Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Public Bill Committee, 9 May 2002.

Standing Committee E

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I beg to move,

That in the Order of the Committee of 30th April 2002 relating to programming, the following shall be substituted for the entries in the Table for the 2nd to 8th sittings—

''2nd, 3rd and 4th Clauses 14 to 33 7pm at 4th sitting 5th and 6th Clauses 34 to 58 9.55 pm at 6th sitting 7th and 8th Clauses 94 to 126, Schedule 7, Clauses 127 to 129 7 pm at 8th sitting 9th and 10th Clause 59, Schedule 3, Clauses 60 to 78, Schedule 4, Clauses 79 to 90, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 91 to 93, New Clauses, New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill. 9.55 pm at 10th sitting''.

I shall spend a couple of minutes explaining why we reconvened the Programming Sub-Committee this morning. We want to create the potential for another sitting on 21 May, if it is needed. That may be useful, because we expect to table new appeal proposals on Tuesday, and the change will give hon. Members an extra seven days to seek advice and form opinions on the new procedures. I hope that that is convenient.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and for the generous time available to scrutinise the Bill. The official Opposition have no objection and concur with the Government's proposal.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As the Minister knows, we anticipated that we would need extra time, and if there are to be significant new clauses, it is logical to have time to examine and debate them properly. My only question concerns the final two sittings. Is it not more logical to deal with the provisions on initial decisions before appeals? She may not be able to give an immediate response, but will that point be considered?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We had a quick look at it in the Programming Sub-Committee and did not see much difference, but I shall keep the hon. Gentleman's request in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Before we resume the debate, I should make it clear that that change means that the proceedings that were to be completed by 11.25 am, as detailed on the selection list, must now be completed by 7 pm. I hope that all hon. Members are clear about that.

Clause 15 - Support for destitute asylum-seeker

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 171, in page 9, line 16, at end insert

'and

(c) neither the person nor his dependants has previously been accommodated in an accommodation centre for a period of six months in total.'.

No. 138, in clause 20, page 11, line 26, at end add

'for a period of no longer than three months'.

No. 177, in page 11, line 26, at end add

'for a period of no longer than six months in total.'.

No. 140, in clause 21, page 11, line 31, after 'centre', insert

'for a period of no longer than three months'.

No. 179, in page 11, line 31, at end insert

'for a period of no longer than 6 months in total.'.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

This debate raises the second set of important issues concerning accommodation centres and, specifically, how long people should be kept there. As the Committee will see and as a marker for the debate, the Conservative amendments would introduce a three-month maximum, while my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and I propose a six-month maximum. The two work both as a proposition for the maximum stay and as a trigger for a debate, which we shall have partly now and partly later, on how long the payments system, which is altered by the Bill, should cover people when they are in accommodation centres. We had much of that debate in our previous sitting and I do not want to repeat it, but I will make some short points.

On 7 February, the Home Secretary said on the Floor of the House:

''God forbid that anyone should be in an accommodation centre for six months.''—[Official Report, 7 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 1037.]

If that is his view, it is reasonable for Opposition colleagues to say that that should not happen and to suggest an end date. The Minister said that most people in accommodation centres are, inevitably, young adult men, as most asylum seekers are young adult men. The dangers of keeping people for a long time are boredom and stress, and a situation that is more difficult to manage. It is in everyone's interests that the period is kept to a minimum.

The difference between the propositions made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is that we believe, and have believed for some time, that wider latitude is better and more realistic. Although a three-month period may be desirable, a six-month period is sufficiently wide. We also hope that all the processing and assessment of need could be achieved in that period. Our proposition is therefore not ungenerous,

but realistic. We would all be troubled if we subscribed to the idea that accommodation centres could keep people for more than six months. If the Home Secretary agrees, it is better to refine the period to six months.

Colleagues outside the Committee have inquired about the proceedings and progress. They realise that this is an important debate, and they want us to tie the Government down to a maximum. If the Minister cannot accept the amendments, will she at least consider an upper limit? Six months is a reasonable alternative to three. I hope she accepts that.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) would limit the period to three months, and that tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) would limit it to six. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey rightly quoted the remarks made by the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. I confirm that we do not want people to stay in accommodation centres indefinitely, and that six months is an appropriate time. After six months, we would seek to make other arrangements. However, it is not sensible for the Bill to include such a statutory limit, which would give us no flexibility in dealing with individual cases.

On an exact day and regardless of individual circumstances, we might have to move individuals or families out of an accommodation centre where they are settled, close to the end of the determination process, and about to be accepted as refugees, integrated and moved out. Alternatively, arrangements may be under way to return a failed asylum seeker who is still living in the accommodation centre, but we may have to wait a few days over the six-month limit to obtain tickets and the appropriate Government say-so to return that national to their country of origin. That often happens, and the practicalities of getting papers, tickets and flights to return people are also involved.

If the amendments were accepted, we would have to uproot someone and move them somewhere else for only a few days, which is absurd. We need that flexibility around the edges, but that does not mean that we intend to keep people in accommodation centres month after month while making no attempt to move them on or move them out if there are issues with their cases.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I accept the Government's good faith. If we need flexibility around the edges, will the Minister accept on Report an amendment specifying seven or eight months?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We should not have statutory limits in the Bill, for the reasons that I have set out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman equally accepts the good faith of what I said about the time that we intend and expect people to be in accommodation centres.

We must consider how fast and how effectively we can complete the asylum process, which we all want to be carried out quickly and efficiently. It has been

suggested several times in Committee, as it was on Second Reading, that it could be completed much faster—that is our aspiration for all cases—but three months is pretty rapid, according to our experience. Five weeks, which has been suggested by the official Opposition, is so rapid that it is difficult to see how, given the current structure of the appeals process, it could be achieved except in very straightforward cases.

I hope that we shall be able to reduce the six months through the changes and appeals streamlining under the Bill and some administrative changes that we are making on the personal serving of decisions, reporting requirements and much closer contact with asylum seekers, whether in accommodation centres or dispersed in the other systems. Hon. Members have rightly said that 48 per cent. of applications have initial decisions served within two months and that 45 per cent. of appeals go through both tiers of the Immigration Appellate Authority in four months. That is the ''two plus four'' six-month period that we are talking about.

We have managed to get first-tier decisions and appeals heard faster at Oakington, but cases go there because they are straightforward. Other cases are not as straightforward. The hon. Member for Woking knows from his previous experience that the caseworker may have to seek other documents if an asylum seeker presents with a particularly complex history. If the individual has been tortured, an extra report is needed from the Medical Foundation on what may have happened. Individual doctors will consider what happened and examine the individual. Then we must wait for the report before we can progress the case.

There are all kinds of scenario in which thinking that we might achieve five weeks is fantastical. There would have to be an initial decision in all cases in one week, which is what we achieve at Oakington with straightforward cases, but that is not achievable in all, due to their complexity and the difficulty of establishing what has happened. We would then have to hold an appeal within a month. Again, we can do that in some cases, but not if there are complications.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I support my hon. Friend's point. Does she accept that, in addition to making decisions swiftly, it is equally important to make those decisions accurately and thereby reduce the excessive number of cases that go to appeal as a result of basic non-compliance? There is an argument for saying that we want to proceed quickly, but let us not tie ourselves down, as we must ensure that decisions are right first time.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Yes, we must act as quickly as possible in each case, and we must do so efficiently. By that I mean that we must make good first-tier decisions that are upheld on appeal in a way that does not compromise the fairness of the hearing for the individual.

My hon. Friend is right about the technical issues relating to the statement of evidence form in 2000, in that many people were technically failed on their first-tier hearing because they did not return the form in

time. However, she will be glad to know that an administrative change in the casework directorate, which was as simple as establishing a PO box, massively reduced the number of technical failures. It ensured that, when returned, statement of evidence forms were properly attached to files.

We are therefore considering the merits of cases, rather than striking them out and sending them to appeal simply because the forms seem not to be there, but are in fact in a pile of post. Those matters involve administrative coherence, and I assure the Committee that we are doing our best to make a great deal of progress in that regard.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

What the Minister says seems eminently reasonable in one way. However, as we seek to limit the legislation to protect the position of asylum seekers, did she consider during drafting the inclusion of a limit and the use of secondary legislation or another mechanism to set out the circumstances in which the flexibility that she seeks may be encompassed? We would thereby have the safeguard that we seek and she would have the flexibility that she quite reasonably wants for exceptional circumstances.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I am not sure that the two go together, simply because the Conservative amendment would set the limit at three months and our experience of complex cases shows that that is far too short. We all want to be able to do everything that quickly, but some cases are very complicated.

Let us suppose that the Bill included such a provision. For many people in accommodation centres, the three-month limit would pass and they would have to be removed from the centres wholesale and placed elsewhere. That would require a lot of administrative concentration and funding, and the organisation that was supposed to be running the system would be moving people around it rather than dealing with appeals and the rest of the process. Purely for the sake of administrative coherence, I am reluctant to have such a limit in the Bill. However, we do not want accommodation centres indefinitely to house people waiting for asylum decisions. We would regard six months or so as long enough.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I understand what the Minister says, but the Immigration Advisory Service recommended six months. In a way, the more she deploys the argument about needing to put more time into the slot, the less her argument about the need to resist a time limit in the Bill holds water. I therefore ask her again to examine the possibility, before consideration on Report and Third Reading, of including some safeguard while allowing for flexibility through another mechanism. We would take some comfort if we felt that the Government had examined that possibility. It may be rejected, but it would be reassuring to know that it had been considered once more.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I reassure the hon. Lady that we have considered that possibility. However, we are reluctant to have a limit in the Bill, for the reasons that I gave. There are often circumstances that we cannot anticipate in which a limit would unintentionally

create administrative chaos in a system that is already under stress and strain.

It is an odd example, but the Child Support Agency springs to mind, because of the requirement in the original legislation that every assessment had to be revisited every two years. That created a huge administrative blockage that detracted from the organisation's ability to do its day-to-day work. That is the sort of nightmare scenario I want to avoid, but I openly tell the Committee that, give or take the odd day or week or two, we do not intend to keep individuals in accommodation centres longer than six months. If it looks like a case is nowhere near solved, we shall attempt to establish case by case whether a more appropriate place can be found.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No one doubts the intentions of the Home Secretary or the Minister. In this policy area, however, the Government have failed to deliver again and again. What defence does the Committee have when confronted by failure after failure? People might say that an opportunity to prescribe a limit was missed by Parliament, so there is no protection against someone being left in an accommodation centre for seven to 10 or 11 months. How can we ensure that the Government's intention will be delivered if six months passes and individuals are still based in accommodation centres? What can we do then?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hope that individual cases and times will be examined administratively and, as the six-month period approaches, that a decision will be taken on whether it is more appropriate for individuals to remain in current accommodation or to be moved elsewhere through dispersal and putting them in a cluster area.

We should also remember that accommodation centres are designed to be supportive environments, not horrible places, and some people might be quite happy to remain beyond the limit. We do not intend people to stay in such centres for years and years. If a case drags on or an appeal clogs up, people should have the prospect of moving elsewhere if that is deemed appropriate and it is what they want.

I hope that accommodation centres prove to be supportive environments and that services are developed on site to facilitate asylum claims, making it easier to deal with them faster. That should result in a lower percentage of people with clogged up claims, even if they are difficult ones. As a Minister, I shall not talk of legislation that will fail and be hopeless. The Committee wants it to be effective and we must plan for that. I understand the scepticism of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. These issues are never easy to solve administratively. In fact, no other country has solved them any more effectively than we have.

I hope that I have clarified the Government's intentions, without the need for an amendment. We intend to deliver on our intentions.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

The Minister will recall that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke about constituency MPs' frustration over the lack of adequate and quick responses to claims. If the

provisions cannot be amended, will the Department consider producing a specific guideline to help us to advise constituents and their families on how long individuals are likely to be kept in accommodation centres?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The Home Secretary could not have made that much clearer on the Floor of the House and I could not make it much clearer in Committee, short of accepting amendments that would create inflexibilities and lead to absurdity or administrative difficulty. We do not intend to leave people in accommodation centres for years and years. We are trialling them to see whether we can speed the process up. I hope that the trial proves successful and that we speed up the process. Building statutory limits into the Bill, however, is not an effective way to ensure that what a Minister says in Committee actually happens.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

I am not talking about amending the Bill, but could we not have some guideline from the Department, outside legislation, closer to when the Bill comes into force? I do not expect any detail now, but is the Department willing to consider issuing guidelines, which would be particularly supportive and helpful to constituency MPs?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

My hon. Friend knows that procedural statutory instruments often accompany a Bill. It may be possible to use such instruments to establish procedures, but here there will be no statutory limits in either primary or secondary legislation. Policy guidelines for those running the system will be published and made available. They will replicate the assumption that I have laid before the Committee today—on the whole, we do not want to force people to stay in accommodation centres for longer than six months when their claims have not been dealt with as quickly as we would hope. That is the most flexible way to proceed. In the trials, we can see whether a speedier process results from the new arrangements that bring services to accommodation centres and from a closer administrative approach. Those arrangements should assist individual asylum claimants and make the system more efficient so that hearings can be conducted in an effective and timely way. I suspect that big speed and efficiency gains will result. Time will tell with the trials.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am well aware of how the Home Office operates and have been since long before the Minister took office, so I understand her reluctance to have her hands tied. I acknowledge that the Government would feel at risk if they committed themselves on a policy area where they have failed to deliver, to the detriment of everyone, for a long time. Rather than rehearse that debate, I shall ask her some final questions relating to a matter that is not expressly featured in the Bill—the time scale for processing applications and appeals.

For the record, what are the Government's current intentions on the period in which an initial application is processed? What is current Government policy on the time limit for appeals? What changes are envisaged as targets for achievement in the near future? I understand that the process is being trialled, so it

may be months if not years before the specific targets are in place. As the Minister rightly says, the aim is to achieve speedier decisions, but the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), other Members and I are grappling with the problem in our offices every day. What is the current policy, and what is the speediest estimate of target time limits for the two processes?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I shall do my best to assist. The hon. Gentleman will know of existing targets: the two plus four process featured prominently in debates on the 1999 Bill. I placed the percentage achievements on the record earlier. Currently, about 50 per cent. of applications had initial decisions served within two months. The target was 60 per cent. and we achieved almost 50 per cent. About 45 per cent. of appeals now get through both tiers of the Immigration Appellate Authority in four months. That is the other element in the two plus four process—hence the six-month period.

One of the key objectives will be to increase the number of appeals that can be dealt with in the six-month period. However, we shall want to assess the trials and consider the potential for increasing speed and effectiveness. We will also have the new induction centres and the reporting requirements for those who are dispersed and not in accommodation centres, and we will pay close attention to whether we can increase the speed and efficiency of the asylum process. Once the trials are complete, we will be in a better position to consider how to tighten the two plus four targets. We will also be open about that.

In the past few years, processing times have significantly improved, despite a huge increase in the number of claims for asylum. In April 1997, the average length of time between application and initial decision was 20 months. In December 2001—the last date for which we have audited figures—that was down to 13 months, which includes the backlog. When a backlog case is resolved, the average time goes up, as the case has been around for some time. I ask hon. Members to consider that. That is an improvement, despite the fact that, between 1996 and 2001, there was a 142 per cent. increase in asylum applications. The number of initial decisions has increased from 38,960 in 1996 to 118,195 by 2001—a 203 per cent. increase in four years. Appeals have increased by 101 per cent. from 22,985 in 1996 to 46,190 in 2000. Removals of asylum seekers have increased by 93 per cent. from 4,820 in 1996 to 9,285 in 2001. Those latest figures are significantly higher, despite the fact that there have been many more asylum claims.

I am the first to recognise that we still have much to achieve in our handling of individual cases. I want the Committee to recognise that many people are working hard under difficult circumstances, and have effected improvements. That does not mean that every case is dealt with as effectively and efficiently as it could be. Members of the Committee see many of the cases that are not dealt with in the most effective and appropriate way. However, some are dealt with effectively and appropriately, and we will continue to try to improve our methods for dealing with cases by legislative change and to slim down the appeal processes.

Simon Hughes: I accept and am grateful for that. I pay tribute to those who deal with Members' hotline cases, especially staff in the Minister's offices who are always courteous and helpful, as are many others in the immigration and nationality directorate. Will the Minister add one last statistic, so that we can pool all the statistics in one debate? How many caseworkers and those dealing with appeals were employed in 1997, and how many are employed now? I know that the numbers have increased. Do the Government plan to recruit more? It always seems to be a failure of the system that there are insufficient numbers of people to do the work.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

There have certainly been major increases in the numbers of caseworkers. I do not have the figure to hand, but I think that there has been an increase of 1,000. If that is wrong, I will let the hon. Gentleman know later in the proceedings. We have doubled the resources devoted to initial decisions and appeals.

There is much to do to streamline and strengthen the process. There are also many people in the process who do not co-operate fully, which makes it difficult. Some legal advisers do not give of their best. That is why we asked John Scampion to drive out the cowboys, so that when people get legal advice, it is the most effective, efficient and best for them. I hope that we can look forward to a significant improvement in processing time, which will be fairer for everyone involved—both the asylum seeker and workers in our system. That will enable us to give people their Geneva convention rights appropriately and not put anyone in danger.

I accept the amendment's spirit about the speed. It is easier said than done, but we are working hard to achieve it.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply. She says that she hopes that there will be significant improvements over time, but significant improvements were forecast in Ministers' speeches on the 1999 Bill. They have not happened. The Home Office, which appeared to have completely lost control of asylum matters in 1999 and 2000, has improved its performance, but only slightly. The real point is that the more time that one has to do a job, the longer it will take. That affects everyone in life. There is no substitute for speed, because generally with speed comes efficiency. To put it another way, if we put a deadline on the job, it will generally get done.

I reiterate a point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. When people who have watched this Committee ask us why, when we had the chance, we did not legislate for a fast and efficient system, what will we say? Our proposal that people should stay in accommodation centres for a maximum of three months is designed to ensure that the Home Office reacts with speed and efficiency. If anyone argues that it is impossible to conclude a case within three or six months, I can direct them to parallels in the criminal justice system. Every day in this country, thousands of criminal offences take place. Do they take six months or a year to sort out? No, they do not. Following an arrest, offenders are likely to appear before a magistrates court within a

week. If the plea is not guilty, a trial often happens within a month. If the trial's decision is appealed, that appeal is often heard in the neighbouring Crown court within a month. From day one to its conclusion, the process takes about two or three months. That happens in a whole lot of cases.

Of course, some complex cases take longer, but some time limit should still be set. If one is not set, we will begin to wonder about the point of an accommodation centre. When we hear the Minister say that she is looking for flexibility, we should shudder, because flexibility means no rules or deadlines. When we hear the Minister say that six months is appropriate and other arrangements will have to be made if people stay at an accommodation centre for longer, we should shudder because it is Home Office speak for refusing to have efficiency imposed on the system. It is our duty as a Committee to impose that efficiency.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I have profound sympathy with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comments. In my casework, I find it incredibly frustrating when decisions take so long. However, the point that I made during my intervention on the Minister remains. There was an explosion in the number of appeals because of non-compliance and technical failures in the process. The hon. Gentleman equates speed with efficiency, but that is not borne out by the practice of the last few years. It would be worrying if an arbitrary time limit led to another upturn in the number of technical failures.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I take the hon. Lady's point, particularly about non-compliance. However, she very generously began her intervention by saying that she had profound sympathy for our view. I believe that her Back-Bench colleagues feel the same. This is one of those rare amendments when I feel duty bound to urge Government Back Benchers to support the Opposition. What is more, knowing the track record of some of them on asylum work, I suspect that, like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), they not only feel profound sympathy with, but may support the amendment to bring to the Home Office a real sense of the need to act quickly, which has been lacking so often.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Were the amendment to be pressed to a vote, I would not be able to support it despite sympathising absolutely with the principle. I do not feel that setting an arbitrary time limit will lead to an equation of speed with efficiency. It will result in another backing-up of the appeals process, and will therefore have almost the opposite effect. I am reluctant to say this, but it will have an unintended, undesirable consequence.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I disagree. I should not have been so confident of the hon. Lady's support for the amendment, although perhaps my confidence should remain in that I am sure she will abstain and not vote against it because of her sympathy for it. I mentioned the criminal justice system. There are parallels. It is possible to deal with weighty matters quickly given the will and the resources. If it is a question of resources, are there problems with the Treasury?

Angela Eagle: Can the hon. Gentleman share with the Committee his view of the costs of attempting to get all asylum claims heard within five weeks?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I do not suppose that the Minister herself has any idea of that cost, but in general I hope that she will accept that the quicker a job is done, the cheaper it is likely to be, especially given the knock-on expenses if someone waits for longer. If the Minister wants evidence of that, I refer her to the £1,620 a week that it costs to keep someone in Oakington. Does it become cheaper or more expensive the longer that person stays?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Oakington cases are special cases. Something like 96 per cent. of them are refused. They are straightforward, which is why they are allocated to Oakington in the first place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will admit that by no means all the cases that we have to deal with are that simple and easy to dispose of quickly.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I made it clear a moment ago that not all cases are straightforward. Some are more straightforward than others; one or two are more difficult. The Minister will know that, if it costs £1,620 to keep someone at Oakington for a week, it will cost a fair amount to keep someone at an accommodation centre. I do not expect her to know the figure, but for the sake of argument let us say that it is £1,000 a week. Presumably £1,000 a week for six months is a lot more expensive than £1,000 a week for two months.

The Minister made a mistake in suggesting that I had to justify my position that speed would result in more expense—quite the reverse. I think that speed would result in money being saved that could go into—[Interruption.] I hope that that is not my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) telling me that I have said the wrong thing. The reality is that a speedy process will be more efficient.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that some evidence is emerging, not least from the Immigration Advisory Service, that the length of time for which someone is held—wherever they are held—can result in their requiring extra medical treatment? I am thinking about the psychiatric implications of prolonged detention. I believe that evidence from Finland shows that the longer the period of detention, the greater the likelihood of adverse effects, and therefore many of the affected individuals will require medical treatment that involves extensive costs.

9.45 am

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who points out that the longer the period during which the claim subsists, the more likely it is that there will be extra medical and other expenses. She is exactly right to cite foreign examples.

I shall now ask the Minister specific questions, and I should like her to be as precise as she can. Does she envisage that asylum seekers will be present at an accommodation centre throughout the whole process, from application to conclusion of appeal? Does she envisage that the process will take no more than six months, except in a handful of cases?

It would be helpful if the Minister could give full answers, but the way in which the debate has gone suggests that she will find it hard to summarise the real benefits of accommodation centres. If there is to be no legislative pressure on the Government to have the cases of persons in those centres decided in a narrow timeframe, there will be no difference from what happens to those outside the centres.

The Minister has asked for time, but the Government have had time—1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. The asylum problems have got more and more difficult every year. I shall not recite again the figures that I quoted the other day about applications, appeals, determinations and removals, but they make for sorry reading. The Government say that they will consider these issues, have some trials and see how fast accommodation centres work. However, the Minister tells us that if the centres are up and running by mid to late 2003, they will perhaps wait for a year to see how they go and then get some figures. That means that we shall probably not have the first results until the end of 2004—two and a half years from now.

Every member of the Committee knows that asylum applications up to determination and the appeal process take too long. We also know that, apart from the cost, the longer the process takes, the less it is in the interests of the asylum seeker and his or her family, who cannot help but put down roots. In humanitarian terms, therefore, it becomes more difficult by the month—by the year, sometimes—to remove someone. If we are to make the slightest difference to the asylum system, it is essential that cases are handled with more speed and thus more efficiency. Otherwise, what are we doing here? A greater turnover would be in everyone's interest.

That is why the Opposition believed it right to table an amendment to tell the Government that no one must spend more than three months in an accommodation centre. It is time that we, as legislators, put down rules governing how much time is taken to do the job. That is why I want to press the amendment to a vote.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman that flexibility means lack of rules. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I believe that the law of unintended consequences operates with arbitrary time limits. Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, technical refusals on first tier appeal moved the pressure on to the appeals systems without considering the initial decision effectively.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

If the Minister is so reluctant to have a time limit, can she explain why the Home Secretary laid down a time limit in juvenile courts for the period between arrest or charge and disposal of a case for a juvenile? That succeeded, so why is there no parallel in this case?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

There are no relevant parallels between examining asylum claims and dealing with those who have committed crimes under the criminal justice system. Asylum claims are different. They often require further inquiry with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other countries to

discover what may have happened in particular states. If someone claims to have been tortured, we must often establish identity first. Individuals often arrive on our shores having destroyed all their identity documents and claiming nationalities that they do not have.

I share the aim of all members of the Committee that we deal with all asylum claims as quickly and effectively as possible. I do not see how a statutory time limit on the length of time that someone may stay in an accommodation centre achieves that. If the period were three months and someone's claim had not yet been dealt with, we would have to move them from the accommodation centre to somewhere else at great disruption to the system and using many of the resources that we want to use to get the appeals system right.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Does the Minister agree that we run the risk of giving priority to accommodation centres by placing a time limit on the people in them? There may be a financial argument for doing so. However, only a tiny minority of people making claims for asylum will be in accommodation centres at any time, while the vast majority of asylum claims will probably end up further up the system at the same time. The priority must be to introduce resources to process everyone's claims quickly and efficiently, regardless of whether they are in accommodation centres or dispersal.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is the Government's intention. It would be arbitrary to have a time limit for one part of the system that is being trialled, but no time limits for other parts of the system. Such a time limit merely provides an incentive to move a claimant who happens to be in an accommodation centre. That accords with the law, but not with the intention behind the time limits in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking.

We are trialling accommodation centres to see whether having people in one place allows us to process claims faster and more efficiently without compromising fairness to the claimants, but gives them a good and humane experience of the system. My guess is that we can achieve that with accommodation centres, but that has to be proved by the trial. If accommodation centres were then to become the norm and the dispersal system were ended, the statutory limit would create total chaos, because there would be nowhere else to send people in those circumstances. The primary legislation would provide that they could stay in an accommodation centre for three months, but if everything was not finished by the end of that time, that would be it.

I cannot accept the amendments, and I have tried to show the Committee that we do not want people to stay for ever in accommodation centres if their claims are not processed for some reason. I do not accept the Oakington parallels, because only particular and straightforward cases go to Oakington. I do not accept the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about prolonged detention, because people will not be detained in accommodation centres. There is a difference between accommodation and detention centres.

I warn Opposition Members about the law of unintended consequences. We intend to trial the new system to assess the potential gains in processing times, which I believe will be significant. I hope that, with my undertakings, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment, which would cause chaos.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate that my choice of words was perhaps incorrect and that I should not have used the word ''detention''. Will the Minister tell us how long she would consider as unacceptable? Does the Minister consider nine months as the outer limit or would she hope to come under that line?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that six months was about right. My only hesitation, apart from the administrative consequences of having a statutory bar in the Bill, is that there may be circumstances in which someone was expecting the final decision or due to be deported a day or two after the six months. If the amendment were accepted, we would be required to move them somewhere else. It is those situations that I am imagining when I talk about flexibility. We would have to move some people to removal centres, but that may not be appropriate for all. Decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, and the people who are taken to removal centres are those who are thought likely to abscond.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

If there are the odd exceptions, will the Minister consider drafting her own amendment on Report to the effect that no one should spend more than three months in an accommodation centre save in exceptional circumstances?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

No, I will not, and I hope that the Committee will now understand why.

I shall move on to the specific questions put by the hon. Member for Woking before I forget them and he thinks that I am trying to get out of answering them. He asked whether individuals would be at accommodation centres throughout the whole process. That would be our intention in most circumstances as we trial, but it may be more appropriate for certain individuals to move out. There is no set yes or no, but the hon. Gentleman may assume that we want to achieve that, although there may be some flexibility around the edges.

I hope that the process will take no more than six months other than in a handful of cases. If an individual's application looked like it was suddenly going to become much more difficult, it would be up to us to decide whether it was appropriate to have them in the accommodation centre. The individual arrangements made for the support of asylum seekers are always under review as their circumstances change.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's assertion that there will be no difference in accommodation centres, I hope and believe that accommodation centres will be able to deliver a faster and more effective, efficient and accurate end-to-end processing system. The trials will have to prove that one way or the other. That is my current belief, but it is important to test that before we change the system, so that we get the most effective solution to difficult problems.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I shall conclude my remarks by saying that I remain disappointed. The Minister would not budge, even when I suggested that, because there would be the exceptional case in which someone would stay longer, it might be helpful to have an amendment saying that the stay should be no longer than three months save in exceptional circumstances. The Government are putting forward too many reasons for doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option.

At this rate, I have extremely high hopes that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North will vote with the official Opposition on a number of matters. On Tuesday when I moved an amendment, she said that she had some sympathy with my point. Today she said that she had a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. It can only go one way.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 9, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).

This brings us on to subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) reads:

''The Secretary of State may make regulations about procedure to be followed in respect of the provision of accommodation under this section.''

There is nothing wrong with that. Subsection (3) lists six categories of activity that can be subject to those regulations. Five—(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f)—seem unexceptional and unproblematic. They deal with applying for accommodation; providing for one application to be combined with an application in relation to another piece of legislation; requiring an applicant to provide information; the way in which the Secretary of State makes inquiries; and requiring a person to notify the Secretary of State of a change in circumstances. Those five categories imply that the Secretary of State would expect people to apply formally to go to accommodation centres. Is that the intention or would the Government usually allocate them without a formal application?

Subsection (3)(d) is clearly the most controversial and worrying. The amendment, which is a probing amendment, would remove it. Under subsection (3)(d), the regulations make provision

''specifying circumstances in which an application may not be considered''.

We want to know what those circumstances are. It is an obvious point. We are in agreement about the principle that someone in an accommodation centre is

in the same category as someone who is being supported. We shall soon move on to debate the link between accommodation and financial support and whether it still applies for people in dispersal out in the community. Amendments have been tabled to deal with that. Will the Minister explain the Government's intentions and whether subsection (3)(d) is necessary?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman fairly quickly. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from specifying in regulations the circumstances in which an application for asylum may not be considered. The regulations specify the circumstances in which someone can apply for asylum support, and they can do so if they are destitute. The Secretary of State then allocates them to an accommodation centre or to the National Asylum Support Service for dispersal. The test of destitution is the same. The removal of the paragraph would prevent us from specifying that a particular application form should be used. It is as simple as that to apply for support. It is important administratively that people apply in the same way, so that applications can be processed effectively. There are no other implications. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having probed our intentions, will withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

If that is all that the provision is intended to do, it is perfectly reasonable. It was proper to ask the question through the probing amendment.

It is important to have two safeguards. First, for all legislation, we like to see the draft regulations as soon as possible. Will the Minister tell us—if not in this debate, on clause stand part—how soon we can expect to examine the draft regulations? I put down a marker by saying that we should be able to see them at the end of proceedings in Committee at the latest. We should have a chance to reflect before we meet on Report.

Secondly, when we reach the procedure for agreeing to regulations, which embraces affirmative and negative resolution, I hope that the Minister accepts that the affirmative rather than the negative procedure should apply to a subject as controversial as nationality, asylum and immigration claims.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I accept that regulations should be available for consideration as soon as possible. The particular regulations that apply here are not expected to be vastly different from those already operating, particularly regarding application for asylum. The Bill is unlikely to change that process. The difference comes with the allocation of people to accommodation centres rather than to National Asylum Support Service accommodation. The regulations are purely administrative, dealing with how to apply for asylum, what forms are appropriate and how quickly they should be submitted. We do not anticipate great changes in respect of the new procedures that will come into force when the Bill becomes an Act. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It is partly reassuring. Let me raise one last point before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment. Other colleagues may have heard a discussion this morning on the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and when a resignation is not a resignation. In it, there

was also some discussion of plain English, which brings me to the fact that the clause is confusing. The Under-Secretary and her civil servants should look at it, as it appears to mix applications for support and for accommodation, which is a drafting matter.

The clause is headed

''Support for destitute asylum-seeker''.

Subsection (3) starts:

''The regulations may, in particular, make provision—

(a) specifying procedure to be followed in applying for accommodation in an accommodation centre'',

which clearly does not mean support in the financial sense. The Under-Secretary said that, under subsection (3)(d), an application may not be considered if it is not on the right forms, but that seems to apply to applications for support.

As I understand the Under-Secretary's comments—this has always been my understanding—asylum seekers will not apply to go to accommodation centres. Unless there has been a policy change, the procedure is not like booking a hotel, when people fill in a form and Saga Holidays arranges for them to go to the Isle of Wight. The clause seems to refer to two sorts of application and it moves from one to the other without it being clear which is which.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's desire, which we all share, for plain English in legislation. I am not sure whether we always manage to produce plain English, and I suspect that he has found an example of where have not. It might be reasonable to conclude from subsection (3)(a) that there will be a choice of whether to go into NASS accommodation or an accommodation centre, but there will not be. The accommodation allocation procedures will not involve asylum seekers being able to choose, just as there is no choice in the current system. The criteria used will include, for example, the port of arrival. Clearly, I shall pass his comments to parliamentary counsel.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

In opposition, one sometimes contents oneself with small victories in Committee. It is obviously better that we make the Bill clear for those who will use it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have three points to make. First, the Under-Secretary and other colleagues will have noticed that I did not vote with the Conservatives on the three-month provision. I hope that the reasons were obvious, but let me put them on the record. Although a three-month period is a wonderful aspiration, in reality it is too short and the advice that we have collected is that six months would be reasonable. I did not press the relevant amendment, because time is tight, and I am sure that we shall return to these matters on Report. It is also a pretty good bet that colleagues at the other end of the building will take particular interest in the issue. They will be more resolute in pressing amendments on time and more able to have them accepted. It is therefore better to save our collective energies for later.

Secondly, the Under-Secretary rightly mentioned the improved processes for regulating those who advise people. I am grateful for the work of John Scampion and his colleagues, and my staff have been to their meetings. However, let me put one additional point in the Under-Secretary's mind. I am concerned that the Law Society has defended the current arrangements, under which solicitors who offer immigration advice and assistance need not be approved and confirmed. It is right that advisers, who are not practising solicitors, must be approved, and we have got rid of a lot of shady characters who collected money for providing very inadequate or, indeed, no services.

I understand that those who have qualified as a solicitor can hold themselves to practise immigration law, just as they can practise any other form of law. My day-to-day experience is that solicitors in some firms are still as poor in this field as people who are not qualified. Although there are some very good solicitors, in my surgeries and casework I regularly have to rescue people from poor solicitors and tell them not to use those persons any more. I say that they should ask for their money back and go to another firm or a not-for-profit non-governmental organisation, which would give them better advice. The problem is that those organisations are weighed down with work and under pressure. Will the Minister consider that issue? The Law Society has a vested interest in saying, ''Of course we must be perfect, but we can regulate ourselves.'' I have never been quite of that view.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the clause.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I hoped that I was within the limits, but I have made the point and need not go any further.

It will be crucial, when the choices as to where people go are made not by the individual but by the system, to attempt, even on a trial basis, to group appropriate people in appropriate places. The point is self-evident, but it will probably make the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful system. In addition to the length of time and size of the place, the third issue that will determine whether the measure works—I wish it well and we support the concept—is that of grouping people in the right place with the right categories of other people, so that they spend their time profitably in accommodation centres in the most compatible environment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Surely the hon. Gentleman does not mean the majority of solicitors—he must mean the minority. He should declare the fact that he is a qualified barrister. Barristers normally protect solicitors, but that is a matter for another debate. We have had a full argument on the issue of time. I hope that in the intervening period the Under-Secretary will consider with her colleagues whether there is a possibility of coming back on Report with a time limit, even if it is couched in terms of exceptional circumstances. I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that these matters will be returned to. They are very

important to many people and we hope that they will get a full airing in the other place.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I could hear the harrumphing around the Room when the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said something nasty about the Law Society. We always bear such things in mind, but if solicitors are giving legal advice and getting public money to do so they must be quality-marked in order to gain access to that money. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind complaints concerning particular firms that he wishes to draw to our attention, we will certainly consider the matter.

All the people placed in accommodation centres will be grouped in a sensible way. It is not our intention that the trials should fail—we will try to give them the best hope of success. There might be an underlying view that life for asylum seekers in accommodation centres will be much worse than under dispersal arrangements—hence the proposals for time limits to get people out quickly and the idea that they should not stay. However, if we get this right, asylum seekers might want to stay in accommodation centres to facilitate their asylum claims. We hope that the environment will be much more supportive, with many facilities on site, and that the communities that develop will be supportive rather than isolating, as happened with some dispersal accommodation. All that remains to be seen.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Asylum-seeker: definition

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 130, in page 9, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 131, in page 10, line 4, after '18', insert—

'for whom he is the parent or guardian'.

No. 172, in page 10, line 5, at end insert—

'or

(c) it is not practicable for him to return to any other country.'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I will be very brief on the amendments, which are drafting points.

Amendment No. 130 is designed to delete clause 16(1)(c), which states that a person is an asylum seeker if he is 18, a claim has been made and the Secretary of State has recorded it. The point is simple. In my view, the claim for asylum is made when it is made, not when it is recorded or filed away by the Home Office. Given the propensity of the Home Office not to act immediately on the making of an asylum claim it seems that a person is an asylum seeker if he is an 18-year-old and has made an asylum claim at a designated place. To say that he is not an asylum seeker until the Secretary of State has recorded the claim is to give the Secretary of State ages and ages to file the claim. After all, in most other matters in life, one becomes a claimant when one makes the claim;

one does not have to wait until the claim has been recorded. It is a drafting point, and I hope that the Minister will deal with it by accepting the amendment.

Amendment No. 131 was suggested to me by a most respected NGO, the Immigration Advisory Service. It is an anti-trafficking and anti-child abuse proposal that is designed to ensure that minors not under social services supervision are kept only in the company and care of people who are genuinely responsible for their best interests.

My amendments are minor, and I hope that the Government will take them on board.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It is obvious that I support amendment No. 130. I hope that the Minister will accept it. She has said before that papers can get stuck in the post, and it is nonsense that an application should have to wait until it is recorded. There are rules for determining when a claim is made, and they need to be made even more specific.

I am sympathetic to amendment No. 131. The hon. Member for Woking is well motivated, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Amendment No. 172 has its origin in the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. Sometimes, when asylum applications are been determined negatively, some categories of people—the Minister hinted at them earlier—are not able to leave the United Kingdom immediately. Perhaps things have changed in their country, and it is understandable that they cannot go back there. It is important to ensure that such people receive support; they should not suddenly be left destitute when, through no fault of theirs, they are unable to return or to be sent back where they come from—or even somewhere else.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department will respond positively. I am happy to work with her on the drafting if a different form of words is needed. I hope that the Government will accept the point.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I support amendments Nos. 130 and 131, not least because the latter is anti-trafficking and anti-child abuse. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will comment on that additional safeguard.

It seems to me that there has been a bit of sloppiness in the drafting of clause 16. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary is unable to accept amendment No. 130, I hope that she will consider inserting the word ''or'' after paragraph (b), and then adding, under paragraph (c), that the Secretary of State has recorded ''a'' claim; it would be an and/or provision which could also act as a vehicle for tidying up the drafting. One would hope that if the hon. Lady is unable to accept these perfectly reasonable amendments, she will come forward at a later stage with amendments to tidy up the drafting.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Perhaps it would help if I set out some background to the clause, which defines an asylum seeker for the purposes of deciding who may be placed in an accommodation centre. Such a person must be at least 18 years old and have made a

claim under the refugee convention or article 3 of the European convention on human rights. That claim must have been recorded by the Secretary of State but not yet determined. A person whose household contains a dependent child under 18 will, unless that person is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, continue to be treated as an asylum seeker while he and the child remain in the UK. He will continue to be eligible to reside in an accommodation centre.

I hope that I can reassure hon. Members, given the points that they made. Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 affect the definition of an asylum seeker for the purposes of support in accommodation centres. Provisions on the recording of the claim have been included because we want to ensure more administrative certainty, to avoid confusion and disagreement about whether a claim has been made. They differ from previous provisions on the subject, because they state that the claim would be recorded

''at a place designated by the Secretary of State''.

The hon. Member for Woking asked about the relevant issue being whether the claim had been made or recorded. The recording is purely administrative, and there should be no delay in it. For example, there have been difficulties with postal applications, for which the recording has been subject to some dispute. One reason for the provisions is to clarify that. Confusion needs to be removed, as the recording is relevant to eligibility for support under part 2 of the Bill. It is important to have administrative certainty on when someone receives support in an accommodation centre. We must be clear that a claim has been recorded, so that eligibility for support is clear.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Yes, but what examples can the hon. Lady give of asylum applications having been made and there then being huge gaps before they are recorded or filed? My understanding is that there have been dozens or hundreds during the past year or two. What safeguard has the applicant to cope with that?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The main difficulty with applications that have been made, or that asylum seekers have said have been made, then being recorded has occurred in postal applications. Approximately 500 postal applications are made each month. Our aim, especially with regard to people supported in accommodation centres, is to ensure that all new applicants are screened when they make their application. That means that the recording—it can be a manual recording or an entry on a database—would be done extremely quickly. There should be no delay between the application being made and its being recorded. Because of the insertion that it must be made at a designated place, it should be done there and then. It would be done person-to-person, face-to-face. That means that we can be clear that a claim has been recorded, and the person will then be eligible for support.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

So, from the time when the Bill becomes law, a person will be an asylum seeker if, among other things, he makes a claim for asylum at a

designated place, in person. Does that mean that a claim is not an application unless it is made in person at a designated place, and it is goodbye to postal applications? If that is the case, the claim should become an asylum application as soon as it is made.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Exactly. That is my point. Because the claim is recorded at a designated place, it will be possible for that person to be eligible for support in the accommodation centre.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Perhaps I was not listening, but I cannot see how that is compatible with the convention. If someone smuggles himself into this country, to Leicester or Southwark, for example, and is advised to seek asylum, and either writes a letter to the Home Office or a letter is sent on his behalf or delivered by hand, surely that is a valid asylum application. In no country that I am aware of do people have to present themselves formally at a statutory place for their applications to be considered.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

We are talking about eligibility for support, with particular regard to accommodation centres. At the same time as making the application at a designated place, an applicant will receive a registration card, on which it is verified that he or she is an asylum seeker. The hon. Member for Woking raised the issue of postal applications. In the past, there have been fraudulent or multiple postal applications, and we want to ensure that, as part of the process, we keep a proper record of applications and of where people move on to, whether to an accommodation centre or the dispersal systems. We want to ensure that, from the beginning, there is no administrative confusion and no unnecessary delay built into the system. The surest way to do that is to state that applications may be made at designated places.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is, perhaps, referring to the problem that would arise if there were insufficient designated places for people to report to and make their applications. I can reassure him on that because we will certainly ensure that there are enough places for claims to be made. I cannot see why that would be incompatible with the 1951 convention.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Let me give another example. Someone may come into this country on a student or visitor's visa, and be in Shetland, the outer Hebrides, Anglesey or Londonderry—it could be anywhere. Circumstances may change in that person's home country and he or she may need to make an asylum application. It cannot be sensible bureaucratically to have asylum claim centres in Lerwick and Stornaway. It must be better for an individual to go to a local advice centre, citizens advice bureau, solicitor, friend or priest who can write a letter to the Home Office or to the immigration and nationality directorate on that person's behalf. Surely we are not going down the road of establishing centres. If we are, and they can be everywhere, that is fine, but it would cost a fortune.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Most people will claim asylum immediately on arrival in the UK. Those who do not will have legally entered the country in some other

capacity or have entered illegally. In the example that he gives, those who have entered legally are unlikely to be regarded as destitute, because they would have had support in order to be granted leave in the first place—they might have come under an employment category or have a sponsor.

Illegal entrants are, obviously, expected to bring themselves to the attention of the authorities as quickly as possible. If they do, by presenting themselves at a reporting centre to make a claim, suitable arrangements will be made for their application to be made in advance of a claim for support and accommodation from NASS. We cannot provide support for people who do not bring themselves to our attention. It is important to have a system that, as far as possible, allows us to record claims as clearly as we can from the beginning of the process.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Clearly, the Parliamentary Secretary and her officials have done a great deal of thinking about the places that will be designated for making a claim. Given the amount of work that must have gone into that, can she say roughly how many there will be in the United Kingdom—10, 50, 500? That must have been discussed, and I should be most grateful for an answer.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

At the moment, the majority of locations that would be designated as places for people to make claims—the Croydon asylum screening unit, any port or any airport—are those at which people would arrive from abroad. It is difficult to give an exact number. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look beyond those examples and will consider local reporting centres, local enforcement offices, casework centres and so on, so that we provide the most accessible places possible for people to make their claims. It is an important part of any strategy to ensure that people can find support when they want it, and that their claims can be made and recorded quickly and easily—either manually on a database—making them eligible for support. That will avoid much of the confusion that has arisen.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The more we explore what seemed to be a simple definition of asylum seeker, the more we reveal the layers of the onion. The Parliamentary Secretary now suggests that there will be a vast array of reception points for asylum applications. At this stage, I would like to know the answer to the question about numbers asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, and what the cost and organisational implications are. We appear to be entering a phase of increasing bureaucracy and complexity.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Quite the opposite is the case. What causes administrative problems, extra bureaucracy and increased costs is not knowing where people are. It only increases costs if we cannot verify at an early stage, for example, that the people making applications are who they say they are. Having face-to-face interviews is an important part of that.

Claims can be made at existing facilities—we shall not have to create completely new facilities. The

measure will not create greater difficulties for the applicant or for the system, as we are making the system clearer from the word go and minimising any possible fraud. Unfortunately, such fraud is possible under the present system.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

In addition to airports and Croydon, which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, she referred specifically to local centres. What does local mean—local to where and to whom?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I have already said that we would consider using local reporting centres or places in which casework happens. We must look at individual areas and consider what facilities we can make use of. It would not be sensible to determine a particular mileage in an area in advance. We need to consider what is sensible in an area in terms of access for people.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It is important that we reflect on the matters that we are debating and get them right. We should bear it in mind that the clause relates simply to definition of asylum seekers.

I have two points. First, the Government have not said whether they are getting rid of postal and other forms of applications, and it would be helpful to know whether that was the policy and when that policy was made. Secondly, if there is supposed to be a network of reporting centres for the purposes of registration, why is that not stated in the Bill? Accommodation centres are referred to in the Bill—why not registration centres?

There are two entirely new policies here, in relation to which none of us had any notice. They increase bureaucracy and put an end to what seemed a moderately successful system, with 6,000 people a year putting in applications that were processed by the IND.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

There is nothing sinister in saying that we are making it easier for people to make claims in person. Current everyday practice is that all port applicants and anyone who applies at the asylum screening unit in Croydon go through the process that I have described. We simply want to extend that practice.

There is no doubt that there have been difficulties with postal applications. I hope that hon. Members accept the need to consider those problems, some of which we can remove through the new system. Whether the problems are caused deliberately or not, there have been difficulties with postal applications because people do not get the sort of personal assistance that they would get in a face-to-face interview. That, too, is an important part of the process.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way; she has been most generous. I hope that she does not mind our pressing her, but we have some anxieties about this matter. She told the Committee that she would widen the network of places designated by the Secretary of State to receive claims for asylum. What criteria will be used for the

examinations and what time scale will apply? When will the designated places be fully listed, and how will the information be made available so that people can see it? What are the cost implications and will police stations or local government offices be used? I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to allay my fears that policy is being made on the hoof in an attempt to be generous, but has not been thought through. I want to ensure that parameters are laid down.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As I indicated earlier, existing facilities will be used. We must weigh the costs associated with the problems of postal applications and the possibility of detrimental effects on the asylum seeker against, on the other hand, fraud, which can be extremely costly. We must also weigh that against the proposal announced in a statement to the House by the Home Secretary on 29 October, that we would expand reporting centres. We do not need primary legislation to do that.

As I said before, we are making a perfectly straightforward attempt to ensure that we know where people are from start to finish, that claims are properly recorded and—this is the point—that we can then process claims more quickly and make support available to asylum seekers. We are simply trying to ensure that our system is improved. The proposal has been thought about extremely carefully and we are confident that it will improve efficiency, reduce any confusion and help to cut down on fraud. There is nothing more than that in what we are trying to do. A proposal has already been announced, and the clause follows it through. Overall, it will lead to greater efficiency and possible savings. It is important to improve the system and the Bill will help to do that.

Let me set out the background to amendment No. 131. Our commitment is to provide support to a person whose household includes a dependant child under 18. That reflects an existing provision in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The aim is to continue to support children who would otherwise need to be supported by the local authority.

I take note of the points made about trafficking, but that is covered in part 7. It is an important issue. Although, in the majority of cases, those involved would be the parents or guardians of children, there may be other situations to consider—for example, when an aunt, uncle or stepchild is involved. The amendment would reduce our ability to define a dependant in secondary legislation. We need some flexibility. I am sure that hon. Members accept that there are different types of relationship, which can be more complex than straightforward ones that involve only a parent or guardian. We do not want to be restricted in that respect.

Amendment No. 172 would require us to continue to offer support to a person whose asylum claim had been determined, but whom it was not practicable to return to another country. It goes without saying that we want to support those who are seeking asylum and are destitute, but once a claim has been determined, they should no longer qualify for such support unless their household includes a dependent child under 18. Those who are granted refugee status will qualify for mainstream benefits but in general we will expect

people who are refused and who have no basis to stay to leave.

That said, there are obvious difficulties in returning people to certain territories, and I think that that is what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is getting at. A practical example would be someone from northern Iraq, who was unable to return to that part of the world. If a person has demonstrated that there is a genuine reason why they cannot leave the UK and that is through no fault of their own, or that a judicial challenge against a decision is not without merit, they may make an application under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In doing so, they would have to show that they could get no other support from friends, relatives or charities. It is right to offer support under that section, but it is different from the support that they would have been offered previously.

If the hon. Gentleman is also trying to discover whether that support would continue to be provided in accommodation centres, I refer him to clause 21(4), which says that people in the centres can be eligible for section 4 support if that is deemed necessary. I hope that that provides some reassurance and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

This has been an intriguing debate. It began with my saying that it would be brief, because I wanted to put only a couple of small drafting amendments to the Minister. Lo and behold, as the debate developed, it suddenly became clear that what appeared to my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I to be two major policy issues were being revealed.

We have been told in the clearest possible terms that from now on—or perhaps from next week, or from the date when the Bill comes into force—all asylum applications must be made in person. Furthermore, we have been told that they must be made at

''a place designated by the Secretary of State'',

but we do not know where those places are. If I were a Minister—I am not one yet, and the way I am going I might never be one—I would ask the Whip to move that the Committee should suspend for a fortnight so that the proposals could be set out in clauses that could be properly debated by the Committee. However, were I the Whip, I would tell the Minister, ''No, I won't. Let's proceed.'' That is how this place works

There is potentially a much longer discussion to be had about some of the matters that have been raised during the debate by the Parliamentary Secretary. They relate to the proposed centres and the way in which an application is to be made in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to define what ''local'' meant, to determine how many centres there would be, but the answer was that ''it might mean local'', so we are none the wiser.

Life is full of surprises, and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for her helpful reply about amendment No. 131. I will not press the amendment

to a Division, but we shall return to the more substantive part of the clause in due course.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall not push for a vote either, but we must reflect on the issues arising from the debate. Unless I missed it, I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that there will be no postal applications. Given that there are 6,000 at the moment, I assume that postal applications will continue. If they do, problems in the system mean that the process will need to be changed along the lines set out in the lead amendment so that asylum claims start from the moment the application is made.

The issue is not a big one in my constituency, because Beckett house is close enough to be a local registration centre. However, I do not envisage there being places at which people can see immigration officials and register with the Home Office in every part of the United Kingdom, no matter how small the island or population. That is inconceivable, so keeping postal applications is sensible. The bulk of people apply either at ports of entry, when there is simultaneous application and recording, or in a way that does not have a distance in time between the application and recording. However, we must avoid bureaucracy that means that an asylum seeker who has a perfectly good case is not regarded as having made an application because they have not visited the regional centre. We must protect the way in which applications are made under the convention.

I understand the Parliamentary Secretary's point about clause 21, which gives the cover. I shall look back at the earlier legislation, but the important point is that we agree that there must be facilities for someone who is stuck here and does not have their own resources. If their application has ended but they cannot go home, we must not suddenly say, ''Sorry, but we're not doing anything''. I am sure that there is common intention about that. I will examine the Minister's comments. It may be that they cover the eventualities.

My only concern for the Parliamentary Secretary and her civil servants is that people whose case has ended must clearly and understandably be told that they have the opportunity of another support system and that if they want it, they must apply there and then. It must be unlike housing benefit and council tax benefit applications, in which it is too late for someone to do anything about it if they realise that they have not applied in time. For people without English as a first language and who are unfamiliar with the traditions, there must be a good safeguard to ensure that they know exactly what is needed to keep them supported.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 132, in page 10, line 13, after '1950', add

'or Article 8 (''right to private life'') of that Convention.'.

This is another sensible amendment that has been suggested to me by the Immigration Advisory Service. It deals with a short but relevant point. There are a small number of article 8 claims based on the right to private life where someone would qualify for exceptional leave to remain if the application were successful. Their need for support is just as great as that of someone whose case is based on article 3 of the 1951 convention. The amendment is as simple as that, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I support the amendment for the same reason, and I hope that the Government will be positive.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I cannot be as positive as hon. Gentlemen would like, but I am able to give some reassurance.

The definition of an asylum claim includes a claim that removing a person would be contrary to our obligations under article 3 of the European convention on human rights. That makes sense, given the overlap in some cases between a fear of persecution under the refugee convention and the prohibition of torture under article 3. When we assess whether someone can be removed to a particular country, there is a clear link between fear of persecution and subjection to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result.

The right to private life is a different matter, as it does not involve fear of persecution or torture. We therefore do not believe that there is any reason why it should be treated as an asylum claim. If it were, that would considerably widen the number of people who would be considered to qualify for support. The question would also arise why we should not regard all claims made under any article of the ECHR as an asylum claim, which would allow support to be offered. I hope that hon. Members accept that that would be unrealistic, especially in view of the potential cost. However, I assure hon. Members that we would consider someone's rights under the ECHR, including the right to private life, when assessing whether they should be removed from the UK. I hope that the hon. Member for Woking understands why we cannot accept the amendment, and that he will withdraw it.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am grateful to the Minister. I am partly, if not wholly, reassured, and I do not wish to press the amendment to a vote. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We must get the clause right, as it is the lynchpin—the definition section—on which the rest of the Bill depends. I hope that we will have a chance to reflect on earlier debates, and agree to any necessary amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Before we discuss clause 17, I should clarify that we will rise at 11.25 am and suspend the

Committee until 2.30 pm. I intend to break at 4.30 pm for 30 minutes.

Clause 17 - Destitution: definition

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 173, in page 10, line 17, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 174, in page 10, line 21, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 175, in page 10, line 32, leave out subsection (5).

No. 176, in page 10, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 133, in page 10, line 39, at end insert

'having regard to all the circumstances'.

Government amendment No. 104.

No. 134, in page 10, line 43, at end insert

'having regard to all the circumstances'

Government amendment No. 105.

No. 209, in clause 35, page 18, line 31, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 210, in page 18, line 35, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 212, in page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (7).

No. 213, in page 19, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).

Government amendments Nos. 120 to 122.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall speak to the appropriate amendments in the group. Amendment No. 133 is a joint effort between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The group also includes Government amendments, which appear straightforward and are hopefully uncontroversial. The amendments from No. 173 onwards relate to clause 17, but have the same effect on later clauses, particularly clause 35. They would affect the definition of destitution.

Under the clause:

''Where a person has dependants, he and his dependants are destitute for the purpose of this Part if they do not have and cannot obtain—

(a) adequate accommodation, and

(b) food and other essential items.''

Instead of making the effect accumulative—people are considered destitute if they do not have accommodation and food and other items—the amendment would qualify it, so that people are considered destitute if they do not have either adequate accommodation or food and other essential items. People frequently have accommodation, because they are staying with friends or family, but they cannot reasonably expect their friends or family to maintain them. It would relieve the burden on the state if accommodation did not have to be provided. It is nonsense to ask the state to look after people when others are willing to do so, but some recently arrived families may not have much in the way of financial resources.

We shall debate similar issues in part 3. If the Government really intend to introduce these provisions, it would appear to be a draconian and unsympathetic Treasury-driven policy. To qualify for support, one has to lack accommodation and food and other essential items. I hope that the Minister will soon assure us that that is not the intended policy and that it will be changed. In previous legislation, an either/or position was the prerequisite and trigger for providing support and I hope that we can return to that.

The change has been criticised by various organisations that provide advice. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Refugee Council have both criticised the phasing out of subsistence support and the Immigration Advisory Service made similar points, stating:

''We deprecate the proposal that asylum seekers should not be allowed to receive NASS support only rather than both support and accommodation as well. This will prevent asylum seekers remaining within their communities, create additional tensions, add considerable cost to the system, make integration of refugees more difficult and lead to social exclusion.''

The figures show that 20 per cent. of applicants can be or are accommodated with their families or in the community: they therefore receive help with cash, but not accommodation. They are given help to live, but do not need help to be accommodated.

Taking away the option is far from sensible. We have three basic ways of dealing with asylum seekers: in accommodation centres, where everything is provided on a trial basis; under the dispersal system, where accommodation is provided with subsistence but not in an accommodation centre; and with family and friends in communities, where accommodation is offered and the state does not have to pick up that obligation but where subsistence will be needed to help to foot the bills. Amendment No. 174 would have a similar effect, as would those grouped with it that relate to later clauses.

The second type of amendment is evidenced by amendment No. 175, which would remove clause 17(5), which states:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations specify items which are or are not to be treated as essential items for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).''

This is a probing amendment, because the Bill contains no definition of an essential item. I think that the Minister appreciates that it would be helpful to clarify what that means. Obviously, there will be regulations—the sooner we see them, the better—and we will seek to make them subject to affirmative, rather than negative, resolution.

Similarly, amendment No. 176 relates to clause 17(6), which states:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations . . . provide that a person is not to be treated as destitute for the purposes of this Part in specified circumstances''.

Again, this is a probing amendment, to discover what the specified circumstances might be. We ought to be told.

Amendment No. 133, which is supported by Conservative Members, would simply add a phrase that would ensure that all an asylum seeker's circumstances are taken into account, not only the

income that they are expected to have, because some people may not have what others have. I am sure that the Government understand the implications of that. Amendment No. 134 would have the same effect.

Finally, amendments Nos. 209, 210 and 212 make a similar point to that raised in the first group of amendments, although they relate to later clauses in the Bill. Policy on subsistence is a central issue, and I hope that we can retain all three options, with full Government support.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 are probing amendments that relate to drafting. By adding the words

''having regard to all the circumstances'',

we widen the clause to require and enable a full review of all the evidence that is available. I hope that the Minister will accept that there is some merit in that.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I support the amendment, which presses the Government on whether we should withdraw support-only arrangements. I have made representations on this subject on several occasions and seek some reassurance from the Government.

As a London Member of Parliament, my experience leads me to think that there are two potential consequences of withdrawing the support-only option. It will either increase the total cost of service provision, because of the likelihood that people who are currently receiving the minimum level of support will go into accommodation centres, or intensify the poverty of those who are providing support to members of their families or extended communities in their own homes.

I refer to a case that was brought to a local solicitor of a mother and a daughter who sought asylum from Iran following the death in prison of the girl's father. They were dispersed by NASS to Glasgow, where their flat was broken into a number of times and they were the targets of racial abuse. They came back to London and presented to the Refugee Council. They were then sent to Glasgow for a second time and were again subject to harassment, so they returned to London. The daughter was in a state of nervous breakdown and had to be admitted to hospital for mental health treatment. A friend of a relative who lives in America was able to offer them, rent free, the use of a room in north London, where they have lived ever since, receiving vouchers for support.

Notwithstanding the overcrowding at the property, that has allowed them to settle. The children are now in full-time school and college and the mother is in college and receiving counselling. The friend would not have been able to offer that level of support had she also been required to feed them. In this case, the asylum-seeking family received a better, cheaper and more appropriate level of support while its claim was being considered, and the host did not suffer poverty as a consequence.

I should like some indication from the Minister that the support-only option will be bad for economic

reasons and because of the risk it poses of intensifying poverty in certain communities—it has a particular impact on Turkish and Sri Lankan families. Can the Minister give the matter sympathetic consideration?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I am slightly puzzled by my hon. Friend's intervention at this stage. I was expecting to have this debate on clause 34, which deals with the abolition of—or potentially gives us the power to abolish—the support-only option. This part of the Bill deals only with the definition of destitution. It does not cover that area, and it would be more sensible, if my hon. Friend does not mind, for me to return to the serious points that she has made when we debate clause 34.

There is no change in policy whatever implied in the change in wording of the definition of destitution in clause 17. We intend to use the definition in the new Act, when it reaches the statute book, in exactly the same way that we do the one in the 1999 Act. People might be suspicious because of the use of the word ''and'' rather than ''or''. The hon. Member for Woking got into some difficulty on the day of Her Majesty's jubilee speech to the two Houses, when he juxtaposed an ''or'' and an ''and''. However, in this case, there is no difference in policy.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

No, no, no. It is kind of the Minister to say that I got into difficulties. I reminded the Minister at the time that I am a huge monarchist. I was enabling a debate to get under way.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. What I was trying to do by mentioning it was to illustrate that in that case the difference between ''and'' and ''or'' was drastic in that it removed the requirement to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty during a naturalisation ceremony. In this case, there is no difference in the way in which we intend to pursue the policy. The effect of the wording is that if a person does not have both adequate accommodation and food and other essential items, he will be seen, for the purposes of the Act, as destitute. Put another way, if he lacks either adequate accommodation or food and other essential items, he is destitute. I hope that that will calm the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.

There is no difference in effect between the old and the new wording. I am told that the new wording was placed in the Bill to make it easier to read and more user-friendly. There is no intent on the Government's side to change the definitions of destitution that were in the 1999 Act. That demonstrates the perils of trying to introduce plain English into legislation. As soon as Government change existing wording, everyone automatically assumes that there is a sinister motive for it. It is right that, in any legislature, such sinister motives should be hunted for. I assure hon. Members that there is no difference between the old and new definitions. I am sorry if people were alarmed and thought that there was, and am glad to be able to put the record right.

Amendments Nos. 175 and 212 would prevent the Secretary of State from being able to specify by regulations the items that are or are not be treated as essential to determine whether someone is destitute.

That would lead to uncertainty, dispute and delay, and perhaps even more money for lawyers at the beginning of the process when people need to be defined as available for NASS accommodation or not.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the principles will remain the same. They are already enshrined in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, which record what are not to be regarded as essential living needs. We envisage that the same list will be prescribed. For completeness, I shall say that the current list covers the cost of faxes, computer facilities, photocopying, travel except in limited circumstances, toys and other recreational items and entertainment. Without such a list, it is highly likely that confusion and disputes would arise regularly, thereby slowing down access to the system when people need it.

Some amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking would require the Secretary of State to have regard to all circumstances. The Government amendments give a wider discretion and achieve the same aim.

With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw his amendment. We will return to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North at the appropriate time.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I apologise, but as we began to discuss the widening of the definition I got the impression that this was an appropriate time to raise those concerns. I am reassured by what my hon. Friend said.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I assure my hon. Friend that I will come to the debate that she has opened at the appropriate time.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful for the Minister's response. We can return to the subject of regulations, and I want to press the case to see them as soon as possible.

It was not surprising that we opened a debate that comes under a later part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and I conceived a definition of destitution, and the subject reappears in clause 35 under the part of the Bill on support. Clause 35 immediately follows the clause on the form of support, so they link and the same

definition applies in both. The amendments were grouped so that we took amendments to clauses 17 and 35 together. The substantive point relates to concern about NASS, and I accept that we will return to that debate.

I understand what the Minister said about wording, and I shall suggest an amendment that might make it even clearer. A reference to ''(a) or (b) or both'' might be the best way to clarify the issue. There was clearly some confusion, as I was not the only person misled by the drafting. It appears straightforward, and I can see the other interpretation, so I am not being unreasonable. However, a form of drafting could probably make the matter clear beyond doubt. I shall not ask the Minister to accept my suggestion now, but if ''destitute'' means that someone does not have accommodation, support or either, perhaps we should have that wording so that we get everything right.

One of the great battles in this place is to make legislation that we can understand and that we hope others can understand. It would be good to make some progress.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Our amendments were tabled to improve clarity. We do not appear to have achieved that, so I am reluctant to try again. However, I hope that he accepts the undertakings that I gave. I re-emphasise that there is no difference on the issue between our intentional policy in the 1999 Act and that in the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'or assets which are' and insert 'which is'.

No. 105, in page 10, line 43, at end insert—

'( ) enable or require the Secretary of State in deciding whether a person is destitute to have regard to assets of a prescribed kind which he or a dependant of his has or might reasonably be expected to have;'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee E

Clause 18 - Dependant: definition

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 11, line 5, at end add—

'(c) is over 18 years of age'.

The amendment would exclude children under 18 and their families from accommodation centres and thus ensure that the children would retain the right to be educated in mainstream schools. The provision of other services is relevant to the amendment, but education is central. The Bill requires children who are placed in accommodation centres to be educated there, but it is appropriate to ensure their right to be educated in mainstream education by requiring them to be provided for within the dispersal system and outwith the accommodation centres.

Important issues of principle are involved. The case has been made powerfully and eloquently by some of the children's organisations that the children of asylum seekers should be treated as children first and asylum seekers second. Although I strongly believe in that principle, I do not want to address that issue now because we will return to it later in the Bill. Instead, I shall explore the practicalities and try to persuade Ministers to think again about the possibility of providing for children of asylum seekers in mainstream schools.

I have three points, the first of which is that we should focus on numbers. In that respect, the debate has become rather clouded in the past few weeks. We must think about whether it is right for children to be educated in accommodation centres, or whether they would benefit from being educated in mainstream schools. We must consider whether children being educated alongside the children of asylum seekers are damaged by that experience.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the amendment as drafted allows no flexibility in how the children of asylum seekers are educated or supported? It would be a different situation if the location of an accommodation centre was such that it would be difficult for a local authority to provide education or other facilities, or if only two or three children required such services. Would not there be merit in allowing some flexibility in the system, so that an authority could provide such facilities if it were able to do so?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am always open to a case for flexibility being made, but we should start with the onus being

on the Government to ensure that education is in mainstream schools, with specific exceptions.

The context of the amendment is important. A couple of weeks ago, the debate took off on the much broader question of how local services—not only schools, but health and social services—deal with a significant and sometimes rapidly increasing number of people, not only children and families, whose first language is often not English and who may have associated problems of trauma and dislocation. I have no difficulty entering into that debate. As a Londoner and a London MP, I have argued for the past five years that London schools that have taken many children of asylum seekers have needs and face pressures, and require more support.

This city has already taken on the responsibility and absorbed the overwhelming majority of Britain's asylum seekers and refugees. It is therefore right to consider the context of their needs. It is estimated that some 80,000 asylum-seeking children attend mainstream schools, two thirds of which are in London. There are schools in which half of all pupils are from asylum-seeking and refugee communities. It is a tribute to those schools and their staff that they do as well as they do, and that so many are high achieving and improving.

As well as political experience, I speak from personal experience. I do not often do so, but it is important in this instance. I have a child who attends an inner-city state primary school in London in which more than half the children are from asylum-seeking and refugee communities. Sometimes the allegation is made that those of us who speak on the subject and present the case that I am presenting do so from the comfort of communities outside those that are under pressure, or have changed, or have large migrant, asylum-seeking or refugee populations. As a parent as well as a politician, I say with passion that it is right and proper to strike a balance.

I would like more schools and services with a mixed intake. It is right for them and right for the communities that have so far taken the larger share of asylum seekers and refugees. That is why I support the principle of dispersal, although my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and I recall making the case before the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was passed that we were going to have to do much more to make dispersal work.

We will not add significantly to the child population already in the dispersed communities if we exclude children under 18 from accommodation centres. The debate should therefore not be confused with arguments about pressure on services in London and other areas, or about the mainstream of dispersal. It would be useful if the Minister could provide more guidance on the numbers.

I will assume for now that the accommodation centres will take approximately 750 people—we debated that before, although the number may be too large. Currently, nine out of 10 asylum seekers are adults, and only a tiny minority of all asylum seekers are unaccompanied children or families with dependent children. We may therefore assume that

among 750 people at an accommodation centre, there may be 40 couples and some unaccompanied children. There could be 150 children under 18, including babes in arms, children who would otherwise attend nursery, primary or secondary school, and young people who would otherwise attend sixth form or college.

Given that age range, it does not seem unreasonable to say that, most of the time, an accommodation centre could place those children in surrounding schools. Alternatively, for argument's sake, those who would otherwise be in accommodation centres but who could be dispersed in the community in the same area would not add significantly to the numbers in local schools. The experience of London and other centres of dispersal suggests that it would not necessarily be difficult to accommodate that number of children.

It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how she envisages the numbers working out, so that we can see whether we are talking about such large numbers of children that it would be completely unrealistic to expect an education authority to provide places for them. Given the statistical trends relating to asylum seekers, it is hard to see how that case could be made.

My second question is whether the children of asylum seekers benefit from education in mainstream schools and would therefore be better served by being provided for outside accommodation centres. It has been argued that the quality of education and other services provided in accommodation centres could be high, and I do not question that: it is perfectly possible that fine doctors and teachers and other service providers could be employed in accommodation centres. I do not doubt for a second that the quality of literacy or numeracy provision within such centres could be high. My point, which has been made very strongly during the last couple of weeks by educationists, teachers and others who have an interest in the subject, is that literacy and numeracy are only a small part of education.

The socialisation, confidence building and engagement that would come from being located in a community setting rather than an accommodation centre are critical. That has been borne out by research. The Economic and Social Research Council confirmed in 2000 that school plays a vital part in the lives of asylum seekers and refugees. It said that the

''quality of the first few months is critical.''

I do not believe that we will get most children through accommodation centres in six weeks. I would love to believe it. In some cases we will do so, but to be realistic, and in view of the importance of getting not merely fast but accurate decisions, it is more likely that young people and children will remain in accommodation centres for a number of months. Those first few months are of critical importance to those children. On current trends, roughly one in three will be permitted to remain in this country and will go on to settle in permanent accommodation, but three months is a long time for those children. If we are to give them the opportunity of a decent start to life, we

must get the provision of services, especially schooling, right from the start. All the advice and evidence from those involved in education, as well as my own feelings and experiences, tell me that education is best provided in mainstream schooling.

The head teacher of Star primary was quoted in the Evening Standard last week praising the motivation of the youngsters who arrive with a burning desire to make a success of their new home, adding that

''They learn much faster surrounded by the local environment in classes with local children.''

Of course such children require additional support and tuition—we have argued that at length—but they learn best by interacting with other children. If there is any evidence that the Government can claim in support of their case that children would learn better in those critical first months if they were separated from those in mainstream education, let us have that evidence on the table and debate it.

My third question is whether other children or students suffer as a consequence of mixing with the children of asylum seekers. A mixed intake is crucial, but it is not ideal if asylum-seeking or refugee children constitute 60, 70 or 80 per cent. of a school's intake. Evidence from Ofsted and my own experience as a parent suggests that that does not make a school a failure, but it is not ideal. We want those children to be distributed across educational institutions, where they, too, can develop best.

There is no doubt that, even in the concentrations that we experience in the inner city, the children of asylum seekers and refugees perform exceptionally well. I hope that the Minister will endorse at least that point. They are highly aspirational and motivated, and achieve remarkable results. It is critical that we send that message out into London, to the dispersed communities, and to the places where accommodation centres will be sited, whether or not there will be young people in them.

Let me highlight two examples from my casework that illustrate my point. The first is that of a 15-year-old boy who arrived here from Eritrea in 1999 with no English. In his letter to me, which is supported by documentary evidence, he says:

''I was sent to Holland Park School to do an English Course . . . because of my age, I have been a quick learner and now speak English fluently''—

so fluently that he is now on the gifted and talented register. He continues:

''I have absorbed the British way of life and now consider myself a member of this great society . . . I achieved four grade As in my As levels in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Arabic . . . I am expected to achieve 5 grade A's next year, with further mathematics''.

Unfortunately, that lad has not yet had a decision on his case, but it bears out my point.

The other example is that of a young woman who arrived here from Bosnia aged 15, unaccompanied and speaking no English. By the time she reached the age of 21, last year, she had got a first-class degree and was the only UK graduate recruited by Lehman Brothers in the United States. Unfortunately, she could not go

for a year because she had no travel documents but, again, those are practical problems.

More broadly, key stage 2 results in London, where 68 per cent. of asylum-seeking children are provided for, improved faster than the national average, as did the performance of London children at GCSE level. Earlier this year, the Osmani primary school in Tower Hamlets was cited as the most improved primary school in the UK. The Ofsted and Audit Commission report on local authority support for schools in inner London stated:

''The inner-London LEAs have access to a . . . wide range of cultural facilities and the diversity of communities they serve is a real strength''.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I endorse much that my hon. Friend has said. It is certainly my experience in Tottenham that the children of asylum seekers and refugees respond well in our schools and that many do extremely well. Indeed, an exhibition currently in the House shows that children can come from far afield and do very well in the British system.

Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that some children from some communities are struggling? That may be because of the experiences of the countries from which they have arrived. From my experience in Tottenham, I think of the Kurdish community from Turkey and the representations that Kurdish parents have made to me about how that group is struggling in some of our schools. I also think of Somalian children: a young Somalian child to whom I spoke recently had trouble in our school system and ended up in Feltham young offenders institution. Children who have had traumatic experiences might actually benefit from specialist provision and concentrated help when they arrive in the country, so that they can then enter the mainstream.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am absolutely persuaded by extensive personal experience that a significant minority of asylum seekers and asylum-seeking children are disadvantaged by their experiences and what they have witnessed. I am thinking of children who have seen their parents tortured or killed, and children who have been in war zones or are traumatised and dislocated. It is also true that the children of certain asylum-seeking communities from war zones do not have a tradition of educational achievement. However, I do not substitute the argument that asylum-seeking children are a drain on our schools and communities for the equally glib and banal argument that all such children are on the gifted and talented register. It would be facile so to do.

The point is that all those children require the level of support that is appropriate to their needs, and that those children who require counselling and support will certainly do so for a great deal longer than the three, four or six months that they will spend in an accommodation centre or otherwise. That support will have to be continuing.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

If the implication of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was that children with particular difficulties should be the ones who go into accommodation centres, will my hon. Friend the

Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) speculate on the ability of the National Asylum Support Service to select those children?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I was drifting towards that conclusion. My hon. Friend the Minister might respond to that point. It is hard for us to know now what the selection process will be and the criteria that will be used to determine who goes into accommodation centres, and who remains in the dispersal system, going through NASS, which will be the vast majority of families with children and unaccompanied children. It is therefore difficult to draw a conclusion. If Ministers are thinking about that already, it would be helpful if they shared their thinking with us.

Currently, we have no reason to assume that the selection will be anything other than entirely arbitrary. Therefore the children who require special needs provision, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has referred, could be placed either in an accommodation centre or in the dispersal system. Either way, they need to be provided for.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I am not a parent and I accept that many of my hon. Friends are, but I was only suggesting that one of the best experiences in our job is going into local schools and recognising how special all the children are, whatever their background.

I understood my hon. Friend's point that a significant number of the children will need extra support because of what they have seen and where they have come from. The state provides extra support for children who are school-phobic, those who have been bullied so much that they do not want to go to school, and those who play truant. Such children may be educated in pupil referral units, often outside mainstream education. In the same vein, does my hon. Friend accept that there is a case for concentrating efforts on the children of asylum seekers as they arrive in the country? I refer to specialist English provision and specialist educationists who understand those children's psychological and other needs. That is all I was saying—I did not mean to go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow suggests.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I understand that, but whether children spend a short time in an accommodation centre before going into mainstream education, or whether they go directly into mainstream education through NASS, we have got to get the level of support right. That includes the quality of support that we provide to teachers in the classroom. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has made an important point about bullying, and I think that the ESRC research talked about the risk of bullying.

There is a great deal to get right, and we have not got it right in London: despite more than a decade of intensive experience, we certainly have not cracked the problem or found all the answers. Still less have we cracked it in schools in dispersal areas, which are still coming to terms with the numbers seen in the past couple of years. There is a huge job to do.

Two points remain. First, those initial few months after arrival are crucial. The school experience—being part of a community of children—plays a vital psychological role in the process of adjustment for

under-18s. That will be especially important for the one in three children who, on current trends, are likely to remain. Secondly, we have to provide support for both traumatised children and those who have to come to terms with dislocation. We have got to get that right in the nine out of 10 places that are outside accommodation centres, so we might as well get it right for everyone from stage one, and do so in mainstream education.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

On that point, what if there is a crisis somewhere in the world in the next few months? It might be bigger than the current crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or it could be in one of the further reaches of eastern Europe. Let us assume that Britain goes to the aid of that country in some same shape or form, perhaps through the European Union or the United Nations. If a group, or community, as my hon. Friend rightly describes it, of children and families from that country arrives here, does she not accept that it would be best to concentrate efforts and keep them together, with specialist provision, than to split them up across London and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but I am not sure that the accommodation centres point is all that germane. We will have to cross that river anyway. Let us say that 5,000 or 3,000 people arrived. Whether they spend three or five months in an accommodation centre, that hurdle has to be jumped. We have to provide mainstream services for those whom we accept anyway. By excluding children from mainstream education in those first few months, we merely delay that process. Accommodation centres are not relevant, because, as planned, they will provide for only a tiny minority of people. I am not convinced that that argument undermines my case that all children should, as a matter of principle and practicality, start by being educated in mainstream schools.

We should not be diverted from this challenge. We must ensure that good practice, resources and support for those services are put in place in the communities that will receive dispersed asylum seekers and in London, where we have not got everything right by any means. We should not be distracted into thinking that we need to set up a parallel set of services, which—even if it is as good as has been claimed—is likely to be infinitely more expensive than taking good practice and support from mainstream service delivery.

My last point is brief. If we are to overcome the fear of the unknown, which is a principal driver of anxiety in communities that are accommodating asylum seekers for the first time, and which often accompanies the arrival of strangers, schools are the best place to start. If we are to change the culture of fear and anxiety, letting our children mix from the beginning in those communities that are new to a more multicultural and mixed society is the right way to do it. Children are capable of leading the way. They are not innately anxious about people who speak different languages, are of a different colour and have different experiences. We should build on that and allow our

children to show our communities the way to ensure that asylum seekers become properly integrated.

I would welcome assurances from the Minister, as I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a vote. No doubt we shall return to these issues when we debate education issues later in the Bill. However, I would appreciate responses to my questions. Will the Minister share her thinking about the criteria used in the selection process? We must have an informed debate about which children should be based in accommodation centres and how to make the best provision for them. Finally, I affirm that children under 18 should be excluded from accommodation centres.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I shall be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North has already made a powerful case for the amendment. I shall add just a few points.

I am worried that if we create accommodation centres that provide education services, we will be setting up an alternative to an existing service. I had hoped that after the experience of the first couple of years of NASS, when vouchers were used as an alternative social security system, we would be wary of going down that road. Medical and other services will certainly be provided in accommodation centres, but we would not suggest that people should be excluded from access to the national health service.

It is a matter of principle whether any child should be excluded from mainstream education. Like my hon. Friend, I represent a constituency that has for several years taken significant numbers of asylum seekers and refugee children. I have seen what happens when those children are admitted to schools. There is no doubt that problems and pressures are created when significant numbers of children arrive at intervals during the year rather than all at the beginning. Schools have to cope with different languages. Finance, too, can be a problem when children enter during the school year; it has to be dealt with at the end of the year, rather late.

The pressures and problems cannot be denied. I can think of schools in my constituency that have spare places. As well as receiving many asylum-seeker children, they often have to accept children who have been excluded from other schools, which does not make for an easy life. However, when I talk to teachers and staff in such schools, they often express a positive view and recognise the gains as well. As my hon. Friend said, asylum-seeker children are often highly motivated.

I was absent from Committee this morning because of the Queen's first visit to a London constituency as part of the jubilee celebrations. The Queen gave awards to several children, one of whom arrived in this country two and a half years ago as a refugee from Kosovo. He spoke no English, yet he was picked out by the school as an outstanding pupil who exemplified what was good in the borough and the constituency.

As I have mentioned before, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)

and I visited Kosovo and met families who had lived in the UK through the humanitarian evacuation programme and had returned to their home country. One of the main purposes of our visit was to see how they were getting on. I remember that members of one family had been killed in Kosovo while their children were at school in Leeds. Among other things, they showed us photographs of the school and cards that the other children had written to them when they returned to Kosovo. It was obvious from talking to the children, seeing their souvenirs and hearing about the relationships they had made in the school, that the asylum-seeker children and the rest of the children in the school had gained from being together and making relationships, even if it was only for a year or so.

Schools that receive significant, regular numbers of asylum-seeker children build up a degree of expertise. Many London schools have great expertise in dealing with those children. What worries me about the suggestion that asylum-seeker children should be educated in the accommodation centres is that they will be separated from other children and the mix will be lost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, education is not only about learning a language, or being taught how to do arithmetic; a vital part of education is about relationships and mixing with other children.

The argument about isolation and about people becoming institutionalised is my main general concern about large accommodation centres outside urban areas, but it is especially relevant to children.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

As a young Member of Parliament, I rely on my hon. Friend, who is chairman of the all-party group on refugees, for advice on these matters. He mentioned the young Kosovan child who received a award from the Queen this morning. Does he accept that if the proposal as drafted works, and we hope that it will, such a child may—may is the important, operative word—have been in the accommodation centre for six months, after which period he will move into the system? He may then turn up at the school to which my hon. Friend referred and, I hope, receive his award. There is no bar on the real, positive social mix that we all applaud.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

Of course there is no bar, but I am not sure what is supposed to be gained by the six-month period. Let us take learning a language. Yes, language classes can be provided, but anyone who has tried to learn another language knows that it does not matter how many classes one goes to; one starts to feel comfortable with a language only when one uses it, or has to use it, to communicate with other people. Language skills develop much more quickly in those circumstances. In that respect, there is something to gain from immediate mixing.

I worry about the social effects of keeping children separate for six months. That is a long time in a child's life and it may take some time to get over the experience. One reason why we were pushed to table the amendment relates to the decision that accommodation centres will, in the main, be large and outside urban and semi-urban areas. Small, local, isolated schools will find it difficult to take the numbers involved, which would be easier to cope

with in a larger town or city. That contradicts the very idea of refugee integration on which we have been trying to make progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham asked what would happen if there was a crisis in the world and significant numbers of families and children arrived simultaneously. If that happened, it is highly unlikely that they would go into accommodation centres, unless we are to leave centres standing with lots of empty places. We would act as we did with the humanitarian evacuation programme from Kosovo, when facilities were found in towns such as Leeds and Glasgow to accommodate 40 or 50 families together, and the children then went to local schools. That is what we would do if a humanitarian crisis resulted in significant numbers of people arriving in this country at the same time.

We might be able to deal with the question of education in other ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) asked for a bit more flexibility. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I am perfectly happy to consider being flexible, but the Bill does not build in flexibility. That is the purpose of the amendment. We want some certainty, but we should not isolate all the children who end up in accommodation centres.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall be very brief, because we may reach clause 30.

I do not start from the same point as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, although the arguments are extremely persuasive and were well put by her. She spoke not only from constituency experiences similar to some of us, but, entirely appropriately, from personal experience in which she was honourable enough to make for herself the choices that public policy makers do not always make for others.

Earlier, I forgot the title and author of a book. I have now remembered it; it is called ''The Other Side of Truth''. It received a children's book prize of the year last year, and I recommend it to hon. Members. It was written by the South African journalist and novelist, Beverley Naidoo, and tells in fictional form a true story about two young Nigerian children who fled during the military regime and came to south London. In reality they came to Southwark, although the story does not make that especially clear.

Apart from the awfulness of seeing their mother killed and having to leave Nigeria in a hurry, the kernel of the story was that they ended being taken in by social services. The member of family who was supposed to meet them did not meet them, so they were then fostered and went to a local school. The beginning of their experiences in a pretty rough south London comprehensive was not pleasant. Other asylum seeker children were there, but as we know children can be very hateful to each other, and the other pupils were cruel.

That is why I have some sympathy with the Government's starting position, although I do not have an absolute view. I just share the desire to ensure

that we do what is right. We have a hospital school at Guy's for children who, for a short or long time, are patients at the hospital. It means that they have a school that meets their particular needs. It arranges classes around their timetables of treatment and care, accommodates their disabilities and physical difficulties and does not require them to travel long distances. There is a benefit in providing such a service at the beginning of a period during which youngsters who come here have particular education needs.

Kids are often brilliant at mixing and responding to the rest of the community. They do not worry about language; they just get on with it and sort themselves out within a short space of time. Therefore, there are huge advantages in ensuring that children are with other children as soon as possible, and not only with those of their own type from their own cultural background. If we are going to build a society of tolerance, understanding and respect, the Benetton adverts are right. We must mix children early when they do not notice colour and get on with life. Some needs may have to be met. Primary schools in my borough and elsewhere do a brilliant job of accommodating children wherever they come from. Most teachers will go out of their way to do that. Sometimes it is difficult, especially when the psychological needs are particularly demanding. Those needs may disappear in a short time, but the children must still acclimatise and face uncertainty, as the family may not know whether they will be staying.

I want to get the process right. It may be right for a short time, but it should be for no longer than a few months if sufficient numbers of children can be placed together. However, there is a danger of their becoming institutionalised, because the longer integration is delayed, the more difficult it is. We must listen to advice outside, as well as inside, the Committee about whether the teaching force has the capacity to deal with the numbers. Teachers in inner London and other urban schools may be better able to cope with a regular flow in an ever-changing class than those in schools in parts of the community where there has not been that tradition. Some of the accommodation centres are in places without much of a tradition of minorities, ethnic communities or asylum seekers. They may find it much more difficult generally. Not all my colleagues believe that. Some believe that there should be accommodation from the start. There are also issues relating to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' declaration of the rights of the child.

The case was well put by the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and for Walthamstow. I am open to persuasion that children should be integrated from the start. However, a period of transition and acclimatisation may be appropriate for some children. We should explore that and take advice on it. There will never be unanimity, but I hope that we can at least obtain the best solution for possibly the most difficult years for people for whom we have a particular responsibility.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As has been said, the amendment would prevent us from supporting dependent children under the age of 18 in accommodation centres. All hon. Members have spoken passionately on a subject that is obviously of concern. I hope that my remarks will reassure hon. Members. I do not want to go too far down the line of particular education provision, as it is important that we debate the detail when we discuss the relevant clauses. However, I will touch on certain aspects.

The amendment would give rise to scenarios that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North did not intend. If we were to say that families with children had to be separated if the parents went into accommodation but the children did not, I am sure that is not what my hon. Friend intended. I am sure that she would also accept that there may well be some practical difficulties if, for example, a couple in an accommodation centre had a child and did not want to be removed to other accommodation outside. In a technical sense that is what her amendment would do, and I am sure that she can see the difficulties of that. In that sense, her amendment will effectively mean that we are talking about accommodation centres for single people if we do not allow dependents in. That was not the intention or what the Government want to achieve in these trial—I emphasise trial—accommodation centres.

Many hon. Members have spoken very movingly about the situation of children in schools and the magnificent way in which teachers and the surrounding communities have looked after those children. My hon. Friend spoke of experiences in her own constituency and I know of similar circumstances in my own constituency, including tragic situations that I do not wish to detail. But it was clear that these were very vulnerable children who, luckily, received magnificent support from the school that was able to establish their particular difficulties. I pay absolute tribute to the work that is done in such situations and I am sure, from what my hon. Friend said about her own constituency, that they are also very well able to cope.

The debate brings home to me that a lot of these children are extremely vulnerable and that we also need to look at this matter in the context of our overall policy, as well as what we are trying to achieve through trialling these accommodation centres and the various measures that are being taken in this Bill.

The worst things for vulnerable children in such circumstances are delay and being in limbo, and not knowing whether refugee status is going to be granted or not. It is important that we look at how we can improve decision-making, and the accommodation centres are a vital part of that.

For clarification on a specific issue raised in the debate—I not sure if it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's park and Kensington, North, or my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow—I emphasise that unaccompanied children will not be in accommodation centres.

We are trialling these accommodation centres and, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, if these are successful, we may want to them to be introduced on a much wider basis. My hon. Friend mentioned education, but there will be other services on site. In considering the use of accommodation centres on a wider scale—the plan is that, for families with the kind of vulnerable children we are talking about, there should be separate accommodation—it is only right that that we make sure that we are providing the best services for those families and those children.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Parliamentary Secretary rightly refers to services at the accommodation centres and clearly there is some serious thinking ahead on those matters. Could she confirm that it will be some months before any of the sites are chosen and announced, or will we hear sooner than that?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary touched on that recently when there was a discussion about the sites that had been identified. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we plan to make firmer announcements sooner rather than later.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

May we therefore expect an announcement within the next 10 days?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I am afraid that I cannot confirm a particular date but, as I said, it will be sooner rather than later. If I can give any further information, I will certainly do so.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. This reminds me of the exchange in the House of Lords some years ago when a Minister said that an answer would made soon. When asked to define ''soon'', he said that it meant ''before long''. When asked which was sooner, he replied that he would not be drawn into that difficult territory. It is an important topic. The Parliamentary Secretary would naturally never withhold anything from the Committee, but if she knows something to the effect that there will be an announcement within days or weeks, we should be told.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate and if the Parliamentary Secretary does not have the information, there is nothing that the Chair can do about it.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

All I can say is that two or three weeks would be nearer to the mark, if that is of any help to the hon. Gentleman. I have no more information than that, although I can confirm that the centres will not be open until 2003. To return to my point, as part of our overall strategy is to see whether accommodation centres are found to be effective, I hope that it will give my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North some reassurance to know that the evaluation system will be open and transparent and that all aspects of the provision will be examined.

My hon. Friends made a number of comments about preparing people for their eventually being granted refugee status. The provision at the accommodation centres could certainly play a role in achieving that. I am sure that my hon. Friends would

also acknowledge that people can be isolated, even within a community. There are a number of ways in which one could look at the support provided by having other people around within an accommodation centre. We also have to take that into account when looking at schools, although I do not want to go completely down that line, as there is an important debate to be had on the subject later.

We are trying to make the process as quick as possible, so we must also look at the effect on local schools of a turnover of pupils. We must take that into account if we are to achieve our objective of letting people have a decision as quickly as possible. Again, I say that one of the worst experiences for children can be the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will be able to stay in one country. We must examine provision in accommodation centres. If a family is granted refugee status, the children should be ready to go into mainstream education. That is precisely the point.

The clause is not about keeping children who have been granted refugee status out of mainstream education; it applies only to children who still have asylum-seeking status. Even that does not mean that provision cannot be made in the centres to prepare people—often an important aspect of ensuring quick integration once refugee status is granted.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

On evaluation, some schools—I visited one in central London in connection with the Science and Technology Committee—have become adaptable to and adept at meeting the needs of children from asylum-seeker and refugee families. What evaluation will apply to teaching provision in accommodation centres for such children? Will Ofsted be involved or will it be a matter for local education authorities? I do not know what balance will emerge. Will there be a mechanism for schools—perhaps schools in my constituency—to have an intake of refugees? St. Peter's school, for example, gained from the experience. Will it continue to have some link with accommodation centres?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I assure my hon. Friend that a close relationship with the LEA will continue and that Ofsted inspectors will also be involved.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

May I take my hon. Friend back to vulnerable children? We all agree that special thought should be given to the needs of children who are exceptionally vulnerable. Does she accept that an institutional setting, which is what an accommodation centre will be, may be highly unsuitable for placing families when the parents, and possibly even the children, are victims of torture? An institutional setting might be quite wrong for such a group of vulnerable people.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I understand that victims of torture are not dispersed. However, placement in a community may not necessarily be the most supportive environment. It may be a mistake to assume that a perfect life exists out there for asylum seekers who have been dispersed into the community. Some people in such circumstances might be highly vulnerable. We must not run away from that

possibility. It may not be commonplace, but it does occur when asylum seekers do not receive the high level of support that we would all like them to receive. People can feel vulnerable even in their current communities. I stress that this is a trial. It could be argued that an accommodation centre would provide a more supportive environment for some people, but that must be evaluated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North asked about the number of people who might be considered. Taking the figure of 750 people in an accommodation centre, 100 to 150 children would be right. She also asked about the criteria. In addition to the availability of places, the broad primary criteria will be language, family situation and port of entry or induction centre. The criteria will be open and transparent.

I hope that my hon. Friends accept that we understand the concerns that they have raised, but I re-emphasise that we are talking about pilots. If the pilots are rolled out more widely, it will be important to ensure that the services that we provide are the best for children, and we can do that only through trials. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North will withdraw the amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I must press the Parliamentary Secretary over the proposed sites. Does she or any ministerial colleague know the identity of any site that has been or is to be chosen by the Government? Does she know if or when any announcement will be made?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying outside the terms of the amendment, which are very narrow.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I intend to put sticky tape over my mouth for the rest of the day so that others have a chance to move on, but if we do not have this discussion now, we shall have it later.

On the initial point about the amendment's technical impact, there would be no need to separate families. Obviously, we are also discussing couples with dependants over 18, married couples without children and so on. The point is therefore not relevant, but in a sense this debate has been about exploring other issues.

I accept the point about turnover, and many points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. There is no perfect solution, as we do not live in a perfect world—we do not have world peace and prosperity. None of these issues is easy, either here or internationally, but an overwhelming number of children are already provided for in mainstream services, a great deal of good practice has been established and a number of problems have been identified.

In summing up, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that turnover is a particular issue in local communities. I accept that important point, but London schools are not unfamiliar with a turnover of 50 per cent. of children between key stages 1 and 2. As

a London Member of Parliament, I sometimes find it a little hard to listen to arguments about 150 children in a single LEA and the problems that they might bring to a school environment. One school has to cope with that number of children in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, and without enough support or recognition of the problems it has to deal with.

That brings me back to the point that we have a great deal to learn and a great deal to make better, but we must do that in the mainstream—in London, for the people who are already here, in dispersal centres and in and around accommodation centres. The good practice in education and the experience that is, and will continue to be, brought to bear on this issue by the teaching profession, teaching representatives, the Local Government Association and all those with an interest in education will reinforce the point that we must make provision in the mainstream and get it right for everyone.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

My hon. Friend might be reassured by the fact that although we are trialling accommodation centres, that does not mean that we are not trying to improve the situation in mainstream schools.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I appreciate that and I know that the proposal is not being ruled out, but we still have a long way to go.

There has been talk about flexibility, but the Bill does not allow sufficient flexibility for the children who would benefit from early access to mainstream education, which means most of them, to have that. In an ideal world, I would be perfectly happy with many children and families going into accommodation centres, because there is much to commend them due to their general support. However, that must be done in conjunction with access to mainstream services, particularly education, for many, most or all such children. That flexibility is not in the Bill.

I do not intend to press the amendment, but we shall probably return to the issue. I want flexibility for the children, who range from nought to 18 and span the whole spectrum of education provision. With the right support, many or most of them, and their communities, would be best served by the experience of coming to terms with a mixed intake. I am reassured by much of what the Parliamentary Secretary said and the spirit in which she made her remarks. I remain convinced that we need flexibility, but for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Sections 15 to 18: supplementary

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 11, line 8, leave out 'and decide'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 137, in page 11, line 8, at end insert

'in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child'.

No. 241, in clause 36, page 20, line 1, at end insert—

'(2) Where the Secretary of State inquires into a person's age under section 19(2) he shall not do so until he is satisfied that the person has had access to legal advice or assistance and representation.

(3) The Secretary of State may make a grant to a voluntary organisation which provides legal advice and representation to a person described in subsection (2).

(4) A grant under this section may be subject to terms or conditions (which may include conditions as to repayment).'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Amendment No. 136 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to decide a person's age or to draw attention to the issue. The Law Society is among many that are concerned about the implications of clause 19(2) with regard to children. As it says, assessing age accurately is difficult, so the benefit of the doubt should be applied to children unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

The British Medical Association has also said that accurately assessing the age of the child is extremely difficult, and almost impossible when the child is between 15 and 18. A Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report also found that it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of a child's age within five years either way. Those assertions indicate that there should be safeguards to the effect that in a difficult decision in the case of a child, the benefit of the doubt should be applied unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Amendment No. 137 is designed simply to ensure that the process is conducted in the child's best interests and in accordance with the internationally accepted norms and procedures. Like the others, amendment No. 241 is a probing amendment designed to safeguard against a practice that is not uncommon: distressing questioning of minors. Apparently, there is considerable evidence of that as a current practice, and the amendment would ensure that children have access to a lawyer and legal advice before they are questioned.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is doing constituency work today, and he apologises for his absence. We support amendments Nos. 136 and 137.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As the hon. Member for Woking said, amendments Nos. 136 and 137 would prevent the Secretary of State from deciding a person's age when assessing whether they qualify for support in an accommodation centre. It is essential that the Secretary of State is able to make a decision on a person's age to establish which method of support is appropriate. We said that we would not place unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in accommodation centres. If we are to discharge that commitment, the Secretary of State must take a decision on someone's age. There would be little point in the Secretary of State being able to inquire about someone's age, if he could not decide the outcome of that inquiry in a dispute. Some people believe that there is an advantage to concealing their age. An adult may believe that it is better to say that he or she is a minor, as the local authority would be obliged to support an unaccompanied child. That

would enable the person to stay in London if they had arrived there first. It is therefore important to be able not only to inquire about someone's age, but to take a decision on it.

Article 3 of the UN convention on the rights of the child states that

''the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration''

in all actions concerning children. The Committee will be aware that the UK has a reservation on that purely to safeguard our immigration and nationality legislation. That does not inhibit our ability to take full account of the child's best interests.

Amendment No. 241 is unnecessary. Our concern is whether someone is the age that they claim to be. That can be difficult to establish if, for example, they cannot provide any documentary evidence. However, matters will not be improved by requiring the Secretary of State not to take a decision until the applicant has had access to legal advice or assistance and representation. The applicant will be entitled to apply to the relevant social services department for support as an unaccompanied asylum seeker. It is up to the local authority to consider whether there is evidence to back up the claim.

If someone arrives at a port and needs support, they will be referred to a reception assistant for advice, which is provided by members of voluntary organisations who specialise in dealing with migrants and refugees. If they consider an applicant to be a minor, they are likely to refer the person to the social services department for help. If a social services department does not consider the person to be a minor, it will refer them to NASS for consideration of support. In the absence of any other evidence, NASS will be guided by the view of social services.

In that system, if the person obtained judicial review of the move, they would be entitled to legal representation. However, given that the Government do not accept the case for legal advice and representation in the first instance, we see no need for a statutory power to make grants to voluntary organisations, with or without conditions attached, in those circumstances.

I hope that, with those assurances, hon. Members will not feel the need to press the amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have one question for the Parliamentary Secretary: do the Government have any plans to withdraw their reservation to the declaration of the rights of the child? If not, will she either tell us now or write to us saying why?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

We have no plans to withdraw our reservation.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I have listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary and I am grateful to her. It was worth having that short debate, even though not all the questions were answered. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I reflect on the fact that, under the process here, the date on which the asylum claim shall be treated as determined is decided by the moment at which the Secretary of State sends off his notification. The calculation also involves the post for a couple of days. However, as we discovered earlier, the date on which someone applies is taken to be not the date on which they send off their application, or a couple of days later, but the date on which it is received. There is an inconsistency there.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I am delighted to be able to tell him that we shall consider it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Person subject to United Kingdom

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 11, line 28, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

''(1) A residence restriction may include a requirement to reside at an accommodation centre.''

A person arriving in the UK may be examined by an immigration officer to determine whether he or she should be granted permission to enter. Such people are liable to detention pending an examination and any decision to grant or refuse leave to enter. However, they may be temporarily admitted to the UK without being detained, or may be released from detention pending a decision. They are then made subject to residence and reporting instructions.

Furthermore, persons who have been notified of a decision to deport, or concerning whom a deportation order is in force, are liable to be detained. Where they are not detained, they too may be subject to residence and reporting restrictions. The clause enables residence restrictions to include a requirement to reside at an accommodation centre, in the same way that we can currently require someone to reside at a private address. The amendment will ensure that we have the necessary flexibility to require those who have been notified of a decision to deport, or who have been made the subject of a deportation order, to reside at an accommodation centre.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have a question, and I am happy for the Under-Secretary to give the answer later, if she does not know it immediately. Once again from constituency casework, I am well aware that people are often refused, but given the right to be admitted in practice, with a later reporting date and so on. At some stage, will she be kind enough to tell us what percentage of people go through that initial process of refusal but admission, as opposed to refusal and detention?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I am afraid that I do not know the answer. I shall try to get the information for the hon. Gentleman and let him have it later in our proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 11, line 36, leave out

''whether by him or by someone else''

and insert

''by himself of a member of his family.''

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 180, in page 11, line 36, leave out ''someone else'' and insert ''a dependant''.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Amendment No. 139, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, should say ''by himself or a member of his family'', but the amendment paper reads

''by himself of a member of his family''.

I hope that the misprint is corrected.

The amendment simply probes to discover further and better particulars from the Minister. It is wholly inappropriate that a person should be required to leave accommodation as a result of the actions of others, over whom no control has been exercised, in a form of absolute vicarious liability. What does she mean by ''someone else''? She is nodding furiously. I am sure that when the time comes, she will be able to fill us in.

It seems to be a wholly unreasonable proposition that the clause should be drafted so widely and so inappropriately. To dwell on the point, if someone in a centre with a group of friends had a party that got out of hand and broke the terms and conditions, it would be quite inequitable for that individual disproportionately to suffer punishment from which there was no escape and for something that they may not have been responsible for in the first place. As we know, all legislation is gender blind, although the wording implies a man. However, we must consider the position of women who may be in such centres and what might happen in circumstances over which a woman has no control whatever.

It is not unreasonable to propose a substitution and to say that a member of the family is someone over whom an individual may be expected to have some control. Therefore, we would substitute the words

''by himself or a member of his family''

in the hope of some recognition of the fact that the drafting is inappropriate in such conditions. I hope that the Minister, after all her furious nodding and smiling, agrees with me and either accepts my proposal or makes one of her own that would tighten up that area and not leave such a gaping, inequitable provision in the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The amendments are variations on a theme. The hon. Lady has spoken to one; ours would restrict the liability factor in subsection (3). Her amendment proposes that someone should be liable to penalty only if there is a breach by that person or a member of their family. Our alternative proposition, if the Government find it more acceptable, is that someone would be liable only if there were a breach by that person or a dependant. I think that we are knocking on the same door.

We certainly think that when there is a residence requirement one should not be held liable for breaching it if the fault is widely drawn as someone else's. I shall make the link points now, rather than during the debate on clause stand part: subsections (1), (2) and (4) seem entirely reasonable, but subsection (3) seems entirely unreasonable—that element raises the big issues. The debate will test both specific liability and the wider point.

I do not propose to ask the Committee to vote to remove subsection (3), but I hope that it is amended substantially or taken out on Report. I understand that under the 31-year-old Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State can, quite reasonably, impose restrictions on somebody to control where they live. That has always been the case during our political lifetimes. It is proposed that it should continue and there is no argument about that. However, it raises the issue of what happens if someone breaks their residency condition, which is already regarded as affecting the credibility of an asylum application. I understand that, and I think that I am right in saying that it has been tested in the European courts as being compatible with the European convention on human rights. A breach of a residency requirement can relate to the credibility of an asylum application, but we must tread carefully.

The right to make a case for asylum and the right to be granted asylum, which are two different things, are not qualified in the convention because they are absolute rights provided that an applicant, having made their case, fulfils the conditions on fear of persecution. That has always governed us, and we were parties to the convention when it started.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an interesting parallel in criminal law? If a person breaks his bail conditions it is not held against the merit of his case when it comes before court.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman is particularly qualified to give that as an example from his experience as a recorder. He and I share a concern that clause 21(3) links three things: the asylum application and its merit, the conditionality of residence, which already affects the credibility of the asylum application, and the residence condition, which will be linked to behaviour in the place of residence. Clause 21(3) clearly states that

''if the person is required to leave an accommodation centre at which he is resident as the result of the breach''—

we are debating who could be responsible for the breach—

''of a condition of residence, he shall be treated as having broken the residence restriction referred to in subsection (1).''

In the most extreme case, someone may be asked to leave a centre because glasses were broken during a party, for which other people were responsible. A less extreme case may involve someone's personal behaviour—they may have come back an hour late at the end of the day and were required to leave by the management. That would be regarded as a breach of the residency requirement that related to the acceptability or credibility of their asylum

application. Unless the Minister can point to another part of the Bill in which that is contradicted, the fact that someone had been required to leave the centre would, in theory, trigger the possibility of being detained, being refused leave or being summarily removed. It must be wrong that someone's behaviour in an accommodation centre, however bad, should determine their asylum application.

We have had that debate in another context. If somebody misbehaves and breaks the law, they are punished according to the law, and it makes no difference whether they are an asylum seeker or a native-born Briton. If they are in an institution and break the rules, they are punished according to the rules—the only way in which punishment can happen. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and I are justified in putting this case because page 57 of the White Paper states:

''Residents of Accommodation Centres who breach these''

residency or reporting

''requirements will be left in no doubt that their actions may affect the outcome of their asylum claim, where the non-compliance damages their credibility.''

The Immigration Law Practitioners Association takes a view, similar to mine, that it is entirely unacceptable for a person's asylum claim to be affected by their behaviour. They are unrelated matters, and behaviour is not relevant to proper consideration of the entitlement to asylum. The Refugee Council says that it would oppose any plan to link any aspects of an individual's behaviour in an accommodation centre to their asylum claim, which, it says, would not only be contrary to the spirit of the 1951 convention, but would lead to legal challenges and place further pressure on the Immigration Appellate Authority.

The Government may not like it when people misbehave. I do not know what happened at Yarl's Wood or how that started, because I have not seen the report, but it appears that there was some misbehaviour. If there was misbehaviour, people must be punished: if they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. However, even if there were severe misbehaviour, that should not make people liable to have their asylum claims considered differently. However tempting it is when under pressure suddenly to move people into new categories for which the Government can find new excuses to turn down asylum applications, it is morally wrong. I hope that the Government confirm that the clause needs redrafting.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

If ever two amendments ought to be accepted, either with their present or similar wording, these are they. Make no mistake, clause 21(3) reads as follows:

''the person is required to leave an accommodation centre at which he is resident as the result of the breach (whether by him or by someone else) of a condition of residence''.

That is what it says in plain English, and it will not do.

The parallel that I used was that of a criminal court. If a person is given bail with a condition of residency at an address and he breaches that by not residing at the address, he is separately dealt with by the court for

a breach of the bail condition. It is inconceivable that that person would have adverse inferences, about their defence or their case, drawn from that breach. That would be a ludicrous proposition. I urge hon. Members to take that on board and realise how grossly unfair—and possibly illegal—it would be for the merits of someone's asylum case to be affected by the conduct of someone else over whom they had no control. Even to argue that someone's asylum claim could be affected as a result of his breaching a condition is astonishing.

The Home Office website states:

''Anyone who breaks the rules will lose support.''

Can the Minister be specific and say what would happen in various scenarios if the rules were broken? The website also states:

''Breaking the rules may also affect their claim for asylum.''

Can the Minister say exactly what is meant by that? Does it mean that if a case if full of merit, the adjudicator will have the breach drawn to his or her attention and will be told to take less notice of the merit because of the breach? Even that is an absurd proposition, but to go further and say that a person's position would be affected by the conduct of someone else over whom they have no control is, in my respectful view, ludicrous. I cannot see how the Home Office can possibly justify the clause.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

First, I would like to reassure Opposition Members about the meaning of ''someone else'' in this context. Clause 26 makes it clear that if a person or their dependant breaches a condition, both may be required to leave the centre, in accordance with policy. I hope that everyone accepts that there must be certain rules and standards of behaviour. Clearly, criminal law will apply to certain forms of behaviour but, short of the criminal law, it is necessary for good order that there are rules and standards of behaviour. Therefore, it is appropriate that there should be sanctions if people breach those rules. The sanctions will depend on and be proportionate to the extent and seriousness of the breach. I would not expect any disagreement with that.

Secondly, the reference to ''someone else'' in subsection (3) that has caused concern can only refer to the dependant referred to in clause 26. That is not a wide use that allows us to attach anyone else to the individual.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It does not say that.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

That is what it means. ''Someone else'' refers to the dependant that is mentioned in clause 26. We do not have the power at present, nor will the Bill give us the power, to require anyone other than the resident or his or her dependant to leave as a result of a breach of conditions. I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who made an equally important intervention on this issue, do not believe me, but that is the case. We do not have an arbitrary power to require anyone who may be completely unrelated to an individual to leave an accommodation

centre or suffer any detriment for a breach, of whatever seriousness, simply because they happened to be in the same place. Clearly, that would be absurd.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Is the Minister telling us that clause 26 says that ''someone else'' shall mean a dependant? If it does, I stand corrected. Otherwise, it is no good her telling us that she is advised that it can only mean a dependant, because the advice that she has received is bunkum.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take that up with parliamentary counsel. Let me reiterate: the power to require someone to leave a centre comes from clause 26. We have not yet examined the clause in Committee, but the key reference in it is to ''any dependant''. Therefore, ''someone else'' as mentioned in clause 21 refers to the dependant and to no one else.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Why not say so?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The language used is a drafting issue. I am merely conveying to the Committee our understanding of what it means. Clearly, it would be absurd for us to have an arbitrary power to expel from accommodation centres people who are unrelated or who are not dependants, because of the behaviour of someone else. The Government have no intention of doing that. We do not have the power to do it now, and the Bill, were it to become an Act, would not give us such a power. I state that as a fact but, clearly, Opposition Members do not believe me.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Methinks the hon. Lady doth protest too much. She agrees with us that arbitrarily requiring someone to leave because of the behaviour of someone else is ridiculous. She referred to clause 26(4) and (5), which clearly say,

''require the resident and any dependant''.

What possible objection can she have to substituting the words ''or a dependant or a member of his family'' in subsection (3). That is not for parliamentary counsel. The hon. Lady is the Minister, so she can instruct parliamentary counsel and she can tell them what to do. She is in charge of the legislation, and she should listen to her own common sense and replace those words.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We have had three run-ins about plain English, and I suspect that this is another example. ''Someone else'' refers to dependants in clause 26, so the ''someone else'' referred to in clause 21 can only be the dependants. That is the legal advice we are working from. The position is exactly the same as that which the Opposition have declared is their wish. It is already in the Bill, so there is no need to change it. There is no way under the Bill that ''someone else'' can mean anything other than dependants, to which clause 26(4) and (5) refer.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister give way?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I do not know what good it will do.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I cannot work out whether the hon. Lady has not been a Minister long enough or has been a Minister too long. She is not being as robust as usual and as I know she can be.

If we are going for plain English, the wording must be consistent between one clause and another. The Minister understands the point. We can all do the cross-referencing, but life should not consist of cross-referencing and finding that a phrase on one page means something else two pages later. I am simply asking her to tell her draftspeople to make the wording in clause 21(3) the same as that in clause 26(4) and (5). It is not difficult. It can be done on a word processor and does not even require a parliamentary draftsman.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I think that parliamentary draftsmen would be worried about the hon. Gentleman's last point.

I can only reiterate that there is no intention of arbitrarily visiting on someone who is not a dependant the consequences of someone else's behaviour. I shall consider what hon. Members have said, but my strong advice and my understanding is that there is no difference between what is in the Bill and what is in the amendments. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister has dealt with one aspect of the matter, although not satisfactorily, but she failed to answer our other question. Exactly what effect will it have on an asylum applicant's case in legal terms?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I suppose that we all got caught up in the problem of ''someone else'' and ''dependants''. I hope that I can reassure hon. Members about the other issues that were raised in the general debate.

We cannot, will not and do not intend automatically to refuse an asylum seeker's claim merely because of their behaviour. Opposition Members are worrying too much about that. We must assess asylum claims, regardless of behaviour, but someone's credibility may be affected by non-compliance. I emphasise ''may be'', and each case must be examined before making a judgment. There is no automatic refusal. Bad people or people who do not comply may be genuine refugees and may be granted refugee status. I shall give some examples.

Behaviour may be taken into account if it is relevant to the claim. It is extremely unlikely that someone who broke a glass—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey used that example—would be required to leave the centre, and even less likely that that behaviour would be taken into account in their asylum claim. It is almost impossible to imagine that it would. However, if someone failed to live in an accommodation centre and sought employment but it turned out that the employment was set up before the asylum seeker arrived, that may be a relevant consideration to take into account in the asylum claim. That is all that is meant by the wording in the clause. Each case will be taken on its merits; any behaviour consideration must be relevant to the claim, or it cannot be considered. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am glad that the Minister will consider the small drafting point that we made. We look forward to that being easily dealt with.

On the more substantive matter, I hear what the Minister says, but that is not what the Bill permits. I understand her point, but a person's behaviour and whether they comply with the requirements for accommodation should be, and in my view must be by law, separate from the merits of the application. When an adjudication is made on an application, all the information is taken into account in the context of the application. There is no need for any wording in the Bill. There should certainly not be a link back, so that in theory a small breach of a condition of residence, such as coming in late or not coming back one evening, which may have an entirely innocent explanation, could be treated as relevant for the purposes of the person's asylum application. There is nothing to stop that in the law as proposed. In law that is wrong, and it should be taken out. I am happy to talk to civil servants and Ministers about why it should be taken out, and we can obtain legal advice about it, but I am sure that it should go. I hope that, on Report, the Government will agree. If they do not, I give notice that, in this House and in the other place, we will seek to have the provision removed.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Minister has an opportunity to reflect on the matter away from the Committee and before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House.

I shall not press the amendment to a vote. The Minister knows how Opposition Members feel on this issue. I have a sneaking suspicion that she agrees with us. It is a shame that, for the sake of some rather poor advice, she is sticking to this inaccurate wording. If subsection (3) is to remain in the Bill, I urge her to reconsider it, because it is still open to false interpretation, always assuming that Pepper v. Hart prevails and, therefore, that what she has said will be taken into consideration when the Bill is interpreted. It is an unsatisfactory situation. I am sure that the Minister is capable of asserting her authority over parliamentary draftsmen and repairing the matter in her own way. As it is not something that we shall die in a ditch over, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

For the reasons that I gave before, I cannot support the clause. I shall not force a vote now, but I hope that it will come back in a better form on the Floor of the House. If not, we shall oppose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Facilities

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in page 12, line 20, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this we may take the following: Government amendment No. 107.

Amendment No. 184, in page 12, line 29, after 'training', insert

'(which will include education and training in the English language, information technology and business skills)'.

Government amendment No. 108.

Amendment No. 144, in page 12, line 30, after 'medical', insert 'and psychiatric'.

Government amendment No. 109.

Amendment No. 143, in page 12, line 33, at end insert—

'(j) independent legal advice and representation, funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State.'.

Amendment No. 145, in page 12, line 33, at end insert—

'(k) comprehensive interpreting services'.

Amendment No. 183, in page 12, line 33, at end insert—

'(j) adequate leisure and play facilities.'.

Amendment No. 185, in page 12, line 36, after '(1)(b)', insert

'such amount to be no less than 10 per cent. of the relevant income support personal allowance.'.

Amendment No. 186, in page 12, line 37, leave out paragraph (b).

Government amendment No. 115.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

This is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. It merits a serious debate, because so many people across the country involved in asylum and immigration work have expressed views about it. The clause relates to the services and facilities in an accommodation centre, and all that will happen in them.

I want to preface my remarks, Mr. Illsley, by apologising for raising on a previous clause a question that was not relevant at the time. However, it is relevant to this clause, because the accommodation centres will open in due course and the services will be available. Many people are listening to this debate to find out what facilities will be available, when they will open and when an announcement will be made about the chosen sites.

Has a decision been made about the proposed sites? If so, is it to be announced in the next two or three weeks? Will she confirm that no decision will be made or announced until the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament? Otherwise, the Government would be making decisions without the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will want to answer those specific questions.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

To put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest, I can tell him that we have not made decisions on which sites we shall go ahead with. We are considering which sites to submit planning applications for, and that is the beginning of the process. Planning is never a forgone conclusion, as the hon. Gentleman will know. An announcement on which sites we intend to submit planning notifications will be made soon, but no

decision has been taken about individual sites or which sites we shall build on. We are simply looking at sites on which planning applications can be submitted.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

That is helpful. The Committee and others outside will want to know what the Minister undoubtedly knows: which sites will the Government nominate as sites for which they wish to apply for planning? Can she specifically answer that during the debate?

Amendment No. 142 is the important amendment, but I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 144, 143 and 145 as well. The clause reads:

''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident''.

Amendment No. 142 provides that the Government ''shall'' instead of ''may''.

People in the accommodation centres will often come from a difficult and vulnerable background. Many will have undertaken long and hazardous journeys. They will come to centres where they are likely to live, sometimes with their families, for a period which, according to the Minister, could be four months. The first few days and the first two or three weeks of an asylum applicant's life in this country are terribly important, and it is vital that the fullest possible range of services is provided to the applicant and his or her family at the earliest opportunity. While we welcome a number of the services proposed, we strongly believe that it should be a duty on the Secretary of State to arrange for them to be provided. It should not simply be a possibility—something that the Secretary of State may do—because that gives the Secretary of State freedom to provide some services in one accommodation centre and others or fewer in another. My hon. Friends and I believe that there is a need to provide the services, and the Bill would be much better phrased if it placed a duty on the Secretary of State. As the Minister will say, in due course, that services will be provided, why does the Bill not say that they will be provided, rather than

''The Secretary of State may arrange''?

If the Minister has doubts about whether they will be provided, she should say so. However, if she is in no doubt about their provision, the Bill should say that the Secretary of State shall arrange for them to be provided.

What is not included in the list that should be there? First and most important, there should be on-site, independent legal advice and representation, funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State. I have been to Oakington, as have some of my colleagues. The Immigration Advisory Service offers full legal representation on that site. The Refugee Council or the Refugee Legal Centre—forgive me, I know which it is but it has escaped my mind—is also there in great number. I believe that there are 54 caseworkers from the Immigration Advisory Service.

What happens at Oakington? Admittedly, there are different types of cases, because some are said to be easier to determine. However, the reality is that as

soon as someone arrives, they receive legal advice on the site. That must apply to accommodation centres as well. Goodness knows, every non-governmental organisation involved in asylum or immigration work and everyone that is interested in the subject agrees that access to legal advice at the earliest possible stage is absolutely vital. We will come on to that when we discuss induction centres.

Clearly, there should be a duty on the Home Secretary to provide legal advice and representation on site—not somewhere else—for asylum seekers. Why? According to the Government, the purpose of an accommodation centre is to have a smooth, speedy, satisfactory, humane and efficient resolution of an asylum application. Therefore, it must be right to offer on-the-spot legal advice as part of the operation.

I have seen it written down in Home Office documents and I have heard the Home Secretary and the Minister say that the Government intend to provide legal advice and assistance at or sufficiently near accommodation centres. If that is the case, why are they omitted from the Bill? The Bill says:

''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following'',

and lists food, money, assistance with transport, education and training, medical facilities, facilities for religious observance and

''anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for a person because of his exceptional circumstances.''

Why are the classically important legal advice and assistance not included? They should be.

I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment. Many outside the House support it, and it is wholly supported by my hon. Friends and I, and, I believe, by the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Back Benchers who know the importance of immediate legal advice and agree that its presence on site at an accommodation centre is critical. If an accommodation centre is located in a rural location, let us not be told that legal advice is available miles away. Let us not be told that transportation facilities are not too bad if an asylum seeker wishes to travel for an hour or two to get advice. Let us not be told that there are local lawyers prepared to give advice if someone is seeking it. Let us be told that the Government will offer legal advice on site.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but this seems a good time to suspend the Committee until 5 pm.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. You have missed a most interesting session. We are now debating amendment No. 142 and its group, under the very important clause 25. I had concluded my remarks on amendment No. 142, urging the Minister to accept ''shall'' instead of ''may'', and almost concluded my remarks on the absolute need to have independent legal advice and representation,

funded by the Legal Services Commission or by the Secretary of State, present on site.

The Government may make a planning application in respect of a rural site. I am anxious to draw observations from the Minister on that when she replies. What will happen if the site at Bicester or, more accurately, the village of Piddington, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)? I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to tell us, if she knows, whether that rural site has been selected as one in respect of which an application will be made. If she does not know that, I am sure that she will be prepared to tell us that she does not know, and silence from her on the point would indicate a complete absence of knowledge. If I am wrong, I am sure that she will tell us at some stage of the debate. If an application were made for that site, any legal advice would be miles away. The closest proper legal advice—for want of a better phrase—would be in Oxford, where legal services are already heavily overstrained because of demand. All the more reason, therefore, to say that legal advice must be present on site.

I shall speak to two other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 144 would add ''psychiatric''. If the Minister tells me that the phrase ''medical facilities'' includes psychiatric services, I shall be entirely content. In reality, as she well knows, many people who claim asylum are heavily traumatised, not least the youngsters, after the most horrific experiences. The presence of those services on site is most important.

Comprehensive interpreting services are also important. I think that I have seen several references to them. If we are to have the one-stop shop, which I think is so important, at accommodation centres, every relevant service must be on site. The Minister's hope that the applicant will remain on site only for a brief time could then become reality. The converse would be the case were those services not on site, especially in a rural accommodation centre, where people would have to travel long distances to get the services, and the efficiency that the Minister seeks would not be found.

I believe that the Minister should take on board my amendments to change the wording to ''shall'', to provide ''independent legal advice'' and to add ''psychiatric'' services and ''comprehensive interpreting services''.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. I happily support amendments Nos. 142, 144, 143 and 145 in the name of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam. I also speak to amendments Nos. 184, 183, 185 and 186 that stand only in my name and that of my colleague.

My first and substantive point is one that comes up often when debating legislation but is no less important for that. Government draftspeople, the famous and oft-referred-to Government draftsmen and draftswomen, always provide the Government with opt outs. They always use the wording that Secretaries of State ''may'' do something, and then

Ministers come to the Dispatch Box or to Committee and say that the Government intend to do that, but they will not agree to write it into the Bill. That is common, and the fact that we have been round this course before does not make it any more justifiable.

Although I understand where the Government are starting from, there is no excuse in this case—it is one of the strongest that I have been aware of recently—and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment so that, instead of an option, they have an obligation. Again, I give notice that if we do not get obligations in Committee, we are pretty likely to get them at another stage of the proceedings, before we finish discussing the Bill. It would be easier to concede earlier—and gracefully—rather than later.

One reason why many of the services that should be provided for residents in accommodation centres should be described as ''shall'' obligations and not ''may'' options is that the White Paper clearly said:

''Services, including health care, education, interpretation and opportunities for purposeful activities will also be provided for''—

not ''may'' be provided for.

The White Paper continued, in paragraph 4.36:

''Accommodation Centre residents will have access to legal advice''—

not ''may'' or ''might'' have access to legal advice.

On 7 February 2002, the Secretary of State said:

''Yes, legal advice will be available in the accommodation centres.''—[Official Report, 7 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 1031.]

He did not say that it ''may'' be available in the accommodation centres. Lord Rooker, on the same day, giving a statement in the Lords, said:

''The centres will offer education, healthcare and legal and interpreting services.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 743.]

I do not think that we disagree on the core issues. The Government made those points very clearly in the White Paper and in both Houses on the same day. I therefore hope that that can be easily agreed.

The hon. Member for Woking argued for some additional services, which we support. The Minister may say that psychiatric services are covered by the word ''medical''. I suppose that, on a wide interpretation, they could be so described, but we have flagged this up because many asylum seekers have severe psychiatric problems, as all members of the Committee know. I think that I am right in saying that, for very understandable reasons, such problems are more common in that group than in any other group in the community. Dealing with mental health is as important as dealing with physical health.

It is clear that there must be independent legal advice and representation. Experience shows that the sooner people get that the better. To be honest, bad applications require much more undoing later than good ones. People have experience, so will make applications as has been suggested, which I hope will be acceptable. Comprehensive interpreting services must also be available, otherwise no one will get off home base.

The additional matters covered by the amendments that my hon. Friend and I tabled include an amplification of how training is defined. I accept that amendment No. 184 is a probing amendment, but it picks up the point that the hon. Member for Walthamstow and I have now made twice in this Committee, which had all-party support. From the beginning, adults should be trained in the English language and in information technology and business skills, which are the two other most useful skills people should have, whatever their background or prospects.

Amendment No. 183 would include

''adequate leisure and play facilities.''

I learned a long time ago that play facilities are as important for youngsters as education. Good play facilities, particularly for younger children, are hugely important. There needs to be space for them to play.

Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 are different in nature. Amendment No. 185 would add

''such amount to be no less than 10 per cent. of the relevant income support personal allowance.''

after line 36, which deals with the provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the amount of pocket money that can be provided. The Minister, in her previous incarnation at the Department of Social Security, will remember earlier debates during this Parliament on that issue. She will be aware that it is most important to ensure that people in this country temporarily are given a minimum income, so that basic income levels are guaranteed. The Bill provides for some pocket money to be available to residents. The amendment is designed to flush out from the Government the amount that is being considered. We have chosen an amount that is 10 per cent. of what is thought to be the basic minimum allowance necessary. The amendment is a probing one, and the sooner we can see the regulations the better.

We have attempted to remove subsection 2(b). At the moment, it would permit the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the manager to decide what the pocket money levels should be. We believe that that matter should be dealt with on a common basis throughout the country. Living costs are different in different parts of the country. However, we are not talking about living costs but pocket money. I do not think that the differences are such that we need delegated responsibility. I am all in favour of delegated responsibility, but it strikes me that, for people who will be in a limited environment for a limited period, it would be very unfair if a common amount of pocket money were not given.

However, there is a more important point that I am alert to, and I suspect that Ministers have spotted it. There could be a conflict of interest. Managers of accommodation centres might hold a budget. The centres may be, as I would wish, entirely in the public sector with public sector employees. It would be much worse if they were not in the public sector and run by those working a profit-based operation. In that instance, the Home Office could pay a fixed sum to a private contractor to run the service and to run the accommodation centre. There would be an incentive

for those running the centre to keep the amount of money they paid out as small as possible.

In that case, there is a serious issue of public policy at a second level, as well as the obvious one about unfairness across the system. Whether a person is sent to an accommodation centre in Edinburgh, Wales or Grimsby, they need to know that a standard amount of pocket money will be paid, otherwise the process would be unfair. I hope that the amendments will be supported in principle even if the drafting has to be amended at a later stage.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The amendments cover the whole range of provision in accommodation centres. I hope that Opposition Members will work from the premise that we have taken powers to provide what we need to fund. The list in subsection (1) includes provisions that the Home Office will be funding, and needs to take statutory powers to fund. It does not include those provisions for which a statutory power to fund already exists in other legislation. That is the explanation for the non-appearance of legal services in that list. There is no doubt whatever that legal services will be freely available in accommodation centres as required. In the trials, we would certainly want to develop co-located services or access to services, so that visitors would come to the accommodation centre to provide services, rather than individuals leaving the centres to get legal services.

We do not need to include legal services in the list, because the vast bulk of them are funded not by the Home Office, but by the Legal Services Commission, which already has the power to do so. There is no intention that commission funding should not apply to accommodation centres, as it already applies to other measures. That explains why legal services are not in the list.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Does the Home Office fund the Immigration Advisory Service?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Yes, but there are moves to shift the funding of such organisations away from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that there is no perceived conflict of interest in the Home Office running a system and funding legal advice to the people in it.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Like Oakington.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Well, there are people who believe that Home Office funding for such things is odd, and raises issues of independence and potential conflicts of interest.

Under section 81 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Home Office grants funds to the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service. Clause 87 provides an equivalent power as regards those with a right of appeal under part 5, subject to geographical constraints. It would certainly be open to accommodation centre residents who are appellants to access advice, and we intend to provide it. Legal advice is not in the list simply because it will be funded not by the Home Office but by the Legal Services Commission, which comes under the Lord Chancellor's Department. The list deals with those

services over which we will have to take explicit new powers in primary legislation if we are to fund them; it is not an exhaustive list of what we intend to provide in accommodation centres.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Is the Minister saying that legal services are not in the list because the Home Office will not provide the funding? If so, what does she say to the point that the Home Office funds the Immigration Advisory Service, which is present at Oakington? Will it not be present and funded at accommodation centres?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Clause 25 refers to what will be done at accommodation centres, not to the rest of the system, which is regulated by the 1999 Act. I have just mentioned the provision in the Act that gives the Home Office the right to fund the Refugee Legal Service and any other services at Oakington.

Clause 25 refers to a new creation—accommodation centres. We intend that such centres will have legal advice providers and that the Legal Services Commission will provide and pay for that advice. Legal advice was omitted from the list because it will be funded by the commission, not the Home Office—that is the innocent explanation. The list deals with the new powers that we want to take to fund new provisions, and accommodation centres will be new. The Government do not intend to leave people in such centres, which may be in semi-rural areas, starved of access to legal advice—that is simply not on our radar.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I completely understand the Minister's argument, but the drafting is still flawed in two respects. The clause states:

''The Secretary of State may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident''.

It therefore facilitates the provision of the service, but also indirectly gives residents an entitlement. If arranging and providing services that are not Home Office obligations is to be a Government obligation, there must presumably be a statutory provision somewhere, even if that affects another Department. I understand that.

My question, in passing, because I am ignorant about such things, is why are three sections in italics, but not the rest?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

On the italics point, I have absolutely no idea. On the other question, there are general powers that allow us to provide services as and when they are useful to everyone concerned. That brings me to another of the hon. Gentleman's worries—interpreters. We do not specifically allow for the funding of interpreters in any part of the system, but we have sufficient statutory cover to do that, and we believe that it assists the process for all concerned, although it is not referred to in the Bill. Just because something is not listed in the Bill does not mean that it is not provided. Interpretation services are a prime example of that.

The answer to the question from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about italics is that sections in italics need money resolutions. I now want to deal with this large group of amendments as

quickly as possible to facilitate the Committee's progress.

Amendment No. 142 would place a duty on us to provide all the facilities listed in clause 25 to residents of accommodation centres, but there is no equivalent duty to provide such services to those who are in dispersal accommodation and in accommodation under the 1999 Act. That would be slightly odd. We are committed to supporting destitute asylum seekers and to providing an appropriate range of services to residents of accommodation centres. We have powers to provide basic living needs and a small cash allowance, education for children on site, primary health care, purposeful activities for adults, including English language training, facilities for religious observance, interpretation facilities, assistance with the initial journey to the centre, travel to appeal hearings and asylum interviews and access to legal advice. All those things will be provided, but as Opposition Members will see, not all of them is included in the list.

Government amendment No. 107 is necessary to make it clear that the Secretary of State may fund transport to asylum interviews at which the person's presence has been requested by the immigration and nationality department. Without the amendment, clause 25(1)(c) may have only enabled the Secretary of State to fund travel to appeal hearings or other proceedings mentioned specifically in the 1999 Act. The amendment will allow us to fund other necessary trips that are not related to formal hearings. I hope that hon. Members will see that that is a beneficial change.

Amendment No. 184 is unnecessary because the powers in clause 25 are sufficiently wide to enable us to provide the items that it suggests, and more. We intend to offer asylum seekers access to training in English language and IT skills, because they are transferable skills, which will be useful here or back in the asylum seeker's country of origin, if their claim fails. It is right that asylum seekers should use their time in the United Kingdom productively. However, we do not want to be constrained by that list. As this is a trial, it may become obvious that we could also do other things, and the powers in clause 25 will allow us wider discretion than the amendment would. We shall work with the Department for Education and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council on offering training in English to speakers of other languages and other training provision in accommodation centres. As we are fairly close, at least in spirit, on that issue, I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will not press that amendment.

I hope that Government amendment No. 108 will alleviate the problems that the hon. Member for Woking has with the provision, which caused him to table amendment No. 144. The hon. Gentleman referred to psychiatric health issues. Amendment No. 108 widens the scope of the provision from purely medical facilities to health facilities. The Oxford English Dictionary defines medical as pertaining to the science or practice of medicine in general or

pertaining to medicine as opposed to surgery. That was not quite what we had in mind, whereas health is defined much more widely and could include psychiatric difficulties. In view of that, we consider that ''facilities relating to health'' will better reflect the health care that we want to be able to provide in accommodation centres. With that assurance, I hope that amendment No. 144 will not be pressed.

I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's views on legal advice. The other issue that he raised was whether we should use ''shall'' rather than ''may.'' We are using ''may'', not because we want to wriggle out of providing the items in the list as provisions in accommodation centres, but because we are conducting a trial and may want to add other things. ''Shall'' is too limiting at the trial stage, but we have no intention of wriggling out of the list and providing an accommodation centre with beds and no other facilities. That would make no sense.

As for amendment No. 145, the hon. Member for Woking wants to create an explicit power to provide interpretation. The Home Office routinely provides interpretation, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in statue that we have that direct power to do so. Clearly, the provision of interpretation enables us to conduct our day-to-day business more effectively, including the functions under the immigration legislation. We considered whether we needed to take an express power to provide interpreters, but concluded that it was unnecessary. Its absence from the list does not mean that we do not intend to provide it.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey tabled amendment No. 183, wanting to provide leisure facilities. I hope that he will consider Government amendment No. 109, which enables us to provide leisure and recreational facilities in so far as they are necessary to provide proper occupation and maintain good order. That is a wide enabling power, which allows us to provide wider services than the explicit ones mentioned in his amendment. I hope that he agrees that there is no particular difference between our provisions and will not press his amendment to a Division.

With regard to amendments Nos. 185 and 180 and the 10 per cent. of income support that the hon. Gentleman proposes, we have not decided exactly how large to make the cash allowance. We are thinking about a range of £5 to £14, but no final decisions have been made. That is a similar range to the one that the 10 per cent. of income support would provide. I would not want to be committed to a percentage of income support, but the hon. Gentleman may be reassured by the range that I have given. Government amendment No. 115 corrects a misprint, and we do not need to be detained by it.

Given all those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will withdraw the amendment and that hon. Members will support the Government amendments.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Responding to the Minister, I shall work backwards up the list. In relation to the pocket money amendments, I think that she accepts the

principle, but she neglected to deal with whether the responsibility should be central or delegated. I shall return to that matter in a moment, before the hon. Member for Woking speaks. As she seems to accept the principle of the 10 per cent. income support level, it would be helpful if the Government would come to a firm decision on that before the next stage of the Bill.

I am not convinced that Government amendment No. 109 exactly covers the leisure and play proposal, but my amendment was only a probing amendment. The amendment seems simply to allow the Government to decide nearer the time what might be appropriate, but is a bit opaque and difficult to read in advance, so it does have a weakness.

The substantive points made under the group of amendments related to the contents of the list and the ''may'' and ''shall'' debate. With regard to the contents of the list, the Government's arguments remain problematic in several respects. First, the reason why accommodation centres have a list at all—even if trialled—when people in dispersal do not, is because those who go into accommodation centres will be made to do so. They will not have a choice about that. It is my understanding that the state, having told those people where they must go, must make proposals through Parliament about the facilities for those people. That being the case, whatever we collectively agree is necessary should be in the list. The Minister is right to say that that is different from the set of 17, six or five criteria on the list for dispersal. By definition, and with the best will in the world, it may be impossible to tack all the criteria on to dispersal, given all the places to which people are dispersed. The logic is different.

I should mention that we were grateful for the explanation of why the criteria are listed in and out of italics. I have seen that format in other Bills. I must have been given an explanation before and subliminally remembered it, but had actually forgotten it. If all the criteria listed are meant to be provided by the Government, there is no harm—indeed, there is benefit—in their being listed.

In parenthesis, I accept the Minister's response about what education and training should be provided. The knowledge that English language and IT will be provided, and that other things may be, seems a good starting point. I do not want to dispute that with her.

I shall move on to the question of ''shall'' or ''may'' in relation to legal services. I understand the Minister's point about facilities being available for the Government to fund and provide legal services. I do not predict how the hon. Member for Woking will respond, but I think that it will seem to him as well as me that anyone who wants to know about interpretation, legal advice and assistance should be able to find them in the legislation in the same list as all the other criteria. Also, they must be guaranteed to the same level.

I understand that a different Department may be primarily responsible, as legal services are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department,

not of the Home Office. However, I ask the Minister to reflect on my point. The inclusion of those criteria is important for us, as it would guarantee the certainty of legal representation and the asylum claim being properly considered. That is the big issue on which all the others depend.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

Would the hon. Gentleman like to think about the level at which decisions might be taken on whether provision should be made in a specific centre? Are we to expect that to be done at the top of the Legal Services Commission, or on a more regional basis? I would feel more reassured if I knew that it would be done centrally.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is a good point. I will not repeat it, but I endorse it. There must be common standards for the small number of places trialled around the country. We would all want that to be assured, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's point is picked up.

Although the Minister dealt with other arguments, she did not tackle the fact that we all know the difference between saying that the Secretary of State ''may'' or ''shall'' do something. If one says ''may'' and the service is not provided, there is no legal remedy. If one says ''shall'', there is a legal remedy. The Government should say that they will provide basic requirements for anyone in the country, especially those whose asylum cases are being processed. The wording should therefore use ''shall'', and there should be consequential legal remedy if those requirements are not provided.

That might change the nature of the list, but the list should reflect what is needed. I hope that Ministers think about that, but my colleagues and I, the hon. Member for Woking and his colleagues, and some Back Benchers from the Labour party and other parties may want to push the Government further on it, either today or downstairs sometime. I hope that we can make progress. As in all things, the quicker we reach agreement, the fewer debates we shall need to have on the same subject on later stages of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I must say that I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I am not alone: to judge from their faces, several of her colleagues are disappointed as well, but perhaps I misjudge them.

To return to the question that I put to the Minister, we were talking about legal advice and the fact that the Government were shortly to announce that they proposed to make a planning application in relation to the land at Bicester. I asked the Minister specifically whether she or any of her colleagues could enlighten us about that, and whether she or they had any knowledge of such an announcement about such a site. I asked whether she could respond. She has not responded.

The Minister will understand that if an announcement is made during the next week or two, while the Bill is in Committee or in the other place, many of us would regard it as an affront to the parliamentary system. The Government should not proceed without full consultation while the debate is still in full flow. We shall have to wait and see. Perhaps the Minister is silent because there is nothing—repeat,

nothing—she can tell us because she simply does not know. That is the fairest explanation. I cannot think that, knowing something, she would remain firmly seated and fail to tell us. She has remained so seated—until now. I give way to the hon. Lady.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I made a statement a while ago that an announcement would be made shortly about a move to proceed to make planning applications in some of the areas mentioned in the list. There will be no move to build accommodation centres ahead of Royal Assent to the Bill, and he knows very well why that is the case. We expect to make an announcement on moves to proceed toward making planning applications; it is only the beginning of the process.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I have never heard anything like that in my life—the Minister will not tell us. That is an insult to us all, because we are debating the location of accommodation centres, we debated their size earlier, and more debates are to come in the other place, and on Report and Third Reading. If our understanding that the Government are going to make an application in respect of some of those sites is correct, it suggests that they have made up their mind. I specifically asked, as an example, if the site at Bicester, which is very rural, would be among them and thus relevant to the clause, but the Minister clearly does not know. If she did know, she would say so. I leave it at that.

I said that I was disappointed about that, but I am disappointed also that the Minister is not willing to include in the Bill the sensible provision that independent legal advice and representation should be provided and funded by the Legal Services Commission or the Secretary of State. All hon. Members should make a visit to the Oakington centre, because it is well run: there are 54 case workers from the Refugee Legal Centre on site, and another 54 from the Immigration Advisory Service. One goes as an asylum applicant to Oakington, and what happens next? As I understand it, one is immediately—within a day—advised by competent legal advisers. A high and consistent standard of advice is a good thing, which rather suggests that the RLC and the IAS should be present at all such centres, because that would result in a consistently high quality of advice. Advice pursuant to the Legal Services Commission might not be as consistent; that point was made earlier.

Oakington works well at least in part because advice is given on the spot. The Minister's reasoning for not including that provision in the Bill worries us, as legal advice is often much more important than many of the other facilities that are provided under the Bill. Indeed, it is almost the most important service, and the Minister's reason for not including it in the Bill worries us, especially as she insists on keeping in the Bill the provision that it ''may'' be provided rather than that it ''shall'' be provided. I feel strongly that such advice should be available.

As I understand it, the Government, through the Home Office, fund the Immigration Advisory Service. As for the Minister's concern about the fact that the

Government pay those who provide the advice so that there is some sensitivity and difficulty about independence and conflict of interest, that is complete nonsense; it has not been raised in years. The IAS, like other bodies, operates entirely independently, so the Minister's point is spurious. As for the Legal Services Commission, I understand that it does not have to provide legal services; it will be up to the whim of the local regional manager, so there is no guarantee of legal services from that source.

Why will the Minister not have the provision in the Bill? I believe that many Committee members share my view. We are disappointed that a wide range of sensible amendments is being batted back to us by the Government without being taken on board or even taken away for serious consideration. Although the Minister was very unkind about non-governmental organisations a day or two ago, they are united in their view that the provision on independent legal advice and representation should be in the Bill.

Gwyn Prosser (Labour, Dover)

Is not the legal support at Oakington present there without any legal force and without statutory need? We have an induction centre in Dover that receives an enormous amount of support without anything appearing in any Bill.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

There are many places where legal advice is present without its being in a Bill. Talking of the induction centre at Dover, following the announcement that it was up and running I rang the Home Office and asked whether I could visit it. The answer was that it did not quite exist as a place; it was a function. I asked whether I could visit it anyway, given that the Government said that it was up and running, only to be told that it could not be visited because it was not a place. The hon. Gentleman will know much more about his constituency than I do, but that is what I was told.

Gwyn Prosser (Labour, Dover)

If the hon. Gentleman comes to Dover as soon as possible, I shall take him round the induction centre and the accommodation centre that supports it.Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman, who has a fine reputation for his work in the field, has offered me an invitation that I take up gladly. I hope that we shall enjoy a good and successful visit as soon as possible. [Interruption.] I hear next Tuesday being suggested; I cannot think of a better day to do it.

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

Take the whole Committee with you.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.