better use of spare and underused housing in less pressured parts of the country. 1 believe that that is sensible, and I do not believe that the genuine asylum seeker who is fleeing persecution will mind where in the country he is properly accommodated for the period while his claim is processed. We shall neither disperse asylum seekers at random nor leave them in isolation. Rather, we shall seek to house people from similar backgrounds in the same general locality, wherever possible, in sufficient numbers for them to rely on a degree of mutual support and help. We shall also form partnerships with the voluntary sector to establish one-stop shops that will assist asylum seekers in navigating their way around their new surroundings and accessing local health and welfare facilities as necessary. We are providing funding for those centres. As we said in the White Paper, we are determined to achieve faster processing targets for asylum applications. As is plain from the text of the White Paper that I published in July 1998, we never said that the new support arrangements would be introduced only when the two and four-month targets had been achieved. New support arrangements have always been due to come into force in April 2000. We said that we would aim to beat the two and four-month targets for most—but not all—applicants by April 2001. Early introduction of the new support arrangements is a key part of the wider strategy for reforming the system, achieving the targets, and bearing down on the so-called pull factors in the present system which, unquestionably, have attracted many asylum seekers with unfounded claims to this country, as they have to many other European countries. We recognise that, especially in the early stages, there may be cases in which support under the new system lasts longer than six-months. Similarly, for in-country applicants, support through local authority vouchers may last longer than six months. For families, support through vouchers is the arrangement provided by many, but not all, local authorities, whereas for single asylum seekers it is the universal system of support provided by local authorities. For that reason I agreed, earlier in the summer, following representations from colleagues, that families with children would not be brought into the new support system until the process targets for those cases could be achieved. We aim to achieve those by April 2000. It may reassure my hon. Friends to know that since 1 October, all new applications from families with children have been identified for rapid processing. About 600 such applications were made in October, and most applicants have been given 14 days to prepare their case and return for interview. Of 78 families making personal applications in Croydon, decisions have been made in 50 cases, including two grants of refugee status and one of exceptional leave to remain. At the end of September, the average time for dealing with an asylum appeal to an adjudicator was 13 weeks, which is one month inside the four month target. Concerns were raised in the other place by the Bishop of Southwark and others who supported amendment No. 135. Those concerns have been raised in turn with me by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale), who passed on representations from the Council of Christians and Jews. I hope that what I have said about the interim arrangements and the bringing into force of new support arrangements for families will help to reassure my hon. Friend and those on whose behalf he made his points.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

If the faster turnaround time for families with children is maintained, does the Home Secretary intend from 1 April next year to transfer families with children who are currently in the backlog of cases ahead of other applicants away from local authority support or social security benefits towards the new arrangements?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The most practical way to proceed is that people whose cases exist before 1 April next year should remain the responsibility of the relevant local authority. That may not last forever, but from our negotiations with local authorities it seems to be the least disruptive arrangement. We may proceed differently in due course, but if someone has waited a year or two years in a particular area, it would be unacceptable to require that person to move in order to meet a national dispersal policy. Typically, such people will have made arrangements for schooling, health care and so on. Financial responsibility will move to the Home Office, but we will not move people who are settled, for the time being, and whose cases have frankly taken too long to be dealt with. I hope that that policy is acceptable across the House. In discussing our targets for families and others, I am talking about meeting targets for most cases, not all. Some families will inevitably stay longer in the system. In relation to other cases, we have announced that we will make discretionary payments to asylum seekers—families or single people—who stay in the support system through no fault of their own for more than six months, another point on which concern was raised earlier in the year. There will be a single payment of £50 per person for an asylum seeker and his or her dependants. That would be additional to the normal support, and paid in the form of a cashable voucher. A further payment will be made in cases, hopefully small in number, where a person remains in the support system for more than 12 months. The arrangements to be established under part VI of the Bill will be fairer than the present system. They will be better than they are for some asylum seekers at the moment, and in all cases, they will certainly be no worse. They make more effective use of available resources, and they will be a disincentive to those who seek to exploit the asylum system for their own ends.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

Would my right hon. Friend tell me how confident he feels of his ability to meet the targets for single claimants by April 2001? In the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I asked the Lord Chancellor a similar question about the target for appointing adjudicators to enable the targets to be met, and he said that he would be a very brave man if he answered that.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am a brave man, so I shall answer the question. We aim to meet the target. The target for appeal cases has already been met, although we cannot guarantee that it will continue to be met as the number of asylum claimants increases. It is well known—indeed, it has been a matter of considerable debate in the House—that the number of asylum seekers in this country has increased greatly in recent months and has created a huge burden, not least for local authorities in Kent. The number has not risen because we are a soft touch, as the Opposition claim—I reject that suggestion. The largest increase is in asylum seekers from countries in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, which has been subject to great violence and political disruption. Many of those people are genuine asylum seekers, others are chancers who masquerade as genuine asylum seekers. The second largest increase is in asylum seekers from Somalia, where there is no effective Government and great political violence. Although we also receive applications from countries where the risk of persecution is non-existent or tiny, the pressure on all European countries is related to the extent of political violence in other individual countries. 9.15 pm To put the matter in perspective, Ireland, which previously received no asylum claims, has received 1,000 applications in one month. Given the size of the Republic of Ireland, the proportion of claims is significantly higher per head of population there than in the United Kingdom. The severe pressure on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has increased. We are working hard to solve the problems that were caused earlier in the year by a combination of the computer system and a change of accommodation. I am happy to debate the terms for the computer system that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald signed in 1996. She almost signed blind a contract that contained no contingency arrangements. I shall debate the matter with her or her deputy at any time. I shall make the contract available to her so that she understands what she signed and why the combination of the contract and having to move to different accommodation created severe difficulties. We have reversed the cuts in staff that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald planned. We have employed hundreds of new staff; hundreds more are being recruited. I hope that we shall meet the two month plus four month target for new applicants by April 2001, but I cannot guarantee that. As I have already made clear, if asylum applicants remain in the system for more than six months through no fault of their own, we shall pay them periodic single payments of £50 a head every six months.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

rose—

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

rose—

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I gave way earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), but I shall do so again.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so gracefully. I am genuinely anxious to clarify the position of those whose cases form part of the black backlog. There are thousands of them in east London and other inner-city areas. My right hon. Friend said that such people would not be subject to dispersal. However, he also seemed to claim that the new support arrangements would apply to them—and they would thus lose their entitlement to benefits. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that point?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

On a phased basis, we intend to transfer formal responsibility for those people from local authorities. In many cases, we shall use the same local authorities as agents on behalf of the asylum support system. There is no argument between my hon. Friend and me. If people have waited for some time for the processing of a claim—whether it is genuine or unfounded; the circumstances of the transfer from their country are often traumatic—and have settled in an area, I, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the officials in the Department have no interest in gratuitously disrupting reasonably settled lives. We shall transfer the responsibility for making payments to them, but that responsibility is essentially administrative. In almost every case, the asylum seeker will not notice the change.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I would like clarification on the issue of periodic payments. Will my right hon. Friend advise the House how periodic the payments will be? When will they be reviewed?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

They will be paid every six months. As this is a short debate, I should like to bring my remarks to a close. I shall do that by seeking to draw out from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who is deputising for the shadow Home Secretary, exactly what has happened inside the Conservative party since Conservative peers supported amendment No. 135 in another place just three weeks ago. In the debate on the timetable motion, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald sought to suggest that her noble Friend Lord Cope of Berkeley had given only qualified support to amendment No. 135 when it was debated in the other place as amendment No. 118. However, I have Lord Cope's speech before me and he gave unqualified support to the amendment, which would cost £500 million and would restore cash benefits to those from whom they were taken away as a result of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Lord Cope said: Therefore I support amendment No. 118."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1999; Vol. 605, c. 1147.] I wrote to the right hon. Lady, expressing some surprise that she was going to continue to ask for arrangements that she had withdrawn from asylum seekers in 1996 and, more importantly, that she was going to continue to impose a severe burden on her constituents, on those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and on those of every Member representing a constituency in Kent or in London. She replied and said that amendment No. 135 was sensible and common sense. I put that point to her in the House and asked her to understand what she had done, but she brushed aside my suggestion that the amendment would—as it is bound to—continue the existing burden on Kent and London local authorities. She said: Amendment No. 118"— as it then was;— was moved by the Bishop of Southwark…and was supported by us".—[Official Report, 26 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 818.] She said that without qualification. That was the right hon. Lady's view just two weeks ago, but we are now told that she has changed her mind. Instead, she has tabled an amendment that is, frankly, almost meaningless. I understand the truth, and I think that everyone else does. As I warned the right hon. Lady in the debate on 26 October, one of the dangers of the kind of instantaneous opposition that she practises and her willingness to answer every telephone call from a journalist and then to give an instantaneous quotation, is that one ends up speaking before one thinks. That, of course, is exactly what she has done. There was a suggestion that I should not offer that warning to the right hon. Lady, in case she learned the error of her ways. However, she is so incorrigible that there is no danger of that. The right hon. Lady thought that the amendment was a good ruse, so she got Lord Cope of Berkeley not just to support it sotto voce, but to add his name to it and to whip into the Lobby every Conservative peer, including hereditary peers, who could be found. However, she had not worked out for a second what the amendment would cost, but when I put the cost to her, as I did in a letter that I wrote to her and again on the Floor of the House, she thought that she could brazen it out. What she did not see in the debate on 26 October was the faces of the Conservative Members sitting behind her. Their faces were filled with horror at what she had let them in for—and she has let them in for something. The amendment, which the Opposition are trying to move in lieu, is of no consequence. It is meaningless, but I shall not detain the House on why it is. It seeks to have some information put before the House, but after the relevant part of the Bill has come into force rather than before. We want the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who will speak on the right hon. Lady's behalf, to tell us why the Conservative Members supported that £500 million amendment and why they were ready to continue the burden on the people of Kent and of London, a burden which they placed on them in the first place and which the Bill and my motion seek to relieve.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I would have had rather more regard for the Home Secretary's final tirade had he not been the then Opposition spokesman who fought tooth and nail against the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and every measure taken by Conservative Governments to enforce stricter laws against illegal immigration and the abuse of the asylum system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) explained fully during her remarks on the timetable motion that Conservative peers joined Cross Benchers, Labour peers and Liberal Democrat peers to support the Bishop of Southwark's amendment as the best vehicle for getting a further debate in this House about the way in which the Government's voucher scheme, which we have said repeatedly that we support, risks being destabilised by inadequate preparation and forethought on the part of Home Office Ministers. The reason for the Home Secretary's patent embarrassment tonight has been the faces and expressions of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Benches behind him. The last thing that he wanted, particularly this evening after proceedings on a different Bill, was a debate on an issue that arouses disquiet not just among members of opposition parties, but among many long-standing and loyal members of his own party. We are entitled to be sceptical about the Government's reassurances, not simply because of their record in opposing Conservative measures to restrict the abuse of asylum, but because of their record during their two and a half years in office. There have been record queues, record asylum applications and record backlogs building up at the Croydon headquarters of the immigration and nationality directorate.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The hon. Gentleman is surely not leaving the Opposition's support for amendment No. 135 there. Is that all that he intends to say about it? What the hon. Gentleman claims about the position taken in the other place is simply untrue. Lord Cope said none of the things that the hon. Gentleman suggests he said. He said nothing about the amendment being a vehicle for debate. There are many other vehicles for debate. He said that he supported it. That is what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said. When she wrote back to me, she was trying to justify the content of amendment No. 135. Why has the hon. Gentleman changed his tune and backed off?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The Home Secretary fails to point out that when my right hon. Friend wrote to him, she made it clear that she was not prepared to take any lessons on the issue of asylum seekers from a Government who had presided over record numbers of applications, the vast majority of them bogus, and who had presided over the grinding to a halt of the processing system because of the mismanagement within the Home Office, presided over by Ministers. It is no good the Home Secretary seeking to attribute all blame for delay and difficulties in administration on the situation that he inherited. His Department's annual report a year ago, which I assume he read before putting his name to it, stated with regard to the immigration and nationality directorate: The situation has now settled, and the majority of problems have been resolved. However, if we examine the check list of the targets that the Government set for themselves in the White Paper on asylum and immigration published in July 1998, we find that they are failing dismally to achieve the objectives that they had set, taking into account the situation that existed. The target for asylum decisions during the financial year 199 000 was 59,000. In the first half of that financial year, the total number of decisions taken was 20,605. It was running at a rate about one third below the Government's professed target. The same applies to appeals disposals. The target was 46,000, but the actual number of appeals processed was 15,000 for the half year—again, roughly one third down on the target that Ministers had set for themselves. 9. 30 The impact of that is seen in the additional expenditure that the Government have to find. According to a recent written answer from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), the budget for asylum seekers support, for which they had set a target of £350 million for the current financial year, will be between £450 million and £490 million, Not only the Opposition but the Government themselves have linked delays and backlogs to the effectiveness of the new support arrangements which they plan to introduce under part VI. On page 40 of the White Paper, the Government said that they could not establish the new, faster asylum process, to which they were committed, without first tackling the backlogs. They also said, on page 36, that delays send a clear message to abusive applicants that the system cannot cope and is ripe for exploitation. Earlier this year during proceedings on the Bill, the Government repeatedly made a virtue of their intention that the new system of support should be short term. In the asylum support information document published by the Government in March 1999, the arrangements embodied in part VI are described as: a short-term, basic safety-net arrangement". The then Minister with responsibility for immigration told the Special Standing Committee on 4 May that, in considering the accommodation needs of asylum seekers, it must be remembered that they are likely to be here for only a short time. Some Liberal Democrats may have strong objections in principle to the voucher scheme, while other Conservative Members support the measure in principle but are gravely worried about the difficulties that the Government face in implementing the scheme. However, there are real concerns about the gap that is opening up between the Government's stated objectives and the practical challenge that the Government face in implementing these complex new arrangements in the short time scale that Ministers have set themselves.

Marsha Singh (Labour, Bradford West)

In 1996, the Conservative Government's removal of cash benefits from asylum seekers was a disgraceful and inhuman act. In seeking to restore those benefits, they now accept that and that they were totally wrong.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making, but what I find extraordinary, and what I suspect he finds somewhat embarrassing, is the way in which Ministers, having denounced the measures introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), now seem to be inching towards something which they believe follows in his footsteps even if they do not wish to alert their own Back Benchers to that fact. The Government have set themselves a tight timetable for introducing the part VI measures. The voucher administration contract is due to be let at the end of this year. That contract will presumably have to arrange for the printing and distribution of the vouchers, for retailers to accept them and for a proper audit system to avoid fraud. All those systems must be put in place within three months flat. The contract for the supply of Home Office-funded accommodation faces an even tighter time scale. That is intended to be awarded at the end of January 2000, leaving just 44 working days between the award of the contract and the new system coming into operation. The sort of problems that the Government may face can be seen from their recent statements on the asylum seekers support agency. As recently as June, Ministers predicted that they would need between 100 and 200 additional staff to ensure that that agency operated efficiently; but less than five months later, the figure has risen to 512. That is between two and a half and five times the Government's original estimate of the number of staff that would be needed. We have heard a lot from Ministers about the importance of the interim measures. There is broad agreement across the House that they are necessary to alleviate the burden on local authorities as quickly as possible but we are still waiting for the details, and we read in the newspapers of protests by local authorities about underfunding from the Home Office under the current arrangements and under the proposed arrangements in the Bill. The failure to clear the backlogs means that the Government will have to operate a multi-tier system of support from April 2000. There will be no simple transfer from the arrangements they inherited to a brand new, sparkling, hunky-dory system of asylum seeker support. I understood the Home Secretary to say that somebody who had claimed at a port before April 2000 would continue to receive social security benefits after 1 April 2000 until either there had been an adverse decision on the case and the applicant was awaiting appeal or until some unspecified future date at which an unspecified transfer arrangement would come into force to take that asylum seeker on to the new part VI arrangements. Similarly, somebody who had made a claim in-country before the end of March 2000 or was appealing after an adverse decision would remain on local authority support—or at least that level of support—until he, too, could be transferred at some unknown date and by some unknown arrangement to the new part VI arrangements. New asylum applicants would go on to the new arrangements from day one except for families with children, who, as the Home Secretary has said, would be treated in a different way. It seems that, after 1 April next year, the Government will be trying to run in parallel at least four different arrangements for asylum seeker support. Inevitably, that will breed a certain measure of complexity and it poses a real challenge for the practical operation of the scheme. The Government are at serious risk of underestimating how difficult that challenge may prove. If I want to be partisan in the debate, I might say that the Child Support Agency is etched on the memory of many Members on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] Before Ministers become too excited—

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

They all supported it.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

Before Ministers become too excited, they should remember, as my hon. Friend points out, that they voted for the establishment of the CSA. They should also remember their experience this summer with the issue of passports and the payment of retirement pensions to newly retired people at the turn of this year, when many of them had to wait many weeks to receive the pension to which they were entitled because of a breakdown at the Benefits Agency. Presumably, the new system under part VI of the Bill will involve the Home Office—or its contractors or agents—providing accommodation, furniture, bed linen, laundry facilities, washing and cooking facilities, crockery, cutlery, access to legal advice—

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Changing light bulbs.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

Changing light bulbs, as the hon. Gentleman says. Some medical checks and medical cover will also be provided, and the Home Secretary knows that the British Medical Association is concerned about that. All that provision will have to be set up at breakneck speed and must be operational by 1 April next year. Disquiet is being expressed not only by politicians, but by local authorities—even those that want the new system to be put in place as quickly as possible—and the Immigration Advisory Service and organisations such as the Refugee Council. If the Home Office does not reflect carefully and devote continued concentration to the practical implementation of its scheme, there is a real danger that it will end up with a botched job. That will not be in the interests of the genuine asylum seeker or of fairness in this country. It is in the Government's interests, and those of the asylum seekers on whose behalf they claim to be acting, for them to make sure that they put in place the practical arrangements for which the Opposition have been calling and report to the House of Commons regularly on what they have managed to achieve, rather than leave it to leaks and rumours in the media to provide Members of Parliament with information about their constituents. I hope that, even now, the Government will accept the amendment that the Opposition have urged on them. It would help them to ensure that the practical implementation of their scheme benefits the people of this country.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I shall try to be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to take part in this debate. I do not want to spend very long on the Tory amendment because all we have heard from the Tory party in this debate has been utter hypocrisy. Not a single word has shown any real concern for asylum seekers and what happens to them. It is obvious that the one purpose of the amendment, which does not even try to get at the figures that matter, such as those on what is happening to families or individuals on the support scheme and how long they stay on it, is to amass ammunition for a knockabout argument with the Government over a couple of months. The amendment has nothing to do with the genuine interests of asylum seekers. Everyone who is concerned with asylum and immigration wants a system that works, and works efficiently. I believe—I think that most people do—that the best deterrent to fraudulent claims is a system that makes quick decisions and enforces them. Creating such a system is the most important thing that we could do to sort out the problems. The amendment is about more than decision making. It goes to the heart of the Bill's provisions on the support system; it refers to cash support. I want to put it on record again that I still believe that a cash support system is far superior to one that is based on vouchers. I shall not rehearse all the arguments about vouchers; suffice it to say that a cash support system is better, cheaper per capita and far easier to administer. I have yet to see any convincing proof of the simplistic argument that cash benefits are a pull, although it is stated as an assertion, almost as if it were simply a matter of fact or common sense, and inevitable. The only statistics that I have ever heard quoted to support such an argument are on the shift in the balance of applications, as more people began to apply at port after cash benefits were withdrawn from in-country applicants. In fact, applications at port went from one third of the total pre-1996 to about 40 per cent. during 1996, up to 51 per cent. in 1997, and back down to 41 per cent. in 1999. Therefore, the balance has not shifted significantly. Let us consider the detailed analysis of what has happened. In 1998—these are recent applications—nearly 40 per cent. of grants of asylum and 64 per cent. of grants of exceptional leave were made to port applicants. If it were true that fraudulent applicants were attracted by cash benefits, one would have expected the proportion of people being granted asylum and exceptional leave at port to have fallen. It did not. Let us consider countries such as Yugoslavia, Somalia and Afghanistan from which no one disputes that many genuine applicants come. There are widely different patterns in the proportions of people who apply at port and in-country; the argument is not simplistic. There are obviously all sorts of factors at work concerning where people choose to apply. The question is not just simply of the pull of benefits. If there were such a pull, why are there so few asylum seekers in Scotland, where they still receive the full rate of income support, whoever they are? We have not seen floods of people suddenly deciding to go to Scotland. 9. 45 pm As for the other targets that the amendments address, the obvious question is: can they be achieved? They are not being achieved now. I had a written answer two weeks ago telling me that the current average time for processing was four years. I see the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) nodding—but many of those people applied before the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, and the Government whom he supported deliberately put them into a separate queue, and created a backlog by not processing their applications. They tried to speed up applications overall by dealing with recent applicants while letting the older applications stay in the queue. Listening to the Home Secretary, I was a little worried that we might be starting to move down that road again, by creating a fast track for families with children, for whom target times will be met while leaving other people to sit and wait longer, or by dealing with new applicants fast and letting previous applicants wait. It may be true that appeals are being dealt with within 13 weeks on average, but that is after a period in which relatively few decisions have come out of the Home Office. If decisions from the Home Office are made more quickly, so that there are more of them, there will be a question mark over whether the appeal authorities will be able to deal with the increased flow. The other direct consequence of the Government's rejection of the Lords amendment is that we shall adopt the interim scheme. Hon. Members who have not yet done so should read the consultation paper, because it will definitely affect their local authorities. The scheme is a Government scheme in all but name, but will be run by local authorities. Can we really expect local authorities to operate a voluntary scheme of dispersal? It may be voluntary for the local authorities, but not for asylum seekers, who will be told where to go. What will happen when different local authorities adopt different standards, and different tests of destitution are applied? How will families survive? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made great play of a commitment that he gave in the summer that families with children would not go into the support system. None the less, they are going into local authority support systems. He said that local authorities would be able to provide cash if they chose, but if they do not have to supply cash to families, that must mean—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would confirm that local authorities will have to give cash to families, and will not have a choice.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am glad to offer my hon. Friend reassurance. Under the Children Acts, under which support for families with children is provided, local authorities have the discretion to provide support either in cash or in kind, or a mixture of both. There is a wide range of provision, and we do not intend to change those arrangements when we bring in the interim arrangements that will apply between 1 December and 1 April.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

The implications of that seem to be that there will be families with children who have to live on vouchers. Much play has been made about what the voluntary sector will do. We are making all sorts of assumptions about what they will contribute in the new support scheme, such as supporting people who cannot be removed.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

rose—

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I want to finish my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will let me, because I know that other people want to speak. We are asking the voluntary sector to support people who may be destitute, but the support that they get may be taken into account in deciding whether they qualify as destitute for local authority purposes. That is important, because we are telling the voluntary sector that it will not be able to top up payments and give people additional help. If voluntary organisations do that, what they give will be taken into account in assessing destitution. I am sorry to see us enacting the Bill in this form. I hope that I am wrong, and that in a year, 18 months or two years, my right hon. Friend will be able to demonstrate that we have a system, including a support system, that works. However, I am afraid that that will not happen and that we are passing a Bill that will create even worse chaos than exists now.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I commend the Bishop of Southwark's amendment. It was supported by a rainbow coalition of all parties and of none in the Upper kaufHouse. It is a tribute to the Bishop of Southwark and those in the upper House who took an independent view and were not tempted to view immigration matters as a sensitive political concern about which they must at all times be defensive. It sometimes appears that the other place is more willing to celebrate the contribution made by refugees to this country. The Home Secretary appeared at one point to have seen the light when he referred to international conditions being the main driver behind the recent increase in asylum applications. That is the argument advanced by the Liberal Democrats in recent years, but the Home Secretary contradicted himself later by describing the cash benefits as the principal pull factor. The Home Secretary appears to argue either position as it suits him. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said earlier that Liberal Democrats said nice things about the Home Secretary, but the hon. Gentleman himself played a constructive role in Committee. We formed an effective opposition in that Committee, but unfortunately the Home Secretary was not able to appreciate that. We agreed with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) when he said that the issue is primarily administrative, not legislative. Getting the administration right is the key, not simply banging through more legislation to pile on top of what we have had already. We were promised a fundamental review of all immigration legislation in this Bill, but other issues have been tagged on—not least the support system that we are debating. In our view, the Government are following the Conservatives' pattern of talking tough and legislating on immigration but then watching the system descend into further chaos. The support system in the Bill will continue that pattern. The Lord Chancellor's comments about the likelihood of meeting the six-month target and recruiting the adjudicators have already been mentioned. The Home Secretary also said that the Government were aiming to meet the target, but that is meaningless in terms of holding the Government to account on those targets. We have also heard the evidence of the unions who represent workers in the immigration service. They appeared before the Special Standing Committee and said that even with the workers who were being recruited, the service would not be able to keep up with the growing backlog. The immigration service unions have since confirmed the problems faced in Croydon and elsewhere. We cannot therefore sit here and blithely accept the Home Secretary's assurances that he hopes to meet the target. In the context of dispersal, it is vital that local authorities be given assurances about the targets, because they need to be able to plan. The local authority in Sheffield has voiced its concerns to me, and I am sure that other hon. Members will have had the same experience. How can local authorities plan for education and social services unless they know how long they will be responsible for applicants for asylum? Local health services have similar problems. We provided a tremendous reception for Kosovans in my local authority, but that was based on full backing from the Home Office and a clear idea of what would happen. That will not happen under the new system and the asylum support directorate. The situation will be chaotic, and local authorities will find that difficult. However, we can be sure that they will continue to pick up the pieces for people who are desperate. The social services and other agencies, including the churches and the voluntary sector—often funded by the local authority for precisely that purpose—always do, whatever we put in the Bill about specific responsibilities for local authorities. We are concerned that the Asylum Support Directorate is advertising under the Government scheme—not the one in the amendment—for other accommodation outside the consortium. How can a local authority plan to participate in such arrangements when advertisements are placed seeking other providers of accommodation in its area? Again, it may not always feel included in those discussions, nor able to contribute effectively to decisions about where people should end up. The messages that have been given out have not always been helpful. I join in the commendations of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) for the way in which he has taken a principled position, but it is clear that local authorities have been told that knife-wielding maniacs from Kent will be coming their way under the dispersal arrangements that the Government will impose. The publicity that has been created—and examples have been cited in the House—has been entirely counterproductive when it comes to getting local authorities outside London and the south-east to co-operate and participate. I very much regret some of the comments that have been made. The figures given by the Home Secretary in rejecting the amendment were assertions, not facts. They are supported by no evidence other than the assertions of his officials. As happened with the police figures, the Home Secretary sometimes has to return to the House and say that the assertions made by his officials are not entirely what he would have wished to make had he checked them more carefully. We consider that the assertions behind the figures that the Home Secretary gave are based on supposition, in an attempt to make a case that he has decided already. The hon. Member for Walthamstow rehearsed the arguments about the figures after the 1996 Act, when the choice was between cash benefits and nothing. If a deterrent effect existed, at most it was of about 10 per cent. initially, before fading altogether. The Home Secretary's figures ask us to assume a deterrent effect of 20 per cent., but we have no serious reason to take that as a fact. The costs of the new system will be much higher—even the Government have admitted that administering vouchers will be more expensive. Officials from Kent county council told the Special Standing Committee that choosing the voucher option would be a disaster. Representatives from the Association of London Government said that the system would be expensive and difficult to administer. However, the Bill proposes a central unit to administer that system throughout the country and to manage contracts that are supposed to cover details such as the changing of light bulbs and the provision of basic necessities. We are expected to take at face value the assertion that, in effect, the system will cost nothing, whereas a system involving social security benefits would be a full-cost operation. Clearly, rejecting the amendment and going down the route proposed in the Bill will involve an enormous cost. We are also asked to take at face value the assertion that the administration system will work, yet we hear stories about how little communication exists between the asylum casework section and the new Asylum Support Directorate. The two operations must go hand in hand: the support system cannot work unless the casework is progressing effectively. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to correct me, but I understand that the computer systems for the casework directorate and the Asylum Support Directorate are not compatible. Major worries remain about the manipulation and management of the hearings that will allow people to come off the system within six months. There is no evidence that the problems of that self-created millennium bug have been solved, even though the clock is ticking and there are only five months to go until the system becomes operational in April 2000. The key is to get the determination right and fair at the first attempt. That is the way to speed up the system and resolve the problems with it, but there is no evidence that the Government will be able to deliver that. My noble Friend Earl Russell referred in another place to the Child Support Agency. The difficulties that he described with that agency bore uncanny parallels with the problems evident in the asylum system. He spoke of implementing simultaneously a major piece of legislation, a major administrative reorganisation and a major new computer system, and described the disaster that that could cause. That is uncannily reminiscent of what happened with the Passport Agency, and I regret that it may also happen with the Asylum Support Directorate. If the amendment is rejected and the Government's bland assurances and unfounded assertions on this issue are accepted, I fear that we shall have to return to the House in a few years to consider yet more legislation, which will be sold to us as the magic wand to solve a problem that will have got worse in the intervening period.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) talked about a magic wand. There is no such thing and I do not see one coming along. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) spoke with authority and compassion about the effect of the present system on genuine asylum seekers—the situation inherited from the Conservative party. Those of us who represent constituencies with large numbers of asylum seekers, as I do, are well aware of the impact on them of that administrative confusion. The hon. Member for Hallam also says that he wants a system that is fair, but in my experience, where the system works, it is very fair. For example, last month I held a three and a half hour advice bureau, which dealt mostly with people who were here and had been given indefinite or considerable periods of leave to remain. They were mainly Somalis. They had no complaints about the system that had allowed them to be here as asylum seekers. Nor did they have any complaints about Manchester city council. That council has not had any complaints about the situation—it has done remarkable things for asylum seekers, particularly those from Somalia but also those from Kosovo. We have a large number of people from Kosovo in my constituency. So many people who have been asylum seekers come to my advice bureau not because they are here or are not being sustained, but because the system has become so clogged with bogus asylum seekers that they cannot get the processing that they need—for example, with travel documents and verification of their presence here. One of my cases concerns a woman from Croatia who is an asylum seeker. She needs verification of her status from the Home Office because she cannot obtain the benefits to which she is entitled. She is getting cheques on a weekly basis, at best. That is because she has been waiting for 15 months simply for a reply from the Home Office, owing to the misguided legislation of the Conservative party which has resulted in chaos in the system—utter chaos for applications and appeals. As a result, people with genuine and important problems cannot get responses. Week after week I have to deal with the problems of people not only from Somalia, but from Sierra Leone, Algeria, Libya—an appalling case involving a man who had had a frightful wound inflicted on him—Iraq and many other countries. They have no problem with being in this country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has treated all of them very well indeed. The problem is that they are in a state of limbo because the system is clogged with bogus asylum seekers. Last weekend, I had a discussion with senior members of the race relations sector in Manchester. As it happens, it was at an event organised by Asian constituents. They told me of their total support for this legislation. They do not support it because they are happy with it—who can be happy with legislation that has to introduce such Gordian measures? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not happy that he has had to introduce it. They support it because they believe that it is the best way to cut open the system and rid it of the awful consultants and solicitors who have battened and leached on certain people, urging them to apply for asylum when they are not eligible and making money out of human misery. That human misery is twofold. There is the human misery of the genuine asylum seekers who are not having their cases dealt with efficiently or satisfactorily, and that of the people who have been induced to apply for asylum who are never in a million years going to get it but whose cases must be considered as if they are genuine, just in case they turn out to be such. That is the unhappy dilemma facing my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He is using better endeavours—better than any Home Secretary whom I have encountered in my 29 years in this place—to deal with problems that are often insoluble, always vexatious and sometimes—far too often—exacerbated by the exploitation of the system by people who are exploited by consultants. If there is one reason why I want this Bill on the statute book, it is so that the measures against the bogus consultants and exploitative solicitors can be brought into action. I name Thornhill Ince in Manchester as a firm of solicitors whose exploitation of members of the ethnic minority communities is absolutely scandalous. I wish, as does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that he did not have to introduce the systems that are in this Bill, but I see no alternative. There is certainly no alternative in the amendment that he is asking the House to reject. The conditions that it would impose are not only unfulfillable but would make the situation worse. They would create a vicious circle that would not improve matters for a single human being. Where I agree totally with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is on his emphasis on the fact that these people are all individuals suffering from misery, fear, apprehension and concern about their relatives abroad whom they may or may not see. We must devise not the best, but the least bad system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not asking for plaudits for having produced something that, in the words of the hon. Member for Hallam, will wave a magic wand. He deserves credit for understanding the issues in a way that no Home Secretary whom I have known has understood them, and for his honest efforts to achieve a solution. He may regard that as faint praise, but praise it is meant to be. I am not happy that we have to have such conditions in the Bill, but if they can cut through the logjam and discourage the consultants and the solicitors, he has some chance of making the situation better. That is why the Bill's registration system is so important.

Marsha Singh (Labour, Bradford West)

Does my right hon. Friend believe that vouchers are a more efficient, compassionate and humane way of supporting asylum seekers than cash payments?

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

I do not believe that vouchers are more compassionate. I do not know whether they will be more efficient. They are worth trying, particularly on the discriminatory basis that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described. I cannot say that I am delirious with pleasure at the idea that the Bill contains them, but the situation must be solved because of the many people who are suffering seriously from what my right hon. Friend inherited from the Conservative Government.

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

Despite his inaccurate criticisms of the record of the previous Government, I derived a good deal of encouragement from the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The implication, when one cut through much of the language of his speech, was a recognition at last from a Labour Member that the challenge that we face is how to deter undeserving applicants for political asylum so that applicants genuinely fleeing persecution can have their claims dealt with speedily and effectively, and can be given the asylum to which they are entitled.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

I have very little time. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not give way again.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes any further down this road, can he tell us where he gets any evidence that any change in the number of people fleeing to Britain, or anywhere else in Europe, to seek a place of safety under the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention has taken place as a result of a system of payments of benefits either in cash or in kind?

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

I am coming to exactly that point. In view of the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Gorton and repeatedly made by the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers, I want to begin this necessarily brief speech by putting the record straight. These are the figures. In 1996—the last full year of the previous Government's term—the number of asylum seekers was just under 30,009,640. In the previous year, the number was almost 44,000 —43,965 to be exact. That reduction was a direct result of the 1996 legislation for which I was responsible and the associated benefit changes for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was responsible. If we compare the figures month by month—a much fairer comparison since the changes were not in force for the whole of 1996—the percentage reduction was even greater than that represented by the figures that I have just quoted. If, for example, we compare May 1996 with May 1995, the reduction was almost 50 per cent. The statistics are a matter of record. If the Home Secretary wants to challenge them, I will give way to him. At present, the number of those seeking asylum is soaring and out of control; the backlog is soaring and out of control. That is a direct consequence of the decisions of the Home Secretary. He had the remedy in his own hands. He could have implemented in full the measures contained in the 1996 Act and the associated benefit changes, but he chose not to do so. The consequences were predictable and they have come to pass. I hope that the measures that the Home Secretary is now putting in place will succeed. I give him this personal assurance. I do not join him in criticising the Lords amendment this evening simply to embarrass him and make mischief for him among some of his hon. Friends. I hope that his measures succeed. If they do, it will be greatly to the benefit of my constituents in Folkestone and those in neighbouring parts of east Kent. The effect of the Home Secretary's measures would be significantly diminished if the Lords amendment were to stand. There is concern among hon. Members of all parties about the backlog. The key to reducing the backlog is to reduce the number of undeserving applicants. That, too, is proved by the record of the previous Government. In 1995, just over 27,000 decisions on asylum were made—27,005, to be precise. In 1996, after the changes that I have described, that number increased to almost 39,000 —38,960. The number of decisions in 1996 exceeded the number of applications for asylum by almost 10,000. The backlog was being substantially reduced, which was a far cry from the situation that we face at present. The Lords amendment would not help to remedy the present situation. Indeed, it would be counterproductive, so the Home Secretary and my right hon. and hon. Friends are right not to support it. I am sorry that we shall not have the opportunity to vote for the modest amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I do not quite understand why the Government do not accept it. However, I am serious in my hope that the Government's measures succeed. If they do not, I hope that the Government will not shrink from reconsidering the matter and, indeed, from paying some further attention to the measures that achieved such success in 1996. I shall be ready and available to help the Home Secretary, if and when that moment comes.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak briefly in support of Lords amendment No. 135. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that if the amendment were allowed to stand, it would set unfulfillable criteria. On the contrary, the criteria set by the amendment for the average times of determination were those that Ministers assured us over and over again—in the House and in Committee—could and would be met. I do not want to detain the House on this point, but it may be helpful if I repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Report. He said: I also ask my hon. Friend to accept that I will be responsible to the House, and to Members on each side of it, if the system fails to meet the target"— that is, the target for the average times. He continued: I shall take a very close and personal interest in whether that target will be met. It will be in nobody's interest, least of all mine, to press the start button to begin the process and then to discover the applications are routinely not taking two months".—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 475.] However, tonight, the Home Secretary is presenting us with exactly that scenario. He says that, come what may, he will press the start button and begin the process. I have not yet heard a single assurance from Ministers about whether they can meet the two months and the six months time limits that we were assured, over and over again, they would reach. The Home Secretary tried to claim that there was never any connection between the introduction of the support system and the time targets. However, the Home Office document, "Asylum Seekers Support", published in March 1999, states: The proposed provision is set at 70 per cent. of the equivalent income support because the asylum support scheme is intended to be on a short-term basis, safety net arrangement, and it should be possible to live on these amounts for short periods only. There was much anxiety and concern about the support arrangements among my Labour colleagues and, over and over again, the Home Secretary reassured people that the arrangements were meant to be only short term. However, he now wants to strike out Lords amendment No. 135, and he cannot provide us with a single, practical assurance that those targets will be met.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

With great respect to my hon. Friend, I have provided a most important assurance, which I also gave on Report, that, in respect of families with children, we will not introduce the voucher-based system of support until we are clear that we are meeting—for most cases, although not for all cases, as I have always made clear—the two plus four target. Moreover—I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not hear what was said, because she was certainly present—we are already rolling out arrangements to fast-track families with children. I gave details about that in respect of the first 600 such people who had made applications in October.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the concern is about the interim arrangements and what they will mean. I repeat to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench the concern about people whose cases are currently in the backlog. It is one thing to say that they will not be subject to false dispersal, but the transitional arrangements will have to be extremely carefully made, because although those people might not be subject to dispersal, they might lose their housing benefit. In practice, that would mean that they could no longer stay in their current homes. I have only a few minutes in which to speak, but I put it to Ministers that, if their assurances about meeting the time targets for the resolution of those cases meant anything, they have nothing to fear from the thinking behind Lords amendment No. 135. Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and say, wide-eyed, that they are putting time and effort into ensuring the right outcome. That might cut ice with Opposition Members who have no experience of the immigration and nationality directorate, for they do not know about the disastrous introduction of the new computer system or about the boxes of unopened files. However, after 12 long years dealing with the IND as a Member of Parliament, I wanted to hear broader assurances. Yes, families will not move straight to the voucher system, but what about single persons? What about the interim arrangements? The amendment deals with the practicalities of the legislation and the potential to implement it fairly and efficiently. I know that many of my hon. Friends are now poised to troop through the Lobby in support of the Government, but I predict that the Bill will be like the Child Support Act 1991 in the following respect: before too long, it will be hard to find Labour Members who have any clear recollection of ever having supported it.

Charles Wardle (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I welcome amendment (a), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), which makes much more sense than Lords amendment No. 135, which was proposed by the Lord Bishop of Southwark and accepted in another place. The message to all asylum applicants, genuine or otherwise, should not be of the continued availability of cash benefits, but of the Government having to live up to their promises of putting in place, in good working order, targeted systems for processing applications. That is why my right hon. Friend is right to try to place the Home Secretary under a clear obligation to deliver on his promises of greater efficiency. If there were time, I would make a further suggestion to the Home Secretary, which is that—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I support amendment (a), which relates to an amendment first introduced in the House of Lords. I ask the House to pay attention to the debate as this issue was never raised when the Bill was on the Floor of this House. The issue was not raised during the Bill's passage through the House and was mentioned for the first time when the legislation was on Report in the other place. To put it bluntly, the issue is whether we should introduce a new power of house arrest specifically for people who come to this country seeking asylum. Such people would have no convictions for any offence. They would be detained through no actions of their own. They would have no record of absconding. They would do nothing more than arrive on our shores. Should people who come to Britain thinking that we are the home of liberty be told that they may stay, but only on the condition that their liberty is restricted immediately? There are two hugely important interrelated issues surrounding this new clause and the amendment that my hon. Friend and I have tabled. First, how do we justify detaining people in this country and how will we add new powers of detention? Secondly, how do we treat people who come to this country as refugees? How do we treat those who have decided that this is the place where they will seek sanctuary? What signals should we send? What is Britain's reputation in this area? It is no coincidence that I can commend to hon. Members an article that appears on page 19 of today's edition of The Guardian—I shall refer to it only briefly. The article, entitled "Welcome them", is written by the director of the King's Fund, Rabbi Julia Neuberger, and is about refugees. She begins the article by relating her family's experience, and states: My mother, my uncle, one set of grandparents, and innumerable other relations, came to the UK as refugees from Hitler's Germany in the 1930s… That childhood made me realise something of what it is to be a refugee, to be torn from your home, to feel grateful for asylum, to think of 'home' as more than one place, to yearn for one's country of birth, despite one's resentment and anger at it, as one grows old. She continues: The devil is in the detail"— of the Bill that we are debating tonight— but refugees and asylum seekers have not always been a popular group. That is why it is essential that parliament takes a very close look at this bill, and distinguishes between measures designed to deter false asylum seekers and those which will have a harmful effect on genuine refugees, who have surely suffered enough already. Rabbi Neuberger concludes by making the point—which was mentioned across the House, in Committee and in another place—that Britain has gained hugely from people who have come here as refugees. Many of our great academic talents were refugees; many innovators in the field of science this century were refugees from Europe and from further afield. If we agree to the new clause introduced by the Government in the Lords without the amendment that my hon. Friend and I suggest, we risk putting off other refugees who may come to this country from the former Yugoslavia, the horn of Africa or elsewhere. Current immigration laws are technical—and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me. In the other place, Ministers got into a terrible muddle describing what they were seeking to achieve. They introduced amendments on Report and agreed that it would be better to take amendment No. 1 first and to consider the consequential amendment to it in a later debate. Ministers then withdrew the second amendment and reintroduced it on Third Reading, pushing it through against the strong advice of a House of Lords Select Committee. I turn now to what the Bill proposes. It adds to the existing powers in the Immigration Act 1971 which allow people to be detained. Paragraph 21 of schedule 2 of that Act says: A person liable to detention or detained under paragraph 16 above may, under the written authority of an immigration officer, be temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom without being detained or be released from detention; but this shall not prejudice a later exercise of the power to detain him. However, the paragraph continues: So long as a person is at large in the United Kingdom by virtue of this paragraph, he shall be subject to such restrictions as to residence"— and to employment or occupation— and as to reporting to the police or an immigration officer as may from time to time be notified to him in writing by an immigration officer. There are, therefore, existing powers under the 1971 Act. The Government advise us that all that the Act allows by way of detention is that which is necessary to maintain contact and prevent absconding". However, that is never made clear in the Act or anywhere else. The Government have introduced a new clause in amendment No. 1, which says: The Secretary of State may provide, or arrange for the provision of, facilities for the— this is rather disingenuously put— accommodation of persons…temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom under paragraph 21…released from detention under that paragraph; or…released on bail from detention under any provision of the Immigration Acts. That clause does not reveal what is behind the proposal. One must look to Lords amendment No. 329, which amends schedule 13 of the Bill. It says: The provisions that may be included in restrictions as to residence imposed under sub-paragraph (2) include provisions of such a description as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. That points towards regulations to be laid in the future. The amendment continues: The regulations may"— it does not say that they must— among other things, provide for the inclusion of provisions". That means that the regulations are not limited to those provisions, but they may include them. They may be provisions prohibiting residence in one or more particular areas", or requiring the person concerned to reside in accommodation provided under the relevant section of the Bill, and prohibiting him from being absent from that accommodation except in accordance with the restrictions imposed on him.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

It seems reasonable.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister says that it seems reasonable, but if Ministers are saying that it is reasonable to put newly arrived asylum seekers under house arrest for no reason other than that they have arrived here, the Government stand condemned by their own definition of what is reasonable. We cannot argue that the provisions are reasonable, and the Government should not argue that they are reasonable. The Select Committee in the House of Lords which considered the Bill certainly did not believe that the provisions were reasonable. Why, then, are they before us? The Minister said that the aim of the provisions is to prevent potential public order problems". So we are going to lock up or put under house arrest asylum seekers to prevent public order problems. But who is likely to cause such problems? As I understand it, public order problems this summer have not, by and large, been caused by asylum seekers, but have stemmed from the reaction of others to asylum seekers. Public order problems are not often caused by people who arrive with their children from a country far away, with no money but with the hope that they will be received. They are caused by people who think that there may be an invasion behind asylum seekers. That is dangerous enough, but the Government say that the measure is necessary to allow full and rapid consideration of asylum seekers' claims and to enable rapid decisions to be taken, in days rather than weeks. For that, flexible provisions are needed. 10. 45 p My colleagues and I have tabled a simple amendment. We do not like the original amendment. We simply tried to get the House to recognise that if we are to introduce the measure, there should be a limit on the time for which it applies. All we are asking is that while his application is looked into, an asylum seeker with no previous record of offending and no previous visits to the United Kingdom should not be required, by regulations that we have not seen, to be under house arrest for more than 10 days. That should be long enough for someone to decide his status and how to deal with him. Ministers were put on the defensive by peers in many corners of their lordships' House. I pay tribute to those from the Liberal Democrat Benches, including the Baroness Williams, the Lords Avebury and Goodhart—Lord Goodhart particularly, with his legal experience—and the Earl Russell. The Government said that the asylum seekers would be free to come and go, but on further exploration it turns out that that means free to come and go only during the day. At night they will be back at base, wherever base is, and in whatever form of detention will be decided for them. Not only could asylum seekers be under detention at night, but—this is the real criticism—the power can continue indefinitely. The contributions of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and others in the previous debate are relevant. If we pass the amendment unaltered by our amendment, we shall give a power allowing people to be detained indefinitely, placed under house arrest indefinitely and restricted indefinitely, while their claims are processed. The hon. Lady knows, as do I and anyone who deals every day with immigration cases, that the promise that a claim will be dealt with quickly, even if the promise is made in a letter or a telephone call and sometimes even if it is made by a Minister, does not necessarily mean that the claim is dealt with quickly. Colleagues in the other place tried to explore ways in which the amendment might be restricted. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which considered the proposal, said that it was a form of house arrest. That is the Select Committee's phrase; it is not a party political phrase. The Select Committee suggested that various amendments should be made by the Government. First, it suggested that the purpose of the restriction should be specified in the Bill—for example, that it is in the interests of public order. No purpose is specified in the Bill, which makes it a dangerously wide provision. Secondly, the Select Committee suggested that if the amendment is justified, it should be for a single purpose. There is no such restriction in the Bill. Thirdly, the Select Committee argued that the restrictions must be reasonable, and that that should be specifically stated. Nothing in the Bill provides that natural justice qualification. The Government did make two concessions. They conceded that the measure would have to be compatible with article 3 of the European convention on human rights, and that a Minister would have to certify that it was compatible. However, imagine if someone is placed, we know not where, and told that he cannot go out at night and that he must stay there. Even after next autumn, when the European convention on human rights is part of English law, as my colleagues and I have wanted for many years, is it reasonable that it should be up to an asylum seeker to apply to the courts to rule whether he should be held? Should that be the way in which we conduct our business? Should the assumption be that a newly arrived refugee should have to go to court to establish his rights? My colleagues and I think not. Although the Government have made concessions, enforcing the provision's human rights compatibility may be much more difficult than envisaged. It is sometimes difficult enough for hon. Members to enforce their rights. If we think that that will be easy for people arriving with no English, no money and no knowledge of British systems, we are deceiving ourselves. Lords amendment No. 329 asks for regulations to be made by affirmative resolution. The Government have agreed and we welcome that. Tonight, for the first time, we are being asked to consider a new clause and a new schedule. For the first time, we will introduce into British law a new form of specialised detention, different from the 1971 Act and different from all the other provisions

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

A curfew.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As my hon. Friend says, it will effectively be a curfew; a curfew for asylum seekers. It could be more than a curfew; it could restrict a person to specific accommodation for an indefinite period. I hope that the House will support the amendment to ensure that that period, if we have to have it, should be limited to a maximum of 10 days. I hope that the House will say that it is not enough for the Government to resist the amendment on the basis of what will happen if a person leaves the country after 10 days, only to return. The answer to that is that the 10 days will begin to run again. I also hope that the House will say that it is not enough to trust the Government on legislation that has been introduced at the last moment and criticised by Select Committees, and which lacks adequate definition. The job of Parliament is to make sure that we get the law right rather than trust the Government. It will be too late when people discover that, as from tomorrow, Britain has new detention powers, new curfews and new powers of house arrest. I hope that the Government accept the amendment.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that I shall accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) to Lords amendment No. 139, to which we shall come later. I start on a note of agreement with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Much of what he said was completely wrong, and I shall seek to convince him and the House of the error of his ways, but he is right to talk of Britain's proud history of accepting genuine asylum seekers; of granting refugees that status. He is also right to talk about the enormous contribution, not only over the years but over a vast period, that refugees have made to Britain's public, social and economic life. But nothing is more devaluing than the rise in the number of applications that are completely ill-founded. Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a London Member of Parliament, and we are well aware of the situation. The greatest enemy of the genuine asylum seeker is the unfounded application. The purpose of their lordship's amendments, taken together, is to provide a power to extend by regulation the residence conditions which may be imposed when those seeking leave to enter or remain in Britain are given temporary admission. As the House will be aware—we discussed this at length earlier today—there has been a substantial increase in asylum applications at our ports and in-country. The average number of applications each month from July to September was nearly 7,000, about 60 per cent. higher than for the same period in 1998. The majority of those applications—about two thirds—will not qualify for refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. A number of those refused will have made claims that are manifestly unfounded. We believe that, subject to providing full opportunity to examine the individual circumstances of each case, action is needed to ensure that such claims are resolved more quickly. If there is a point on which every Member of the House is absolutely agreed this evening, it is that we have to speed up the system. We have to take that challenge on board.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

If facilities are to be used by people whose asylum claims are manifestly unfounded, and if they may be expected to live at such facilities from the moment that they make an application, who will judge whether a claim is manifestly unfounded and on what basis will such a judgment be made?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I think that my hon. Friend is talking about the reception centre that we shall establish in the new year. I shall come on to that. Since taking on my new ministerial responsibilities, I have spent a long time at our ports listening to some of the claims and it is quite clear fairly early on which applications can be dealt with speedily and which will clearly take longer to process. My hon. Friend has brought me on to my next point—our recently announced plans to establish a reception centre at Oakington, near Cambridge, to help to deal with those claims on which it appears that a rapid decision can be taken. Such applicants will be required to stay at the centre for a short period—about seven days—while their claim is decided. However, I want to impress on the House that the arrangements at Oakington do not depend on or reflect the provision of the amendments. Applicants will be required to stay at Oakington under existing immigration powers to detain. A purpose of the amendments is to enable us to develop a wider range of options and, if necessary, different reception arrangements to deal with a range of circumstances.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister has made it clear that the Oakington proposals are different. I understand that, which is why I did not refer to them. If the Government plan to use present law and will use Oakington or anywhere else for reception purposes, why do they not at least consider whether present law may be sufficient before—to use her words—they extend the arrangements to provide a wider range of powers? The danger is that the powers will be so wide that they will be a threat to liberty rather than helpful to the Government.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I disagree; the proposed powers are not a threat to liberty and, if the hon. Gentleman contains his impatience a little longer, I shall describe them. Given the situation that we face, he will appreciate that the Bill must provide a range of options so that we can deal with different circumstances. I shall explain to him exactly why we need the amendments. Lords amendment No. 1 does not deal with the question whether additional powers to impose such residence conditions should be available. It simply provides a clear statutory basis for the provision of accommodation by the Secretary of State to persons on temporary admission. In that sense, it is consequential on Lords amendment No. 329, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) discussed in his opening remarks. On that amendment, there is already power under the Immigration Act 1971 to impose residence conditions on those granted temporary admission, but our legal advice is that, as currently framed, those restrictions should be the ones necessary to maintain contact and prevent absconding. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said. The objectives are important, but too narrow. The problems created by the large influx of asylum seekers over the summer months suggest that we might need wider powers to impose residence conditions, which are necessary not just to maintain contact but to prevent potential public order problems. That applies not to just one section of applicants but to everybody. It is rightly a role for Government to relieve pressure on local services or to ensure full and rapid consideration of claims.

Mike Gapes (Labour/Co-operative, Ilford South)

I seek clarification. Is my hon. Friend saying that, in order to make a dispersal policy work, it is necessary to implement the new provision, and that it is not possible to implement a dispersal policy on the basis of existing regulations?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

The matters are different. The dispersal policy clearly fits the asylum support arrangements that we are implementing. The power is designed for particular circumstances, so that there is some flexibility. I shall expand on my remarks. Lords amendment No. 329 would enable regulations to prohibit residence in one or more areas by those on temporary admission. I should make it absolutely clear to the House and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—if I may have his attention—that we do not envisage using the power routinely. We envisage using it only to relieve extreme pressures on certain areas in extreme circumstances.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am concerned that the reception centres envisaged, especially Oakington, which is not near any expert immigration advice centre, might have high concentrations of asylum seekers who do not necessarily have access to either appropriate health care facilities or qualified expert legal advice. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, if there are to be such facilities, she will guarantee that the residents in them have access to legal advice from properly qualified people, and to health care?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I am happy to give my hon. Friend, who I know takes a very close interest and has great expertise in these matters, my full assurance. We shall certainly provide such services and we are already in discussion about them. It is very important that both services are available.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I apologise for not being present for the beginning of the debate. Has the Minister consulted the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, and if so, what did it say?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

We have certainly spoken to the Refugee Council and the Refugee Legal Centre. We hope to get the centre up and running by the new year. We shall certainly ensure that we consult all voluntary organisations that have an interest.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I should like to put two points to the Minister; one follows the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). First, if the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has not yet been consulted, will she assure the House that it will be? That was one of the issues that came up in the Special Standing Committee; I know that there is a fund of Government good will on it. Secondly, will she confirm that she and her advisers had not thought of the new provisions, particularly those in Lords amendment No. 329, when the Bill was previously before the House of Commons, and that they are not trying to ambush the Bill? How much of the proposal is designed to he a deterrent, how much is designed to prevent absconding and how much is to do with what one might call public order?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

We are of course very anxious to consult. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have very good relationships with the voluntary sector, which has been very helpful on the voluntary arrangements. Of course we want to ensure that we keep in close touch with it. In fact, I have made it perfectly clear to representatives of the Refugee Legal Centre and the Refugee Council that they are very welcome to visit Oakington. We shall allow that visit to be made as soon as we are able. We have seen a change in the process of asylum seeking since the Bill began its passage. It is right that when a complex Bill of this nature is under consideration, the Government should keep under constant review exactly what is going on, and what flexibility we need to build in. I was talking to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the power that we are discussing in connection with the Lords amendment that he seeks to amend. That power applies to people who have been granted temporary admission to this country. Temporary admission is not a form of leave to enter, and that is an important legal factor to keep in mind. In law, temporary admission is an alternative to detention while someone's application to stay is being considered, or pending their return abroad. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that where the maintenance of public order or viable public services requires, we should be able to prohibit such people from residing in certain areas.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The hon. Lady is normally very direct in her speech, and explains clearly what she has in mind. Why is she talking so elliptically tonight, and speaking in riddles about threats to public order? What are those threats to which she keeps referring as if they were self-evident? My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has made it plain that refugees, whether individually or even in the numbers that she has mentioned as having arrived this summer, do not constitute a threat to public order. Wherein is the mischief that she seeks to remedy?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, which I will treat as a compliment. Usually people do not say that I speak directly, they simply say that I am the opposite of subtle—in other words, that I am blunt. That apart, the right hon. Gentleman knows full well what the situation has been this summer. One does not seek to blame any group, but it is undeniable that there has been tension in some parts of the country. It is wrong for him to deny that. It is no good for asylum seekers themselves to enter a situation in which there could be difficulties. We are talking about use in certain circumstances, not routine use, of a power that could be very useful. Clearly this is a sensitive area; I do not pretend that it is not. The right hon. Gentleman must be realistic about the situation.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Lords amendment was introduced after the summer recess—presumably as a reaction to a perception that there were public order problems in Kent. We have no evidence that that was the reason, but it must be the presumption. Whom is the amendment intended to protect? The asylum seekers? The residents? If either of those, the idea that we need to take people who would otherwise be admitted, and have the power to put them collectively and indefinitely under house arrest, has never been justified by any argument either before or after the summer.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

The hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice. We are not talking about house arrest. When we talk about public order and public protection, we are talking about protecting everybody. [Interruption.] One of the Liberal Democrats repeats, "Everybody?" Of course I mean everybody. We want to maintain good public order, but it is not for public order reasons alone that we need the flexibility; it is also to relieve the pressure on social services, which in some areas has been intense.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does my hon. Friend envisage circumstances in which children will be accommodated in any of the facilities referred to in this debate?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Yes, and I shall explain our plans for Oakington. It will be a reception centre for which we shall use our present powers under immigration legislation. It will provide accommodation for single people and for families. I can assure my hon. Friend that the accommodation for families will be separate. I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that health services will be available, as well as appropriate facilities for families and access to legal advice. We have no wish to divide families and we envisage that people will stay at the centre for only short periods—in their interest and in ours.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Can my hon. Friend confirm that Oakington will, in effect, be a detention centre, with all the powers that that implies, as well as security and guards? Although legal advice, social services and health care may be available, it will still be a detention centre, like Campsfield and the others.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Yes, it will be a detention centre in terms of its designation. We have said that from the beginning and I have made it clear that we will use existing powers to run it. There will be security, but it will be very relaxed and, in certain circumstances, people will be able to leave. In any event, people will stay for only short periods so that their applications can be processed. I share a constituency boundary with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and we probably have similar casework, so he will know that the most important thing that we can do is speed up the application process. If people come here with manifestly unfounded claims, the worst thing that we could do is to keep them in the system for a long time. That is why it is important to deal with the claims speedily, and to deal with the people humanely. That is why we are providing Oakington on the basis I have outlined. Because it will be categorised as a detention centre, it will be subject to organised inspection visits under the new arrangements.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

If my hon. Friend accepts that stays at Oakington will be short, why are the Government not prepared to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? Can she also assure us that if any children are kept in such facilities for more than seven days, they will be allowed access to local schools and education?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I shall deal later with amendment (a), but it is our aim to keep people at the centre for short periods only. If we want to use Oakington as a processing centre in terms of applications made by claimants, it is in our interests that people are there for a short time. Lords amendment No. 329 would enable conditions to be imposed requiring a person to reside in accommodation provided by the Secretary of State. Those provisions do not relate in any way to the use of detention or what is proposed at Oakington. On the contrary, the aim of the amendment is to provide greater flexibility in the use of temporary admission. It would be possible, with the new powers that we seek, to develop reception facilities in which persons granted temporary admission would be required to reside, but where they would be free to come and go during the day as they wished. Applicants would be required to remain at the accommodation overnight and to be present at certain times for interview or other purposes, to enable prompt consideration of their claims. Residence would therefore be for short periods. 11. 15 pm We believe that it is necessary to proceed with a power to make regulations. That is what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was talking about. The use of those powers would depend on changing events and pressures. One of the problems with the current system of control is that we cannot respond to the pace of events quickly or flexibly enough. The Bill is intended to provide a more modern, flexible system. The regulations will ensure that additional residence requirements are proportionate and relevant to the circumstances that may arise. I want to mention again an important matter raised earlier by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, any regulations made must comply with the European convention on human rights, which would authorise the imposition of additional descriptions of the conditions only so far as they could be justified. As I have said before, the Government recognise that this is a sensitive area. That is why we accept the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation that the regulations should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. It is absolutely right that they should be, as that will ensure that there is full and careful scrutiny of the use of the powers. Parliament will have to be satisfied that, wherever the powers are used, they are proportionate and necessary to achieve the stated objective. As the Government announced in another place, Ministers moving regulations subject to the affirmative procedure will always inform the House about whether they are satisfied that the instrument is compatible with rights under the European convention. I shall deal briefly with amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which would limit single periods of residence at accommodation provided by the Secretary of State to a maximum of 10 days. It would not prevent someone from being required to reside at such accommodation for additional periods of up to 10 days, provided that those periods were not consecutive. The whole purpose of the new provisions is to provide greater flexibility in the use of temporary admission. We must keep it in mind that we are talking about a requirement to reside in a particular place, but with a minimum of restrictions on a person's ability to come and go during the day. I do not believe that such requirements are onerous or unfair. Any restriction could be imposed only after approval by Parliament.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

With respect, the Minister is saying nothing new. I have two questions for her. Why have the Government taken some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, but not the others? Above all, why is she arguing for flexibility in the law——in the Act of Parliament that this Bill will become——when the purpose of legislation is to be clear so that people know where they stand? Never before has it been argued that we should have flexible legislation as opposed to flexible policy.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I understand the point, but the Government will examine the recommendations from another place carefully to determine what we agree with. Given that this is such a sensitive area, we think that approach is the right one.

Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford)

Is that the Minister's response?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

It is the only response that I shall give.

Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford)

It is not a very good one.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

No. I apologise for having detained the House at some length, but I hope that I have dealt——

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

This is important.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Okay, I will take one more intervention.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been patient given the number of interventions. Her argument for the amendment is that it will in some way prevent public disorder. Is she saying that the state of expectation of such disorder will extend beyond a 10-day period? In which case, I am sorry but I do not follow her argument.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I do not want to be critical, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is muddled. We are talking about two different things. I appreciate that these are sensitive areas and that it is a difficult subject. In conclusion, I must reinforce the fact that Oakington will be very different. There will be minimal physical security and a very relaxed regime. Case workers will be on the site to deal with applications. Clearly, that does not happen at detention centres at the moment. To end as I began, it is in all our interests——the public, the House and claimants alike——to speed up the process, which is what the amendments are about.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I share the Minister's concern about the need to reduce the backlogs as rapidly as possible and speed up decision taking. Given the number of applicants coming into the country at present, I sympathise with Ministers' desire to have additional powers to help them cope with the practical problems. Will the hon. Lady spell out in a little more detail the Government's approach to two matters that have not been adequately covered? If she is unable to explain that in her reply, perhaps she could do so later in correspondence. The first matter is the level of safeguards that the law would provide for people sent to particular places under the terms of the schedule. Secondly, will she throw a little more light on how the Government intend people to be selected to become subject to the new powers? On safeguards, the Minister rightly drew a distinction between powers of detention under the Immigration Act 1971 and the new powers that would be introduced by the amendments. The powers in the 1971 Act are subject to various safeguards——inspections, a monitoring system, committees of visitors and statutory arrangements for disciplinary rules. The Bill provides that someone who is detained would have the right to bail hearings at appropriate times during detention. While the Government have said consistently that the powers that they propose to introduce by regulation under Lords amendment No. 329 envisage a limited period of residence by an asylum seeker in a place designated by the Secretary of State, as I read the text of the schedule, it sets out no limit to the period of time that the right hon. Gentleman could require someone to live at a particular place. No minimum time seems to be provided for, other than that which the Minister chooses to include in regulations. Also, it seems that someone could be detained for quite a long time without any sort of judicial oversight. On the face of things, that puts an asylum seeker held subject to those conditions, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) described as a curfew, in an inferior position to that of someone held in formal detention.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned curfew, but one of our major concerns is that Lords amendment No. 329 talks about being prohibited from being absent. It says nothing about night time or day time. As we read it, it could mean any time at all. Our concern goes much wider than simply having a night time curfew.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

One problem is that the powers that Lords amendment No. 329 gives the Secretary of State are wide. We have had to rely on informal assurances from Ministers in both Houses for safeguards that are written into the law for people held in detention. The Minister said that the Government would apply their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 carefully in drafting the regulations to be introduced. I took her to mean that in place of safeguards being provided in the legislation, we are being invited tonight to trust to the Government's interpretation of their obligations under the European convention on human rights, that the Government will not introduce restrictions on personal liberty that would bring them into conflict with the convention and that that is what will give legal weight to the assurances of Ministers in another place. There are still questions that the Government need to answer on appropriate safeguards for people held in such circumstances. I shall deal briefly with how people are to be selected for this procedure. In reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I thought that the Minister implied that the decision would greatly depend on the assessment made at the port of entry by members of the immigration service of the ease with which a case could be determined. Can she confirm whether the Government intend that people should be selected on a case-by-case basis or whether they plan to put applicants from particular countries through the procedure?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

To elaborate on what I said, it will depend on the initial assessment of the immigration officer. If it appears that the case requires more detailed examination, we will ensure that that happens. Clearly, the ability to make such an initial assessment is incredibly helpful at the beginning of the process.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I am grateful for that advice. I refer the Minister to a comment made by the Attorney-General in another place that would again benefit from elucidation here. In discussing the powers, he said: In the short term, some asylum seekers who may congregate in specific areas may still be on social security benefit. We want to have this power available. We do not envisage using the power on a routine basis, but only to relieve extreme pressures on specific areas in extreme circumstances. "——[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 736.] As those who will be on social security benefit will be people who will have been admitted at a port at any time up to 31 March 2000, is it right to interpret the Attorney-General's remarks as meaning that the Government intend that the powers should be used to require people currently in receipt of social security living in one part of this country to move to a particular location in another area, and that this power should therefore be seen as an adjunct to the dispersal scheme that will come into force after 31 March next year?

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

There has been confusion in the debate in the House of Lords and even in this Chamber, to a certain extent, about the relationship of Oakington to the legislation. The Government need to take responsibility for that confusion. Lord Falconer said on 18 October: We are examining the possibility of establishing a reception facility at which asylum seekers would reside while their claim was examined and a rapid decision taken…As such residences have a wider purpose, we believe that we need the wider power that amendment No. 289 and now amendment No. 329 provides. "——[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 1999; Vol. 605, c. 752.] He confirmed that that was a power separate from the one to award bail on conditions. However, by 2 November Lord Williams of Mostyn said: I stress that the facility at Oakington is based on existing detention powers…it is designed to deal with claims where it appears that a rapid decision can be made…I repeat…that applicants will be required to stay at Oakington under existing immigration powers to detain. "——[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 733.] We accept that Oakington is based on existing powers, but we should have had a statement to the House about its development. That would have avoided the confusion around the Bill and enabled us to have a thorough debate about Oakington. I am sure that, timing permitting, it would have given us the opportunity to air some of our concerns. I have Harmondsworth detention centre in my constituency, and we all know some of the problems at Harmondsworth and Campsfield in terms of quality of life, possible abuses of human rights and physical abuse. Much good work has gone on in recent years to introduce procedures to protect the internees. The problem with not having a debate specifically about Oakington on the basis of a statement is that we have not been able to question Ministers more thoroughly on safeguards. I would welcome the Minister's reconfirmation tonight of the safeguards that will be introduced at Oakington. For example, there should be similarity of treatment at all detention centres in terms of committees of visitors and access to legal advice——some assurances have been given on that tonight. It is vital that the voluntary organisations and others who provide legal advice be fully and adequately funded.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on committees of visitors. I repeat the assurance about legal advice. People will be in the centre for very short periods so that we can process their applications. The facilities that I mentioned will be there. We are actively consulting the voluntary sector.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I welcome those assurances and I understand the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister and her team to ensuring that the period of detention is short. I accept that and I appreciate the Minister's record. I know it both in local and central Government to be one of success and adherence to her commitments. However, Ministers come and go. I am sure that there is a long career in other Departments and elsewhere for her, but we need further assurances in more detailed regulations about the nature of the detention in Oakington and similar detention centres that may be developed. We are entering a new phase of development which is neither the old detention centre nor some voluntary arrangement: it is something in between. It is an ill-defined ground. We need to define it more closely, admittedly, perhaps, in regulations. For example, a contract will be issued for the management of Oakington, most probably to a private company. We need assurances about the nature of that contract; that the Race Relations Act 1976 will be applied to the staff involved; that the staff will have defined duties; and that they will be subject to disciplinary procedures if they act against those defined duties. Again, because the new process falls between existing arrangements, we need to examine them more closely. The provision of medical, psychiatric and educational facilities has already been raised. The right to freedom of worship and access to religious advisers is important to many detainees in the existing detention centres.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening yet again, but he raises the extremely important issue of access to religious worship. I assure him that we are actively planning to deal with that matter, and am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make that point.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I respond with equal gratitude to my hon. Friend for that assurance. As the Oakington proposal has not been thoroughly debated in this place, and has not been reported on in detail, there is a danger——if not under the Labour Government, then under other Governments——of the development of internment camps if migration to this country increases, for whatever reason. It thus behoves the Government to issue an early——possibly in the new Session——and thorough statement on the development of Oakington; to repeat the assurances that we have been given today; and to set out some more detailed regulations that we can debate at length. We could then be assured that this one-off scheme——as it is now described, although there could be further developments if we are not careful——is under rigorous public control and accountability. It would have been helpful if we could have debated amendments such as these at an earlier point in the Bill's progress. I regret that the debate is occurring so late in the process, because of the great scale of the powers under the measures. There is an element of confusion. The most important issue is not the potential for house arrest; I am concerned as to the potential for hostel arrest. As we have seen in Europe, asylum seekers and refugees have been required to reside in a particular hostel, and such hostels have degenerated into what are almost internment camps. They have also become targets for racists and others. Faced with problems in a specific area, it would be easy to go down that slippery slope. Heathrow is in my constituency, and I have problems that are similar in scale to those in Dover——especially with regard to unaccompanied children. I encounter all the racist backlash. We have all had our windows broken. In the early 1980s, when we had similar problems, broken glass was put into my child's sandpit. We have all had such experiences. However, the reaction should be to stand firm and to argue our case——it should be to punish not the innocent but the perpetrators. That is what our policies on racial and domestic violence are designed to do. If we accept the proposal in the amendment, we could go down the slippery slope of the establishment of a system in this country in which asylum seekers are placed in hostels by law, and that would undermine their ability to integrate in the longer term. I do not believe that all the cases are bogus——the figure of two thirds has been mentioned. However, in my constituency surgery, like many hon. Members, I have dealt with a large number of asylum seekers, many of whom tell horrendous and honest stories of the suffering that they have endured. After long and tortuous processing in this country, many of them have been given the right to remain here. The measure will make such people vulnerable, if we are not careful. It will lead to a diminution of people's basic human right to decide on where they live and on the community in which they feel secure. At the moment, we need to stand back. I accept the Minister's assurance that the power will not be used routinely. However, the problem is that although I inherently trust this Minister, we need something more than the oral assurance that we received tonight. It is critical that the regulations be drafted soon and laid before the House, so that we can define the criteria on which the powers are to be used. We must define them in such a way as to ensure that their use does not become routine, but remains exceptional. The powers have been introduced to deal with a problem, but we should look at other powers to tackle the perpetrators of the problem. The Bill has thrown up a range of issues. Some of us have watched recent television programmes about the debates surrounding the immigration legislation of the 1960s and 1970s. To be honest, that legislation was a cover to make racism respectable. Now, if we are not careful, we risk making respectable the targeting of asylum seekers and refugees. It is appropriate to debate measures such as the one before us, but in doing so we do not confront the perpetrators of racism. As long as we couch our debate in terms of large numbers of bogus asylum seekers swamping——to use the Thatcherite word——this country, we give in to the racists. We should be arguing the case, as I know my hon. Friend the Minister of State does, for abiding by our commitments to human rights under the European convention and other international conventions, and for treating people who come to this country fairly and with respect. I do not believe that the Bill will do that. It introduces powers that undermine the fairness of our current system and reduce the respect we pay to asylum seekers and refugees. For that reason, I wish the House could agree with the Lords amendment, which would at least place some limitations, within the time scale set out by the Government, on the exercise of those powers. I hope that, when we debate the regulations, we will define the non-routine use of those powers.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

1 do not want to embarrass the Minister of State, but I should like to express my full support for her position. Although it would be a great threat to public safety, it might be a good idea to invite the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to become Home Secretary for one week, so that we could see how he coped with a vast increase in the number of asylum seekers——individuals who, on coming here, are not treated with dignity or respect, but are dumped by some filthy London borough in seaside towns like Southend-on-Sea. If hon. Members think that I am wrong to say that, I invite them to come and see Southend. In Southend, the local council, officials and the local Member of Parliament are all concerned about promoting good race relations, but, believe me, if nothing is done about the problems, race relations will be undermined in a borough where such problems have never occurred previously. It is reasonable to ask how many asylum seekers there are in Southend. The answer is that our excellent director of social services, a lady of great sympathy and understanding who is greatly concerned about maintaining good race relations, has not the slightest idea how many there are. We know how many cases have been directly referred to us, but we have no knowledge of the total number because other authorities, especially London authorities, have a habit of simply putting such persons in bed-and-breakfast establishments in Southend-on-Sea. On the other hand, we do have figures for those attending local schools. I invite the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to visit the splendid Porters Grange school in Southend-on-Sea. The school serves an area of great social deprivation, lying in a ward with 20 per cent. unemployment. When I was at the school last week, I learned that children who could not speak a word of English were constantly being dumped there. Four more arrived last week: they were gypsy refugees from the former Czechoslovakia who face great violence in their home country. The schools in my constituency that have been landed with lots of children who speak no English have to start with basics, such as "This is a pen, " and then try to make progress. Nothing is filthier than hearing the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) claim that the current crisis is all the fault of the previous Government. Those who try to blame any particular Government are kidding themselves. We have had a huge influx of political refugees, which has created problems not for the leafy London boroughs, but for the places where the asylum seekers land.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I may have to wait a week or two to become the Home Secretary, but in the meantime I am happy to take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Southend. I hope that he had understood that the crucial point is not that London boroughs or other boroughs are dumping people on Southend, but that it is for Parliament to deal with people who come to our shores. Some of us are trying to get the legislation right, so that his community, my community and all others are able to integrate and deal with people who come here, in a way that means that people who are here before them do not feel that they are being dumped on them.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Quite frankly, I have not heard such rubbish in the House for a long time. I have been in this place for 35 years. I do not think that I have ever been so insulted in my life. I ask the hon. Gentleman——if thousands of people are coming in as political refugees, what do we do? Is it not normal to say that we should try to find a way to spread them around, and not have them concentrated in particular areas, because that will not help good race relations? Apart from anything else, such concentrations are not good for schools, which are already having great difficulty in coping with a very difficult situation, if lots of children who do not speak a word of English are landed on them. I hope that the Minister will advise me what is happening on the issue of immigration law relating to asylum seekers. I understand that the law in Britain differs from that in the other countries of the European Union, in that we have a law that a person can claim political asylum, first, if they are being persecuted by their Government and their safety is at risk; or secondly, if they are being persecuted by individuals within that country. I understand that the law in France, Germany and other such countries is different, and that it refers only to a nation and not to the people. That has considerable implications, as we understand that, at a very recent meeting of the European nations, it was agreed that they would seek to harmonise legislation on political asylum. Will that mean that those who are persecuted as individuals will thereby lose their entitlement to political asylum? That could have a very substantial impact on people who come here from, for example, the former Czechoslovakia. They are not being persecuted by their Government, but are being subjected to appalling persecution because they are gypsies and because people there have a low regard for them. The Minister's proposal for special accommodation is sensible. First, I wish that those who are uneasy about that proposal would ask themselves what the alternative is. The alternative is not that, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) said, people are looking for a place where they feel safe and happy; they are simply dumped in seaside towns. Secondly, we have to ask, "What are the consequences of the present policy for good race relations?" I would ask anyone who is in doubt to telephone Miss Jane Held, who is not a right winger——at present, the council in Southend happens to be controlled by Labour and Liberals, with a majority of one over the Conservatives. Miss Held is in no sense looking for trouble, but she rightly says that, when asylum seekers are concentrated in one area, groups of young men congregate, which, unfortunately, leads to trouble. It has led to trouble in Southend-on-Sea. Those who try to pretend that there is no problem are kidding themselves. If we want to preserve good race relations in this country and protect asylum seekers, the most obvious thing to do, as the Minister said, is to speed up decision making. The second thing to do is to ensure that we spread the people around as far as is reasonably possible, and do not have concentrations in certain areas in seaside towns. It does not help the individuals. I have had the pleasure of meeting quite a few asylum seekers at my weekly surgeries in Southend. Some of them are rather unusual people, some seem very pathetic and some seem very sad. Obviously, the crucial thing for them is for a decision to be reached on their case as quickly as possible, but if there is not some organisation——some control of the situation——all that will happen is that, in places such as Southend, where, happily, we have good, harmonious race relations, trouble may well start. Any move by the Government to give the impression that they are trying to speed up decision making and trying to take control of the situation will be good, not only for Southend, but for the asylum seekers. Our liberal, pleasant and gracious asylum laws were designed in times when only a small number of people applied for asylum. Now, we are faced with thousands of applicants. If we do nothing, both those who are genuine and those who are not will continue to be concentrated in particular places. Unless something is done, we shall not help asylum seekers in any way. I do not favour having a single place, but special accommodation would be a worthwhile and positive response that would help both asylum seekers and the promotion of good race relations in the United Kingdom.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

My case has already been eloquently made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). I disagreed only with his thinking that this obnoxious new clause should be allowed on to the statute book. I would not rely on the possibility of enlightenment ever dawning on the Government's Front-Bench team before the subordinate legislation is introduced. If Ministers will not listen to the hon. Gentleman's appeal tonight, why should we expect them to change their minds in the weeks or months ahead? The Minister of State's refusal or failure to answer questions about what mischief she seeks to remedy——she evaded giving answers by talking repeatedly about the sensitivity of the situation——was dealt with by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) with his usual eloquent directness. He displayed, in all its ugliness, what the new clause is really about. It is a response to pressures, which ought to be resisted, of the type identified by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who lives in a far more explosive situation than does the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. Such a response can be effective only if people are prepared to stand up to those who threaten communities with illegal actions. It is unacceptable that a statute should be justified by the fear that its absence would encourage illegality. That stands logic on its head. We cannot rely on assurances by Ministers about how legislation might be used. Nor can we rely on their present intentions. Successive Home Secretaries have intended to speed up consideration of applications by refugees and asylum seekers, but those intentions have not been realised. There is no reason to believe that the Minister or her colleagues can wave a wand that will solve the problems overnight.

Mike Gapes (Labour/Co-operative, Ilford South)

I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman favours or opposes a dispersal policy, and should be grateful if he would clarify his position. Does he favour an attempt to take pressure off my borough and others in London, and off council areas in Kent and elsewhere? Those areas have serious housing shortages and other problems. That is a fact, and I am not making any racist or inflammatory remark, but I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clarify his position.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Of course I favour taking the pressure off, but it must be done by devoting the necessary resources to processing applications speedily, not by sweeping problems under the carpet with this new clause. The Minister's case has gone by default. She has not deigned to answer a single question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about the reasons for the new clause. She spoke about sensitivity, using the word, I think, seven times as a verbal evasion of reality. She has absolutely refused to describe the situation that the new clause is supposed to cover. I repeat the appeal of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington: do not punish the innocent; stand firm against illegality. I thought that the hon. Lady would be particularly sensitive to that appeal as she has a record of concern about such matters. The change in her position should not change her attitude. It sounded tonight as though the hon. Lady was resiling from the kind of commitment that she has shown in the past to tackling effectively the problems of refugees.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he is doing the House a disservice. I said that, as far as public order is concerned, we are seeking to protect everybody. That is clearly what one does in public order situations. The right hon. Gentleman has closed his eyes to the real situation: he is making assertions that are completely unrealistic and have nothing to do with the debate.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

With respect, those who oppose the Government's measures should not have to justify them using their arguments. 1 believe it lies with the Minister to explain the mischief that she apprehends. However, she has not done that. She evaded the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, she did not reply to my intervention and she has not intervened during the debate to explain the public order concerns. If there is a threat of public disorder, the law should be turned not against innocent refugees or asylum seekers in this country, but against those who threaten it. The hon. Lady may shake her head, but, if she cannot understand that, she should stop posing as the friend of those who seek protection under the laws of this country from oppression and tyranny elsewhere.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I will be brief. I had not intended to speak in this debate, but the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and other hon. Members have left me more confused about exactly what is proposed by the amendment and for Oakington than I was at the beginning of the evening. There is some confusion regarding Oakington and the proposed new clause. It would help if we could have a clear statement to the House about Oakington in the near future in order to separate it from the new clause. Even the regulations covered by Lords amendment No. 329 to schedule 13 will not tell us anything about Oakington, which will be run under existing detention powers. I repeat the plea for an urgent, clear statement about Oakington and how it will function. We have received some assurances in that regard, which I welcome.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point. I hope that he accepts that, through our specific amendment to the Bill, the Liberal Democrats are trying to put to one side the Oakington proposal, which comes under existing legislation. We are seeking to make the case that, unless someone can show why we need different legislation for different arrangements, we should not go further down that road until we know what Oakington will deliver.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I suspect that some people listening to the debate may think that the 10-day limit proposed in the hon. Gentleman's amendment would apply to Oakington, even though it would not. The issue of how long people remain in Oakington will be determined by the administration of Oakington, and that decision will be influenced by factors such as whether bail applications are accepted and so on. The way in which Oakington has been described makes me fear that it will be used for people who will be fast-tracked by short-term, quick decisions and people who come in from particular ports and particular countries. That sounds suspiciously like a new form of white list. 12 midnight The first line of Lords amendment No. 1 says: The Secretary of State may provide, or arrange for the provision of, facilities for the accommodation of persons…temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom", and so on. It seems to me that the powers that flow from that amendment could apply to any asylum seeker in the new support system because although their accommodation may not have been provided directly by the Secretary of State, he will have arranged for the provision of the facilities. Lords amendment No. 329 refers to provisions requiring the person to reside in such accommodation and prohibiting them from being absent, and I find it difficult to square that with some of what we were told on Third Reading. We were told that if people had an offer of accommodation and support, but said that they wanted to live elsewhere, the Home Office would accept that, provided that they were living at a registered address, and they could then accept only the support package. Those assurances about elements of choice within the support system are difficult to square with the possibility of much more draconian impositions on people. As I read it, Lords amendment No. 1 could apply to anyone in the support system, whether they are temporarily admitted to the UK, have come out of detention or been released on bail from detention. That worries me, and I should be grateful for clarification on that point. In conclusion, I return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. It is clear to anyone who reads the Official Report of the debates in the Lords that there is enormous confusion about how what Ministers are saying relates to Home Office press releases. Unfortunately, the issue of Oakington arose at roughly the same time and became mixed up in the debate about the new powers. A clear statement on Oakington would be helpful because that is not a matter to which we will be able to return when we consider regulations made under Lords amendment No. 329.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

It is a pity that, as the hon. Member who represents Oakington, it is after midnight when I am given the opportunity to say something about my constituency and the circumstances there. In defence of Ministers, I point out that when the announcement about Oakington was made, I was under no illusions that the centre was other than a centre established under existing Immigration Act powers. That much, at least, was said. It would have been much simpler if, on 21 October when the press release was issued, the Home Office had said that the centre would be designated as a detention centre and established under existing powers. It would then have been perfectly obvious that the safeguards for Oakington that we have, quite properly, been pressing on the Minister this evening would flow from such a designation. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that when one reads the House of Lords debate, it was perfectly unclear, even as late as Third Reading, what was the character of Oakington, who would be there, how it was to be designated and even how it was to be described. Even though the legal basis for the establishment of the centre at Oakington may be perfectly clear, that tells us remarkably little about what will be the regime at Oakington. That is the more pertinent question this evening. It is clear that the scale will be substantial. Ministers speak of up to 400 asylum seekers being present there for up to seven days. Indeed, I have heard references to a larger number, as I am told that the capacity is greater than that. On the basis of present figures, one in four or a greater proportion of asylum seekers could be held at Oakington for a period. The character of the regime provided there is therefore an important consideration. We have been through some relevant matters, and the Minister has leapt swiftly to the Dispatch Box to say, for example, that legal advice will be available or that it will be possible to maintain religious worship. However, we have not dealt with these matters in detail. It matters a great deal to those at Oakington whether the legal advice available is the same as that which would be available under other circumstances. The Minister knows perfectly well that Oakington is not in an area where there is large-scale independent legal advice for refugees and asylum seekers.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are keen that people residing at Oakington have full access to independent legal advice, and we are having discussions with the Refugee Legal Centre about what could be established.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that further assurance. I am sure that the Refugee Council, the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service will all be listening carefully to the debate. If legal advice is not accessible, we will quickly find out. My argument extends more widely. The Oakington centre is to be established in an area where there is no existing infrastructure of support for a significant number of refugees. East Anglia was not identified as a cluster area for dispersal of asylum seekers when the Government made their previous announcement. It should, by extension, be assumed that none of the infrastructure of support in the local community which would normally be looked for in a dispersal area is available in Cambridgeshire. if resources are to be made available, they must be made available additionally, whether in support for families—it is clear that families, including children will be present—or through legal advice or medical and other facilities. I shall not detain the House, but it should be put on the record that if all those pressures fall on the local community, they cannot be accommodated readily with the resources available to Cambridgeshire as a local authority in respect of social services, because of child protection issues; as a health authority, because of the rapid rate of population growth; and as a police authority, about which I have been writing to the Home Secretary in recent weeks. Despite all that the Minister and her colleagues in another place have said, it is still unclear what sort of people are to be held at Oakington. What does that tell us about the requirement for security and support? I have dwelt for the moment on safeguards and support for those who are present, but if Oakington is designated as a detention centre, many of my constituents are aware of the experience of other detention centres, and they will feel that something that they do not understand and which raises serious physical security issues is being established in their midst.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the press release and his understanding of what was proposed for Oakington. In the third paragraph of the press release that I issued, we made it clear that applicants will be required to reside at Oakington under existing immigration powers for initial examination of their claim. We could not be more direct and open about the situation.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

When the Minister checks the record, she will find that that is precisely what I said. In the press release, she made it clear that the centre would be established using existing Immigration Act powers. What the Minister did not say in the press release was that Oakington would be designated as a detention centre, which would have made it simpler for everyone to examine the safeguards that flow from that designation. However, I do not want to rehearse what I said earlier, which still stands. The Minister and I will be in correspondence and, if the Minister listens to her hon. Friends, we will have another opportunity to question the form of the regime that is to be established. If it is to start in the new year, and a contract is to be let to resolve all the practical issues between now and then, the Home Office and the Minister must have a detailed understanding of what is intended at Oakington. The issue for my constituents is who will be there. They may well be families and thus represent no significant physical security problems. On the other hand, initially it may consist of largely single males, giving rise to a physical security issue. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the regime will be relaxed, implying that there will be no additional security, and that those present will be able to obtain approval to visit shops or medical services, but that simply raises the question in the local community of why these people are being detained rather than being given temporary approval and dispersed elsewhere. If they are being detained there is presumably some risk of their absconding or of physical security problems, and a string of consequences flows from that. The Minister says that there will be no additional security and no direct problems for the local community, and we are talking of a village rather than a city context. If that is true, we must be clear about the character of the persons there and why they need detention, with all that that implies in terms of maintaining security, but do not require security to the extent that the local community needs to be concerned about the relaxed nature of the regime. We shall come to all these issues, but at the heart of the matter is a failure on the part of the Home Office to understand that it is not sufficient to have announced such a facility and its legal base, without amplifying on the character of the regime and how it fits with those who will be there. I have no fundamental objection to the establishment of the facility, and the Minister knows that I have made that clear locally. We are in a difficult situation. The problem is substantially of the Government's making, with a 60 per cent. year-on-year increase in asylum applications, but it is a problem that we must solve. If a centre at Oakington can assist in the fast assessment of applications—it is generally agreed that speedy assessment is necessary—well and good, but I am also sure that we need to be clear about the character of the regime to be applied there, so that the safeguards that should be applied to the asylum seekers themselves exist, and the safeguards for the local community that have been hinted at in letters to me and in meetings with the local community are delivered, so that the process does not become a burden or a source of concern to my constituents.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

When the Minister opened the debate, she said that one reason for having detention centres—Oakington came to mind—was the great financial burden imposed on local authorities and the demands on their social services departments. What worries me about that is that, if we are to say that it is too expensive for local authorities to undertake the work necessary to support asylum-seeking families—particularly families—and they are put in the equivalent of a detention centre, either the cost will be transferred to a detention centre, if it is properly run, or the asylum-seeking families will be offered much less in the way of local authority and social services support than they would get if they were placed in the community. I find both those suggestions unacceptable. 12. 15 am My borough, like many inner-London boroughs, contains a large number of asylum seekers. The local authority staff work extremely hard in supporting them in the best way that they can, but the introduction of the voucher system for food and the like has done enormous damage to relationships in the area. Large numbers of asylum seekers scout round the place looking for the appropriate supermarket in which to spend the vouchers. They cannot cash them on the market or anywhere else, so they spend more to get less although they have an inadequate income. They also have the inadequate diet that goes with it. We should be realistic: we are saying that asylum seekers apparently deserve less than 75 per cent. of what the poorest in this country receive in income support. That is no way to treat people who have come here, within the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention, seeking a place of safety. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain what exactly is happening with the development of detention centres and the powers of detention that go with that. I am disturbed by all that has been said about Oakington being set up. Indeed, under the previous Government I initiated Adjournment debates on Campsfield detention centre, its administration and all the problems that have gone with it. If Oakington is to be anything like Campsfield, it will have high security, massive gates and lots of guards. Basically, a prison will be established there. Unless she can assure me that Oakington will be very different—more like the supportive centres that some European countries have—I shall have to conclude that it is part of a process of assigning asylum seekers to particular detention centres around the country from which their applications will be fast-tracked. I suggest that the very fact that applications will be fast-tracked and applicants sent to such places will be prejudicial to a fair hearing of their cases. We have to realise that the cause of people seeking asylum is events in other countries, some of which are of our own making. It is all very well for us to complain about the number of asylum seekers coming from Turkey, but at the same time we are selling arms to the Turkish Government, who are doing so much damage to so many Kurdish people in that part of the world. There is a foreign policy connection. My hon. Friend the Minister ought to be ensuring that the local authorities, which are doing their best, are given sufficient support and money and are, above all, reimbursed quickly when they undertake such expenditure. There should be no further development of any detention centres without specific proposals coming before the House following proper consultation. Such centres should not be introduced as holding centres when, in reality, they are detention centres that are, as I understand it, very much like Campsfield, Haslar and the others, which have a poor reputation.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I shall summarise our views on our amendment, but first I should dispose of the Oakington issue. We did not intend to have the major debate on it, but our discussion has been useful. Although occasionally robust, in many ways the debate has shown why the guillotine motion was flawed: I do not feel that any time has been wasted, but we are discussing only the second group of amendments and there is plenty more to be said on other issues. However, I am speaking with a heavy heart because I am taking up time that I would like to use to debate other issues. I hope that the Minister will take on board comments made from both sides of the House about the need for a further statement on Oakington and more time to discuss the issue. There is agreement on that and I hope that she does not feel unable to make such a concession. On our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1, I shall be fairly blunt: I believe that this is knee-jerk legislation which has been introduced purely as a result of the disturbances in Kent over the summer and the coincidence that they took place when the Bill could still be amended. Someone said, "Cor lumme, guvnor, we've got a problem down in Kent. We've got to do something about it. Let's get some legislation on the statute book." In many ways, the Bill follows the dangerous dogs principle: something high profile has happened and it has made the newspapers, so we have to pass legislation. That exercises me and my hon. Friends because it is a key issue: in a free Parliament, people who want to live in a liberal society should spend as much time defending the citizen from the state as giving the state new powers to impose on the citizen. In this case, the citizens are those who do not have British citizenship as yet, although some will eventually achieve it. We do not seek to make a distinction between those who have come from abroad and those who happen to be British citizens in terms of the civil right to be free from detention and from having one's liberty restricted. The proposed provision represents a fairly unfettered power to restrict the right to free movement and access. The Minister has talked about the proposed power as a possible form of curfew, yet if we do not amend the Bill, the law will prohibit freedom of movement subject to any conditions imposed in the relevant regulations. The Bill does not stipulate day or night, or specify anything more than giving the Secretary of State a power to impose restrictions on people's movements. To put it bluntly, the provisions effectively surrender to the British National party and those who have taken to the streets and sought to attack asylum seekers. Blame does not always lie 100 per cent. in one direction, although that seems the clear implication of the proposed legislation. It is saying that there will be trouble if a certain group of asylum seekers in a particular district go out at night, so, without confronting the cause of that trouble, a power will be introduced to keep such people inside. That is a very dangerous route to go down. There are already proportionate provisions under the Immigration Act 1971 for detention where there is a problem. The Minister said that the Government's legal advice is that the powers are supposed to be used only in response to absconding. That is right; the state should not take to itself powers to detain, imprison or hold people under house arrest unless to do so is a proportionate response to some offence or mischief. If applicants are criminal, it is right under certain circumstances to lock them up. It may be right to detain people who abscond from the immigration service, so long as they have the right to challenge the decision and prove why they would not abscond. However, it cannot be correct to provide an arbitrary power under which the Secretary of State can decide to keep people under house arrest because he judges that, otherwise, public order offences may be committed and that those people should be protected from themselves. He is giving in to those who might be seeking to cause harm and contribute to the public order offence. So many questions are left open. How will the power be enforced? What will be the penalties for breaching it? What if someone is in genuine fear of torture or death in their home country and does not conform to the Secretary of State's curfew? Would the Secretary of State ship such people home to face torture and death? How will legitimate legal challenges be dealt with? The powers for dealing with somebody in a family are not clear either. Lord Williams expressed some very different views in another place. In one instance, he described how the new powers could be used to develop reception facilities in which people would reside. Therefore, the powers are about putting families and individuals into a new form of detention centre. So, we have the proper detention centre, the strange hybrid beast of the Oakington detention centre and the new-power detention centres. We are adding again and again to the powers of the Secretary of State to deprive people of their liberty, applying different conditions and tests to each. What power will an individual have to challenge such decisions? The Government are giving with one hand and taking back with the other. To the Government's credit, on detention powers under the 1971 Act they have given us a presumption in favour of bail, with standardised hearings after seven days, for which we have called. However, they have introduced another power under which the maximum time limit is not specified and there is no ability for individuals to challenge the restriction of liberty. Such knee-jerk provision takes us two steps back, just when we thought that it was one of the few elements on which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches thought we had taken one step forward.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that all that we have heard makes nonsense and a mockery of the Home Secretary's proud boast about the Special Standing Committee procedure? Such matters should definitely have been considered at its sittings.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. Groups that work with refugees and others who are subject to immigration control have passed many pieces of information to me expressing their extreme concern, which would have been forceful evidence in the Special Standing Committee. This is a sensitive issue, but sensitivity does not mean lack of scrutiny. The reverse is true, precisely because it is sensitive, and because we know that some of the forces not of conservatism but of fascism have been involved in the incidents that have forced the Government to bring the measure forward. Those forces have been there in Dover and other parts of Kent, peddling their filth and their muck around the streets. We know that they are involved—and that means that we should talk about the issue for more time, not less. We should not rush through a Lords amendment that, when we think about the history of where it has come from, we see is clearly a reaction to the forces of fascism. We must be careful about the process of tagging bits on to Bills—or why not leave Bills open all the year round so that we can simply tag extra bits of legislation on to them at various stages? I have no doubt that the provision would not have emerged if the Bill had not still been open to amendment over the recess.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he causes grave offence in implying, by associating the word "fascism" with it, that the Bill is a knee-jerk reaction to what happened in the summer? Does he accept that what has been happening in many constituencies for many years is intolerable, and that it is in no one's interests that it be allowed to continue? Does he not at least accept that there is an element of good will and positive thinking on the part of the Government, and an attempt to resolve the situation before it degenerates even further?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I have been careful not to say that the Bill as a whole is related to the wider issue and the wider build-up of problems. I say simply that the specific measure before us, which the Minister has already said was introduced in response to public order incidents involving fascists over the summer—[Interruption.] She made the point herself that it was a response—

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

No.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

It was a response to public order events in Kent, and my reading of the newspapers—

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he too must be careful and report accurately what I said. I said that the power was new and would not be used routinely, but would be subject to scrutiny. I made it clear that public order would be one of the considerations affecting its use, but not the only one. The hon. Gentleman forgets himself.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I take that elucidation on board, but the incidents in Kent of which we are all aware constituted one of the factors behind the Lords amendment. I still bluntly maintain that the provision was introduced purely because of the coincidence of the Bill's remaining open when the incidents occurred, and that that is not the appropriate way in which to respond to such events. I return to the fundamental principle that the state should restrict the liberty of the individual, whether that individual be a citizen or not, only in extreme circumstances and when it has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, subject to proper scrutiny, why it should take those powers. If the Government do not accept our amendment—or even if they do, but still press ahead with the powers that they are taking—we shall move into a world in which children under 10, and foreigners subject to immigration control, can be subject to such things as curfews and home detention orders without proper scrutiny, and without having committed any criminal offence. I urge the House to support our amendment to restrict the powers, and to be very careful about placing such powers on the statute book.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am extremely perturbed by Lords amendment No. 1, and the prospect of the provision of, facilities for the accommodation of persons". That is partly because the language seems so benign, and it has been difficult to find out what the facilities might be and what they might mean. It is a shame that at the end of our dealings with a complex and challenging Bill, such a far-reaching proposal has been made. I simply do not understand the need for such accommodation. I do not understand the institutional rules that will need to surround such provision, nor its place within a human rights agenda. The most disturbing aspect is the fact that we shall expect children, either as part of families or unaccompanied, to be accommodated in such facilities.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

There is no suggestion whatever that we would seek to place unaccompanied children at Oakington.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am grateful for that clarification. However, children will still be held at such institutions as part of families. To accommodate children in circumstances that will be, at the very least, restricted seems to me to be wrong. It goes against our concept of childhood and the ability of parents to care properly for their children. It will also deny parents access to the facilities that their children need. Those children could end up living among undesirable people and be unable to get away. That is inappropriate. We have heard of the need for proper discussion of the regulations surrounding the proposals at an early stage, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make arrangements that stop such facilities being used for children in any circumstances. The facilities cannot accord with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child or with an agenda that stresses care for children and family friendly policies. I hope that the facilities will not be used for children in any circumstances.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I am glad that we have had this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised many important issues and I have listened carefully to the requests for as much information as possible about Oakington. I shall reflect on how we can make that available. We are already actively consulting the voluntary organisations and have been open with them about access. I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that it would be wrong to split up families, and that is why we are providing the accommodation at Oakington. I must also say to the Liberal Democrat Members who have spoken that I believe that they will have cause to repent the tone of their remarks, when they have time to reflect on them tomorrow in the cold light of day. It is a great shame that they made their comments in such a way. In contrast, both Labour and Conservative Members made several practical points. The most humanitarian approach is to speed up applications so that we can deal swiftly with those cases that are unfounded and can grant status to those whose cases are genuine as quickly as possible. Indeed, the Government have shown their commitment to that approach by publishing a consultation document on refugee integration. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are talking among themselves, but they never mentioned the positive steps that the Government are taking. I hope that the House will agree to the Lords amendment.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

VALUE ADDED TAX