Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Public Bill Committee, 14 May 2002.

Standing Committee E

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. The Minister will recall several prolonged exchanges last Thursday about possible sites for accommodation centres. I asked whether a decision had been taken, and if so, whether it would be announced in the next two or three weeks. I told her that it was important that no decision be taken or announced until both Houses had passed the Bill. She said that the Government had not yet decided the sites. She said:

''We are considering which sites to submit planning applications for . . . An announcement on which sites we intend to submit planning notifications will be made soon, but no decision has been taken about individual sites''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 9 May 2002; c. 165.]

I was keen that members of the Committee should be the first to know about the sites. I told her that she would understand that many of us would regard it as an affront to the parliamentary system if an announcement were made during the next week or two while the Bill was in Committee or in the other place. She said that there was nothing more she could tell us and used the word ''soon''.

We were therefore surprised to read in The Independent on Sunday that:

''Ministers are to build one of three ''villages'' for asylum-seekers on a site where thousands of foot-and-mouth carcasses were buried.''

It said that a location at Throckmorton airfield in Worcestershire

''was chosen from a shortlist of eight.''

There was also an article in the Sunday Express. It seems to my hon. Friends and me that the Minister should have told us if she knew last Thursday that planning applications would be made for particular sites. The question arises whether she failed to tell us about something that she was aware of then. Is an announcement due to be made today in parliamentary questions? If so, it would have been courteous to tell us days ago when the information was available.

Would it not be proper for the Minister to let the Committee know the up-to-date position and, if necessary—it is a matter for her to decide—to apologise if she failed to tell us last Thursday something that she knew then? If she did not, that is the end of the matter. If she did, it would help us to know why the Committee was not the first to be informed. Eight sites are mentioned on the internet, including Pershore, Worcestershire; land vacated at Bicester, Oxfordshire; and RAF Newton at West Bridgeford, Nottinghamshire. Are those the three sites proposed for planning applications?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I call Angela Eagle.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I am happy to respond and would have done so in timely fashion this afternoon in the Chamber at 3.30 pm. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that letters were to be sent to members of the Committee to make the parliamentary answer available simultaneously at 3.30. As he pointed out, however, the information was leaked in the media this morning, so I shall place the information before the Committee ahead of the forthcoming parliamentary answer. I should also stress that no decision to proceed on any site has been taken. As I said on Thursday, that will not happen before Royal Assent.

Here is the announcement to be made to Parliament at 3.30 pm. The question is:

''To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the sites on which he will seek planning permission for Accommodation Centres?''.

The answer is:

''We will be submitting planning notifications in respect of DSDC Bicester, RAF Newton and QinetiQ Pershore as soon as possible. The notifications will be submitted using the ordinary procedure of Circular 18/84. Consultation with the relevant local authorities will continue, including public meetings.

Further work is required on the sites at Air West Edinburgh, Sully Hospital (Glamorgan) and Hemswell Cliff (Lincolnshire) before a decision can be taken on whether to proceed to planning notifications.

The sites at Hooton Park (Ellesmere Port) and Killingholme (North Lincolnshire) are considered to be unsuitable for the siting of Accommodation Centres. No planning notifications will be submitted in respect of those sites.

Site searching has continued since we made our initial announcement, as we said it would. In addition to the sites we have identified ourselves, a number have been put forward by potential bidders. We will not be putting into the public domain details of such sites unless and until they are considered to be a serious prospect for the siting of an Accommodation Centre.''

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Illsley. I am grateful to the Minister, but will she answer these specific questions? When was that question tabled?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Technically, that is not a point of order for the Chair. Any further questions arising from the Minister's statement to the Committee must continue through debate. The information given by Ministers to Committees does not constitute a point of order. It is inappropriate for the hon. Gentleman to continue questions on that basis.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Illsley. I perfectly understand your ruling, but is it appropriate for you to ask the Minister whether her comment last Thursday that she was considering which sites to submit planning applications for was wholly accurate, or whether a decision had already been taken? Will you direct her to respond, because the Committee may have been kept inadvertently in the dark and a decision already taken even though she said that it had not?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

It is not within my power to direct the Minister to provide the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks, though I am sure that she has heard what he said and some of the issues may be cleared up later today or in future proceedings.

Clause 34 - Asylum-seeker: form of support

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 207, in page 17, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).

My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) gives his apologies for not being present this morning. He is speaking at the Police Federation conference, but has assured me that he will join us this afternoon.

The amendment is designed to tease out the Government's intentions on cash only support. During proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and ever since we have expressed our concerns about the support system for asylum seekers, which we believe fails in two respects: it has not been the most appropriate form of support for the asylum seekers themselves, and it has not been good value for money.

The clause, unamended, potentially replicates both those mistakes. It enables the Secretary the State to provide support for the living needs only of those people held within accommodation under the national asylum support system and effectively removes his ability to support individuals who have found accommodation elsewhere, usually with friends and family. That option should be retained because a significant number of individuals have found accommodation with host communities that they either knew before they came to the United Kingdom or have got to know since. The additional cash support is an important element in sustaining that.

We recognise the Government's concern that this is in some ways contrary to their dispersal strategy. They want to be able to say where asylum seekers should end up. Clearly, the cash only option allows asylum seekers to decide where they end up. They can choose to live with a particular family rather than in the accommodation to which they have been directed. We believe that the dispersal programme in general is still compatible with the cash only support system. According to the Refugee Council cash only support applications used to be almost entirely in the Greater London area but individuals are now claiming that support while living with host communities elsewhere.

Clearly, the system is not confining asylum seekers to the south-east, but it still has some way to go. It was introduced relatively recently and we do not know how it will develop over time. I certainly see individuals in Sheffield from the Somali community. Somali asylum seekers may well choose to live with the established Somali community there. That would be quite a sensible option for them and the cash only support system may allow that to happen. We need to recognise that individuals may choose to live with families and friends in established communities. Many of those established communities are in London and the south-east, but not all of them. The Government may wish to control where asylum seekers live in order to carry out their immigration functions. We believe that the reporting arrangements in the Bill and other legislation are sufficient to enable them to carry out

their function of tracking asylum seekers without having to dictate precisely where they live and allowing them some flexibility to make those decisions themselves.

We fear that if the Government proceed with the withdrawal of the cash only system immediately it may lead to more family separation. Without the additional cash contribution, families who may have recently established themselves in the United Kingdom or may still be going through some form of immigration procedure may be unable to look after another family member who wishes to stay with them. The new arrival will end up in National Asylum Support Service accommodation rather than with the family with whom they should be. In view of article 8 of the European convention on human rights and the right to family life, is it right for an individual who is in the UK and who has family members here to be disbarred financially from living with that family?

The cost question is significant. At present a single adult in the age band from 18 to 25 receives £29.89 per week in cash vouchers. That is clearly far less than providing accommodation in an accommodation centre, or indeed through the full package of benefits. We have to question the Government's motives in apparently wanting to close down a cheaper option whereby an individual provides for himself in his own community and receives what is effectively a small cash payment. Why introduce a policy that discourages that and instead directs people into a much more expensive option? Does that make sense?

We must also question the capacity of the support system if the 6,000-odd individuals who get voucher only support are directed back into the mainstream system. Do we have the ability to cope with that, given that there have been difficulties negotiating support packages for many asylum seekers throughout the country? The local authority in my constituency works as well as it can with the national support system but it is not a trivial task to find an extra 6,000 units of accommodation.

What happens if cash only support is withdrawn and significant numbers of individuals will not allow themselves to be diverted into the more expensive system but stay where they are without the cash support? Do the Government really intend that the host families and communities should pick up the entire tab? I accept that asylum seekers will have made the choice to stay there, but often the host communities are not at the top of the income tree and the people involved are already on fairly low incomes. Is it really intended to force individuals to make a choice between living with family and friends, being a burden on them, making them even poorer and perhaps creating additional social tensions as a result of that poverty, or living many miles away from those with whom they feel associated, simply for financial reasons? That is an invidious choice.

I hope that the Government will reconsider their view on the issue and keep open the additional option. The Bill as drafted does not state that it will be

withdrawn tomorrow, but there is a clear intention in the White Paper and the Bill that it will be withdrawn over time. We ask the Government to reconsider that intention, and to take note of our criticisms and the potential problems to which we have drawn attention that will result from the withdrawal of the additional flexibility.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The possible withdrawal of the support only option is highly significant. Some respected non-governmental organisations, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Refugee Council, the Law Society, Justice, the Refugee Legal Centre, the Refugee Children's Consortium, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the Immigration Advisory Service, have drawn attention to it in briefings. There could not be a more comprehensive or authoritative list of NGOs, all of which are worried about the proposal.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to make an order restricting the provision of essential living needs to those asylum seekers provided with accommodation by the Secretary of State, which seems to compel asylum seekers to accept dispersal. Taken as a whole, the clause would abolish the current option of applying for, and receiving, National Asylum Support Service subsistence support only, that is, without receiving NASS-provided accommodation on dispersal. The NGOs consider that unfair, unjust and counter-productive. In some cases, it could result in the undesirable separation of asylum seekers from friends or relatives able to accommodate them but not to support them financially, causing unnecessary distress to the asylum seekers concerned and increased accommodation costs to NASS.

In other cases, the provision could result in the denial of all welfare support to those asylum seekers who, for understandable reasons, prefer to stay with friends or relatives rather than being dispersed. For example, NASS does not make special provision for disabled asylum seekers, or those suffering severe illness. Citizens advice bureaux have reported being approached by individuals wanting to remain with friends or relatives rather than being dispersed. Nearly 40 per cent. of more than 65,000 asylum seekers and dependants currently supported by NASS have opted to receive subsistence support only. Accordingly, the number of individuals who would be adversely affected by the provision is substantial.

Justice is only one of the groups to have raised the issue. It said:

''Where it is possible for applicants to remain in the community they should not be prevented from doing so''.

I hope that the Government will be able to respond helpfully.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I understand hon. Members' concerns, but we believe that taking a power to end the provision of subsistence only support in all cases is wholly consistent with our approach of developing a more managed asylum policy and better ways of keeping contact with asylum seekers during the process. That will facilitate speedier consideration and lead to what all Committee members have said that they want—a more effective end-to-end process

for those who apply for asylum. We have made it clear that if the pilots work and accommodation centres prove to be a great success, we may bring an end to the dispersal system. If that happens, we intend to offer support only in those accommodation centres. The Bill is drafted for not only the pilot but any potential result of the pilot, which may see the emergence of a new system. That is partially what the clause is about.

Under current arrangements, asylum seekers may stay with friends or relatives and claim support to cover essential living needs. However, in such cases we have no control over where they live, which makes it difficult to maintain contact. Large numbers of those who take up cash only support remain in London and the south-east. As of December 2001, 17,000 of the 25,000-plus asylum seekers taking subsistence only support were living in London, which is 70 per cent. That frustrates the dispersal process, whatever the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) says.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I understand the point about keeping track of asylum seekers, but will the Government consider tabling an amendment on Report to grant the facility provided that the Secretary of State knows the address and the person continues to reside there throughout the process?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We want the enabling power in clause 34 to create the potential to move away from cash only support, but it is not our immediate intention. We would not do it next week, and it would not make sense to do it until we had managed to regionalise NASS, if we are dealing with the current dispersal system, and we had in place more effective mechanisms for reporting, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned. Although I cannot tell the Committee when it will be, we foresee a time, if the reporting system is running properly and accommodation centres are working effectively, when we may wish to cut off the cash only option.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Will the Minister clarify whether, under the current arrangements, when people want to stay in London or the south-east with family or friends—the 17,000 she mentioned—we simply withdraw cash only support and there is no power to force them to disperse? Do they simply live without the £29-odd coming into that family unit?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

People are expected to co-operate with the asylum process. The only people who can apply to NASS for support—including the 17,000 who have chosen to frustrate the dispersal process and remain in London—are those who are destitute. If they decide that they do not want to apply for NASS support, or are not destitute and can afford to choose where to live, they move out of the system and are not offered NASS support.

There may be a point in the future—when reporting is up and running, accommodation centres are more often used than now or we wish to make dispersal more effective—when the power allows us to decide not to have a cash only option. We are nowhere near that point, but the provision will allow us to move that way as the system evolves. In deciding whether and when to exercise the power, we must consider all relevant factors. Some will be administrative and some

will relate to how our systems have developed to facilitate more effective dispersal or use of accommodation centres. Of course, we also have to consider our obligations under the European convention on human rights.

We anticipate that any increase in accommodation costs as a result of withdrawing cash only support would be offset by savings delivered elsewhere by a more effective asylum system. We would not wish to move towards the cut-off of choice if we were not convinced that we could cope administratively with its effects. We cannot accept the amendment because it would take away our power to switch off cash only support, but I hope that I have given the Committee some idea of the Government's thinking on the use of this enabling power.

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

I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I remain concerned about the provision. I understand that the intention is not to implement it immediately, but I am concerned about her description of people who take the support only option as having chosen to ''frustrate the dispersal process''. I should be grateful if she would provide evidence of that. I believe that the motivation of the overwhelming majority of people who take the support only option is to remain with family and friends in particular communities. Let us not attribute to them a negative motivation that is undermining policy.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I was talking about the effect of the choice and not saying that individuals were deliberately choosing to frustrate the process. Of the 40 per cent. of all asylum seekers who go for the cash only option, 70 per cent. remain in London. The dispersal system was introduced because of the enormous pressure on Greater London and the south-east, where asylum seekers were at that time deciding to stay. However, given those figures, the fact is that dispersal has been only partly effective in alleviating the pressure on the south-east and especially Greater London.

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

I understand that point, but it is somewhat undermined by the fact that the proportion is falling. Clearly, if communities are created in places where they did not previously exist, and they take root, families will seek to unite and friends and communities will seek to gather around those new locations. That is precisely the point of dispersal. During the relatively short time for which that system has been operating, and despite the fact that it has been least effective in the first year or two because of teething problems, the proportion has fallen from 100 to 70 per cent., which is quite a hopeful sign.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of people who take the support only option will continue to seek accommodation with family and friends and to unite families—husbands and wives and so on—and will do so without financial support. Withdrawal of the option will increase the stress on refugee communities and the destitution in inner-city communities, with various

consequences that we will find it extremely difficult to deal with.

The Minister advanced an argument about tracking individuals. What evidence is there of a disproportionate failure to comply with the asylum process among people who take the support only option? I understand that two communities in particular—Turkish and Sri Lankan—are most likely to take up that option, while members of the Chinese community tend to go to family and friends but not to take the cash support. Is there evidence—if there were, I would be influenced by it—that those two communities are disproportionately hard to track and fail to comply with decisions?

In this respect, as in so many others, we must continue to ensure that the decision-making process works quickly and efficiently. In the case of the Sri Lankan community, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says is one of the two communities that are most likely to take the support only option, non-compliance has been a problem and a barrier to effective decision making, although the situation is improving. In the nine months up to September 2001, over 1,400 Sri Lankan refusals—claims that failed on non-compliance grounds—were overturned on appeal. If we could focus on the communities receiving support only and ensure that we overcome the non-compliance problems, we would be out of the woods. People would not stay for a significant period on the support only basis and we would be able to move them through the system quickly. The efficiency of the system is the heart of the problem.

I believe that I made the case last week, but I remain concerned that the provision will not have the effect that the Government seek. It will increase poverty and destitution, particularly in London. I ask the Minister to consider whether greater flexibility in the Bill is possible.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

My hon. Friend's position is not necessarily as incompatible with the Government's as she believes. This is an enabling power. I realise that the Committee must have a certain amount of trust that the Government will not use it tomorrow. We are taking a broad power that enables us at some time in the future, as the system evolves and if it seems appropriate, to cut off this option. We do not intend to do so immediately. We could focus on particular communities, as my hon. Friend suggested, before we even consider using the enabling power. Indeed, we would have to come back to Parliament to trigger it.

My hon. Friend's points are not necessarily incompatible with the clause, but there would have to be some trust that sudden decisions would not be taken at Government level that would rule out some of her important suggestions—namely, whether we could improve contact with particular communities and whether reporting would deal with tracking the asylum claims of those on cash only support.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) about the effect on communities already here. Is it the Minister's intention

to prevent new people from taking the cash only option or to withdraw it from those already claiming it? That is an important distinction.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We do not want to introduce the enabling power overnight for everyone. If we decided to move towards it in the future, we would have to consider the practicalities. The first step would be to remove cash only support from all asylum seekers coming through at the time, and then to consider whether we wished to withdraw it gradually from those who have already taken advantage of it. The hon. Gentleman will know that we still have the remnants of the interim scheme, where decisions tend to be about practical administrative doability rather than policy neatness.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

Does the withdrawal of the support only option apply only to centres such as London or also to dispersal areas? I have had representations from a refugee organisation in Gloucestershire, which says that many people there receive support only.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We know from the figures I gave earlier that 70 per cent of those involved in choosing the cash only option—that is what we must call it now that the vouchers have gone—live in Greater London, and 30 per cent live elsewhere, although I cannot give my hon. Friend a rundown of precisely where. The clause allows us to remove all cash only options and require people either to be dispersed if they require assistance from NASS or to go into accommodation centres.

At the beginning of this process, ahead of the pilot, we do not know how the accommodation centre proposals will develop. We must have the flexibility to change the old system to make it compatible with new developments. It is an enabling power that would in theory remove all other options, but as I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, if we choose to use it, we will consider carefully how to implement it. It would be sensible to introduce it for all new asylum claims.

Parmjit Dhanda (Labour, Gloucester)

Are we talking about removing cash only support for people already in dispersal areas such as Gloucestershire?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I have had a figure put in front of me, which I will read out to the Committee in case it is helpful. The number of people given cash only support in the south-west region in December last year was 350—I hope that Gloucester is in the south-west region. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend an idea of the numbers involved. The problem is far greater in central London, and we need to consider the effect of the provision on dispersal. Were we to exercise the power fully, it would end cash only support, but as I hope I have made clear, we do not intend to do that immediately. Were we to decide to trigger it, we would consider the practicalities of doing so.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am interested in what the Minister says about adopting a pragmatic approach. I hope that she is sincere in that, because I suspect that from a pragmatic perspective the withdrawal of the cash only option will prove counter-productive, for many of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Regent's Park

and Kensington, North. I fear that the withdrawal of the cash only option would not disperse the 17,000 asylum seekers in London who are receiving it: it would merely leave them in London, but poorer. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously whether that would be the net result before proceeding with the provision.

The other valid concern, which was raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), is the possibility that the 350 asylum seekers receiving cash only support in Gloucestershire might want to be supported by larger communities in London if cash only support were withdrawn. They may be able to live in Gloucestershire under the cash only option because they are staying with a Chinese or a Sri Lankan family, for example, but that might no longer be sustainable if the support were withdrawn. They might not want another accommodation option and might withdraw back to London. All those issues need to be looked at before proceeding down the route of the clause, which is fraught with difficulties.

The Minister referred to savings delivered elsewhere, which was a great phrase in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. There is always a perception that savings will materialise from one part of the system to enable us to put more into another part. The Government admitted in the proceedings of the previous Act that while the NASS accommodation options would be much more expensive than the benefits system, they would give an overall net saving because the time scales would be reduced: asylum seekers would use them for only a few months rather than for long periods. That has not happened.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

Is it not logical that there will not be savings, because the only way that the power could be introduced would be for NASS accommodation centres to offer accommodation to every asylum seeker? NASS would have to provide at least 17,000 more places, because otherwise we would cut off assistance for people who do not have any other means of support.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Thinking it through, if the assumption is that there would still be savings with the more expensive option of NASS accommodation for asylum seekers when they arrive in the country, because the time scale would be shorter, giving an individual a cash only option with a shorter time scale would be cheaper still. Overall savings are possible, although I am sceptical. Until I see savings materialise from the 1999 Act, I will not predict savings from this legislation. It would always be cheaper to go for the cash only option. It stands to reason, as we can see the figures.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there would be far less reason to trigger the powers if we could reach the stage where reporting was working effectively, and if we could demonstrate that cash only asylum claims were dealt with as quickly as those in accommodation centres? We have yet to trial accommodation centres, and we may be able to make real savings and take speedy and effective decisions. I certainly hope so. It is wise to have the power to phase out other parts of previous systems in favour of more effective ones. I do not yet know

whether there is potential in accommodation centres for achieving that. The pilot will show that. However, he must admit that having the power to respond appropriately is reasonable at this juncture.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I appreciate the Minister's reasonable and rational clarification. She appears to be suggesting that there may be no need to withdraw the option if the reporting arrangements work and the claims can be processed reasonably quickly, and if we can therefore deal with the clustering of asylum seekers who are taking the option. That is helpful, if that is what she is saying. However, there is a fear that the Government would be cutting their nose off to spite their face if they withdrew this option, which may be cheaper and better for asylum seekers, in order to answer criticisms about dispersal and to try to speed up the process. We fear that that would be a blunt instrument, and would not work.

However, I appreciate the tone of the Minister's response and her assurance that this is an enabling power and that the Government will carefully consider the circumstances. I do not wish to press the matter to a vote, although we will continue to examine carefully how the Government take the debate forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Destitute asylum-seeker

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 18, line 9, at end insert:

'( ) In subsection (1) for the definition of ''asylum-seeker'' substitute—

'' ''asylum-seeker'' means a person—

(a) who is at least 18 years old,

(b) who has made a claim for asylum at a place designated by the Secretary of State,

(c) whose claim has been recorded by the Secretary of State, and

(d) whose claim has not been determined;'' '.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 118 and 119.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I must first point out an unfortunate and inaccurate sentence in the explanatory note to clause 35, which states:

''It therefore removes the requirement to provide cash-only support to asylum-seekers.''

The clause does not do that. I do not know how the sentence got in there. It is a gremlin, and should be removed. It has confused those who have been reading the explanatory notes to understand the legalese in the Bill. I apologise, and have drawn the matter to the attention of Opposition spokesmen.

The amendments bring the provisions in clause 35, and thus the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, in line with the wording of clause 16. Amendment 117 applies the new definition of asylum seeker in clause 16(1) to section 94 of the 1999 Act. Amendment No. 118 amends the wording of section 94(3A) of the 1999

Act, which clause 35 inserts. The amendment mirrors the provision in clause 16(2), which states:

''A person shall continue to be treated as an asylum-seeker . . . while—

(a) his household includes a dependant child who is under 18, and

(b) he does not have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.''

The introductory Bill omitted section 94(5) from the 1999 Act, as it was no longer needed. Amendment No. 118 means that sections 94(5) and (6) are not needed. Amendment No. 118 covers the same ground that was covered in those provisions, so amendment No. 119 omits section 94(5) and (6) from the 1999 Act. The amendments are technical and should present the Committee with no difficulty.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 118, in page 18, line 23, leave out from 'asylum-seeker' to end of line 25 and insert

'despite paragraph (d) of the definition of ''asylum-seeker'' in subsection (1) while—

(a) his household includes a dependant child who is under 18, and

(b) he does not have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.''.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

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

I beg to move amendment No. 152, in page 18, line 25, at end insert—

'(3B) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements with local housing authorities, social services authorities, health and education authorities and other relevant agencies to promote the resettlement of those recognised as refugees under the Refugee Convention 1951, and those granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B), resettlement may include assistance in securing accommodation, welfare benefits, health, community care and education services.'.

I shall be brief, because the amendment is designed only to ask the Minister for clarification about the arrangements that she has in mind for the permanent resettlement of asylum seekers who go through the accommodation centre process and are given leave to remain, with their place of residence being at the accommodation centre. As we know, successive asylum Acts—including, in different ways, both the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—left it unclear which authority carries the responsibility for those who receive leave to remain, particularly concerning duties under the Housing Acts. That complication should be cleared up as soon as possible, so will she explain her thinking on the permanent resettlement arrangements?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend. We are working with other Departments, local government and non-governmental organisations to see how we can develop a more effective integration process. That is particularly important for those who leave accommodation centres and do not then live in the area in which they were accommodated. Part of the trial will help us to create circumstances that smooth the transition, and I would be the first to admit that the transition from asylum seeker to refugee status and

from one system to the other is not perfect, as she will know from her casework.

My noble Friend Lord Rooker chairs the national refugee integration forum, which includes other Departments, local authorities and NGO representatives. It meets quarterly and has nine specialist sub-groups, which examine subjects such as health and education and meet eight times a year. We are beginning to create information, joint working and consideration of how we can best facilitate integration. The work is at a reasonably early stage, but it encompasses the spirit of the amendment, and I would prefer not to have the statutory obligation.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are already thinking along the lines of the spirit of the amendment. The work is at an early stage, and we can keep her informed of how it goes as the trials progress, but we have already identified that it is crucial that we develop a more effective transition from asylum seeker to refugee status for those who are successful in their claims.

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

I thank the Minister for her reply and am happy with the tone and the expressed commitment to tackle what has been a problem. As we discussed when debating the citizenship arrangements, a process that should be positive for the refugees and their communities is often undermined by the fact that the arrangements are chaotic. People are sometimes left with no means of subsistence or any documents to prove their identity. I know that she is familiar with those and other problems.

I want to press the Minister on housing duty, because it is a particularly serious problem. Glancing at the list of areas in which planning permission may be sought for accommodation centres, most do not have low housing demand and we cannot immediately assume that people would be able to come out of an accommodation centre and be rehoused by the relevant housing authority in surplus accommodation. The housing pinch is most acute in London, and as housing is probably the single most important factor that impedes effective integration of refugees and asylum seekers, I would hate to see that pinch replicated. We will need to see how the people go through accommodation centres and become members of communities in which the Government are trying to make dispersal in the broader sense work. How will the specific statutory housing duty be applied?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I cannot tell my hon. Friend that ahead of the work on facilitating transition for those granted refugee status from accommodation centres—which do not yet exist—to the communities where they may wish to live. As she knows, once granted that status, refugees leave the dispersal system and can choose to live anywhere in the country. A different process will apply for accommodation centres than for dispersal in cluster areas. We are considering with other Departments and local authorities how best and most appropriately to facilitate that process. We are mindful of the issues, of which housing is one of the most important. I cannot give her a detailed breakdown of our intended procedure, but I am happy to keep her informed.

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

I wanted to test the Government's opinion. I appreciate that the problem has been recognised and is being considered. If housing duty is not grappled with, we could end up exacerbating homelessness, particularly across London and the south-east. I look forward to receiving further information from the Minister and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 119, in page 18, line 26, leave out 'subsection (5)' and insert 'subsections (5) and (6)'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 211, in page 18, line 36, at end insert—

''(4A) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) above a person does not have or cannot obtain adequate accommodation if he cannot pay the rent and similar charges for it or the Council Tax (if any) payable by the person or his dependant.''.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 13—Support for council tax—

''(1) Schedule 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 shall be amended by the insertion after paragraph 3 of the following—

'(3A) The regulations shall make provision that the needs of a person to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding—

(a) if a person is destitute, and

(b) if support is required to be provided,

(c) the amount of support to be provided shall include the rent and similar charges and the Council Tax if any payable by the person or his dependant.'.

(2) Schedule 9 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 shall be amended by the insertion after paragraph 7 of the following—

'(7A) The regulations shall make provision that the needs of a person to be taken into account by the local authority when deciding

(a) if a person is destitute, and

(b) if support is required to be provided,

(c) the amount of support to be provided shall include the rent and similar charges and the Council Tax if any payable by the person or his dependant.'.

(3) The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations made under Schedules 8 and 9 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in respect of a qualifying person to be paid whether directly or indirectly for the Council Tax and any court or bailiff's costs in respect of the qualifying period.

(4) In this section—

(a) 'A qualifying person' is a person

(i) who or whose dependant was liable to pay Council Tax in respect of a time when he was or ought to have been in receipt of support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,

(ii) whose needs to be met by the funder (subject to the resources of the person), as calculated by the funder did not include Council Tax, and

(iii) where that person has not subsequently received Council Tax benefit in respect of that period.

(b) 'The qualifying period' is the period or periods in relation to which the person was a qualifying person,

(c) 'funder' is the Secretary of State in cases where the Secretary of State was the person supplying the support under section 95(1) and the relevant local authority when the support was supplied under section 95(13), and

(d) 'section 95' means section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

(5) This section shall come into force 7 days after the passing of this Act.''.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

We seek clarification on council tax. Our understanding is that an individual on income support receives housing benefit through the housing benefit system and council tax benefit through the council tax benefit system, while an asylum seeker under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 receives a living allowance at around 70 per cent of income support, has his rent paid directly and is exempt from council tax from 1 April 2000 if the accommodation was arranged for him under the provisions of section 95, which would classify him as class F under the exempt classes.

That provision should cover the situation, but we have had representations, particularly from Wandsworth and Merton law centre—although I understand that the problem is not confined to those boroughs—that some individuals are in accommodation found in ways other than under section 95: either under different provisions, or they found the accommodation themselves or there is some other reason why they are not under class F for exemptions.

Wandsworth and Merton law centre has come across a significant number of asylum seekers who are receiving support but who have been chased by bailiffs for recovery of council tax. There is a differential provision: some local authorities exercise a discretionary exemption; others have not applied it. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has reported this as a widespread problem in London.

We would be grateful for the Minister's clarification on asylum seekers' liability for council tax. It is clear that these individuals are living below income support level. It is not a question of gaining a status above those on income support. There should be sensible arrangements for resolving the council tax issue. It seems silly that local authorities are responsible for supporting individuals yet are effectively paying to chase them to recover money that they cannot pay.

Citizens advice bureaux and law centres want clarification, as they are seeing people who have breached the law and are being pursued by bailiffs because they have not paid their council tax. It would help those organisations if the position was clarified in the Bill and the local authorities had clearer directions, so that the council tax regime could be applied in a universal and sensible fashion to everyone receiving support under the asylum support system.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I am slightly puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman said, as he did not make it clear what category of asylum seeker he was talking about. I can tell him the formal position. It is possible that a few have fallen through the net but I will need more information about their precise circumstances before I can reply to him.

I cannot support amendment No. 211. Placing a statutory requirement in the Bill is unnecessary because it is adequately covered in regulations and caseworking instructions. The amendment would mean that asylum seekers who could afford their rent and food and other essential items but could not afford their council tax or similar charges would be considered destitute. The current position is that when

asylum seekers apply for asylum support and say that they wish to remain in their current accommodation, the Secretary of State, when considering whether they are destitute, will determine whether they can afford the costs in respect of their current accommodation and meet their other reasonable living expenses. That is covered by regulation 8 of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, which does not apply to those applying from emergency accommodation provided under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I can confirm that the costs of their existing accommodation can include council tax and other charges associated with rent such as service charges and utilities. That is set out in caseworking instructions.

Those who can meet their rent, food and other essential items but cannot pay their council tax could therefore be considered destitute. When it has been determined that a person cannot afford the costs of their accommodation he or she is invited to apply for National Asylum Support Service accommodation. The person's circumstances will be taken into account but the expectation is that accommodation will normally be provided in a dispersal area on a no-choice basis. The exception is when the case is a disbenefited family whose minor dependant children have attended a particular school for at least 12 months. In that case, in order to avoid disrupting the child's education we have made special arrangements with local authorities to pay the rent, utilities and council tax. In neither of those circumstances should bailiffs be chasing after individual asylum seekers.

I am also unable to support new clause 13. Asylum seekers provided with accommodation under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are not liable for council tax, as the owners of the properties are liable. The National Asylum Support Service has contracts with property owners that take that fact into account. Thus, it is the property owner who pays the council tax when NASS has provided accommodation support, and certainly not the individual.

In addition, as a general rule NASS does not provide rent directly to the applicant. We have contracts with accommodation providers whom we pay directly, which is much easier and simpler. We can also make certain that the basic cost of the accommodation—the roof over someone's head—is paid in a timely fashion.

Those who are supported by local authorities under the interim provisions remain liable for council tax. Local authorities can provide the cost of an asylum seeker's council tax and claim it back from NASS as part of the usual grant funding arrangements. NASS has the discretion to grant fund such claims under section 110 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Therefore, the issues that the hon. Gentleman describes should not happen, unless there are circumstances that I have not covered, and I am unaware of any.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I suspect that it applies in the latter case, under the interim arrangements when the local authority has chosen not to fund the council tax, but there is a legal liability.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Local authorities can claim it back: they do not have to fund the council tax. They should get their act together, and have the council tax liabilities for those in the interim scheme paid back to them. Asylum seekers should not be chased by bailiffs for council tax liabilities.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the Minister for her clear statement on the record of the Government's position in respect of council tax for asylum seekers. That is what we were seeking to tease out. I am sure that those who read the record of our debates and who deal with individuals in citizens advice bureaux or law centres will be in touch with us and/or the Minister if they feel that there are additional cases that we have not covered. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 120, in page 19, line 17, leave out 'or assets which are' and insert 'which is'.

No. 121, in page 19, line 19, 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;'.

No. 122, in page 19, line 20, at end insert—

'(5A) The following shall be substituted for section 96(1)(b) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (ways of providing support)—

''(b) by providing the supported person and his dependants (if any) with food and other essential items;''.

(5B) In section 97 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (support: supplemental)—

(a) in subsection (4) for ''essential living needs'' there shall be substituted ''food and other essential items'',

(b) in subsection (5) for ''essential living needs'' there shall be substituted ''food and other essential items'', and

(c) in subsection (6) for ''living needs'' there shall be substituted ''items''.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I beg to move amendment No. 248, in page 19, line 34, at end insert—

'( ) The following shall be substituted for section 12(2B) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49) (general social welfare services of local authorities—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)—

''(2B) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (2A) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority.''.

( ) The following shall be substituted for section 13A(5) of that Act (provision of residential accommodation with nursing—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)—

''(5) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority.''.

( ) The following shall be substituted for section 13B(4) of that Act (Provision of care and after-care—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)—

''(4) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority.''.'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 123 and 249.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Again, these minor technical amendments are consequential on changes that the Bill makes to section 95(3) to (8) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 make comparable changes to the Scottish legislation that is equivalent to the National Assistance Act 1948, the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and the National Health Service Act 1977. Amendment No. 123 does the equivalent for Northern Ireland legislation. Taken together, the amendments will ensure that the current position is maintained. Given their highly technical nature, I hope that the Committee will easily accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 123, in page 19, line 41, at end insert—

'( ) The following shall be substituted for Article 7(3A) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I. 14)) (prevention of illness, care and after-care: exclusion of asylum-seeker: interpretation)—

''(3A) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purpose of paragraph (3); and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to the Department.''

( ) The following shall be substituted for Article 15(7) of that Order (general social welfare: exclusion of destitute asylum-seeker: interpretation)—

''(7) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purpose of paragraph (6); and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to the Department.''.'.

No. 249, in page 19, line 41, at end insert—

'( ) The following shall be substituted for section 7(4) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c.36) (functions of local authorities—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)—

''(4) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority.''.

( ) The following shall be substituted for section 8(5) of that Act (provision of after-care services—exclusion of destitute asylum seeker: interpretation)—

''(5) Section 95(3) to (8) of that Act shall apply for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section; and for that purpose a reference to the Secretary of State in section 95(5) or (6) shall be treated as a reference to a local authority''.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Young asylum-seeker

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 260, in page 20, line 1, at end add—

'(2) The financial support made available as a result of subsection (1) shall be paid in advance and support for children over 16 shall be set at the same level as those for children under 16'.

We have debated the support for young asylum seekers many times in discussing special grant reports for local authorities, which is how the system has worked to date, and there are general concerns about that. The amendment would make equivalent the payment levels for those who are under 16 and those who are 16 and 17. We have often discussed the levels

at which the grants were set, and the rate was significantly higher for those under 16, who have cost the local authority up to £400 a week. The local authority still has responsibility for those individuals. There has been a lower rate for those aged 16 and 17, although they are still assessed as children.

There is a good reason for funding 16 and 17-year-olds at a rate equivalent to that for those under 16: at the current rate, it is difficult for local authorities to provide individuals in the older age group with the entire package. We understand that the new system will involve direct payment. Quite a significant number of individuals enter the system at that age.

I know that questions have been raised about the validity of dates of birth and so on, but it seems reasonable to suggest that unaccompanied individuals of that age will seek asylum. They may be able to travel more independently, and the problems from which asylum claims result often affect young men in that age group. In military and conflict situations, young men are frequently the target. Those individuals will be most caught up in such a situation, whether a Government agency is removing them from communities or anyone else is seeking to sign them up to a military force. There is a pattern of people of that age seeking asylum, and local authorities have a particular duty and responsibility to care for them, so the funding level should be set appropriately for the individuals affected. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on the logic of separating out the payments and the levels to be set under the new system of direct payment as opposed to the special grant support system of the past.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but the amendments are unnecessary and perhaps unhelpful. The aim of the clause is to increase the flexibility with which the Home Office can reimburse local authorities, but the amendments would restrict it. The amendment would make payments in advance of need, yet we all accept that this sector has a volatile and demand-led population that is difficult to forecast. The amendment would make local authorities produce estimates of the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to be supported in the future and the likely costs incurred. As well as the inherent difficulties, it could result in large balances being held in local authority accounts that could not be used elsewhere, which would be an improper use of Government funds.

Following on from previous representations—I know that Opposition Members welcome this—the Government have already moved to making quarterly payments in arrears to local authorities to support adults and families, and we intend to extend the system to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That will do a great deal to remedy the problems suffered by local authorities without the need for complex advance payment systems.

The second part of the amendment would fix grant levels for all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children

to the same amount without taking into account the level of support required. Costs to local authorities are dependent on the actual support that they provide to children, assessed on a one-to-one rather than a crude age basis. For the first time last year, the grant regime recognised that by continuing the higher rate of support for older children whose initial assessment had shown that they required support under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The higher rate for children under that section rather than on an age basis reflects the care costs required to meet children's needs as assessed under strict guidance issued by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills.

It would be wrong, and possibly damaging to children, to pre-empt the assessment by prescribing levels of care based on age. That would not ensure that they received appropriate care and would not achieve best value for money. We cannot justify paying the higher rate to all, regardless of need and without assuring value for money.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that a thorough review of the grant mechanism is planned, and that the overwhelming request from local authorities has been for more flexibility rather than prescription. I hope that, with those assurances, he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the Minister for her response and for the assurance about the quarterly payment system, which is welcomed by local authorities. She said that is was difficult to have systems for payment in advance. Could that be explored? There are other situations in which that occurs, such as when teachers go on to higher rates of pay. I have sat on local authority committees dealing with special grants, and I saw how the anticipated figure is calculated, paid in advance and then settled in the end. It may be more difficult to run that for asylum-seeking children, but I suspect that London boroughs have a steady rate of such children and having the cash up front would make quite a difference to their social services budgets. I suspect that the balancing up would not be too complex. In view of the difficulties for local authorities' social services budgets, I hope that the general principle is established that the payments should be made as soon as possible. There has been progress from an annual payment in arrears to a quarterly payment in arrears, and I look forward to continued progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I want to reiterate that the quarterly payment in arrears is an improvement. I recall a good debate on unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors a few weeks ago when the figure of 6,500 was discussed. That is an awful lot of young people. I also remember the interesting formula for the payments in the regulations, which, I remarked at the time, required a mathematical genius to assess. I have received a letter from the leader of Kent county council describing some of the problems it has in dealing

with young asylum seekers. I hope that the Minister has taken those problems on board. We had a good debate on the special grant, and we welcome the provisions that came from it. We have no difficulties with the Government's proposals. Indeed, we welcome them.

I have referred in the past to assessing the age of a young asylum seeker. I moved an amendment to the effect that the Secretary of State should not inquire into a person's age until he is satisfied that that young person has had access to legal advice and assistance. It is a suitable point to raise again on clause stand part. I do not think that the Minister will undertake to do that, but I would be satisfied if she would accept the general thrust of my argument, which is that NGOs are sometimes concerned about the questioning of young people of about that age. It is a sensitive area and needs particularly delicate handling.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Failed asylum-seeker

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 20, line 7, after 'the', insert 'essential living needs and'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 261, in page 20, line 9, at end insert

'Or,

(c) if his claim for asylum was accepted.'.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

In principle we welcome the change provided in the clause, as this is an area of particular concern. When we considered the 1999 Act, we recognised that there could be categories of individuals who had to remain in the UK after the rejection of an asylum claim, either because they could not travel home at that stage or because they were seeking to explore various judicial avenues. There was considerable debate about whether the right to access the due legal process would be infringed if an individual were given that right but no means of support to allow him or her to exercise it. We welcome the provision of accommodation, but amendment No. 215 would extend that to provide accommodation and essential living needs—a package that would enable individuals to remain and exercise their rights or be supported until they could leave the UK. I would be interested to hear how the Government expect the accommodation package to be provided. Is their view that essential living needs are implicit in the provision or is it an accommodation only package?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I rise merely to say that my name is on the amendment and that I, too, would be interested to hear the Minister's response. There is an argument for widening the clause to cover essential living needs as well as accommodation, in order to enable the person concerned to be adequately maintained during a difficult period.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As hon. Members have said, the clause extends the scope of section 4 of the 1999 Act to allow the provision of accommodation to people whose asylum claims have been rejected and to their dependants, whether such people were originally given temporary admission to the UK or made a claim for asylum while they had a form of leave to remain. However, when an asylum claim has been determined and rejected, the main applicant is no longer eligible for support under the asylum support arrangements of the 1999 Act unless he or she is accompanied by dependants under the age of 18. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, in some cases applicants may be unable to return immediately to their country of origin, because they may be suffering from illness or there is no safe route by which they can return, and in order to ensure that such people are not left destitute, basic support may be provided under section 4 of the 1999 Act. Section 4 support may also be provided in certain circumstances to former asylum seekers who have applied for judicial review of the asylum decision. However, the existing provision allows accommodation to be provided only to those who have been temporarily admitted to the UK or released from detention, and it does not cover all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Is a person whose asylum application has been rejected all the way down the line but who nevertheless seeks a judicial review classified as no longer an asylum seeker?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Such a person would be eligible for section 4 support but would be considered no longer eligible as an asylum seeker for overall NASS support. He or she would be eligible for section 4 support if the asylum decision were being judicially reviewed and that review or the case were judged as having some merit.

The existing provisions allow accommodation to be provided only to those who have been temporarily admitted to the UK or released from detention, and do not cover all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected. The clause is intended to close that gap and allow the provision of support to all asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected, if the Secretary of State decides to provide accommodation in certain cases. However, we stress that support under section 4 is a last resort. It is not intended to replicate the provision of support under the asylum support scheme, but to meet the basic living needs—food and shelter—of unsuccessful asylum seekers who cannot immediately leave the country. The current arrangements achieve that for those eligible to benefit from it, and it is unnecessary to amend section 4 of the 1999 Act further in the way proposed.

We understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. However, the Government consider amendment No. 261 to be unnecessary, as we are already working with interested parties through the national refugee integration forum to promote the resettlement and integration of successful asylum seekers into the community. The Home Office is also working with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the arrangements for enabling successful asylum seekers to

transfer from central Government support to mainstream benefits, or to enter the labour market. The Home Office is also considering further written guidance on how successful asylum applicants can access mainstream services. I hope that I have reassured hon. Gentlemen, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful for the Minister's polite and comprehensive response. It was sufficiently comprehensive to include reference to amendment No. 261, which I failed to discuss, as too many of my amendments are numbered in the 200s and I got confused. The Minister touched on the point that we were trying to raise about the transitional arrangements, which the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned earlier. Those arrangements continue to concern us, and I welcome the Minister's comment that they are a priority for successful claimants.

The Government are clearly giving serious consideration to resettlement. The support provided at that point is key to whether an individual integrates successfully. We discussed the citizenship test earlier. It is critical to provide support at the crucial point when individuals know that they will spend a significant part of the rest of their lives, if not the rest of their entire life, in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the Minister for being a mind reader and responding on that point.

The clause was clarified as we hoped, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Conditions of support

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 20, leave out lines 26 to 36.

The amendment would remove specific reference to the reporting arrangements and the conditions imposed on the individual receiving support. The intention is to test the Government's thinking on the restrictions under the Immigration Act 1971 that can be imposed on individuals when they are admitted temporarily, or on their release from detention on arrival, and to establish which thresholds the Government are considering. The reporting arrangements can include an individual's place of residence, their employment and their requirement to report.

Some breaches of those requirements will be serious, some will merit the consequential loss of support and others may be minor and technical. The amendment seeks to establish the Government's approach and the extent to which the regime will be absolute or reasonable; we hope that it will be the latter. Clearly, there will be technical breaches. For example, an individual may fail to report because of illness or for another good reason that may be explained later. We want to test the proposition that

support will not be withdrawn unreasonably because of minor and technical breaches of conditions. Similarly, there will be a range of cases in which individuals will be subject to restrictions pending deportation. Individuals who are doing all they can to resist deportation may not report, and some may have complied but may have technically breached the restrictions.

We want to establish the link between support and restrictions in order to determine whether the Government are trying to introduce a reasonable regime that responds properly to individuals' circumstances, or are trying to withdraw support on technical grounds when withdrawal is not merited.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

If an asylum seeker is to lose support because of a breach of a condition of residence, employment or reporting, I want the Minister's assurance that the criteria will be applied sensibly. I can draw a parallel with the court system. People often breach their bail conditions in a minor way and the court has the discretion to deal with the matter leniently. A serious breach would result in a much more difficult situation for the person who had broken the bail conditions. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will adopt a sensible approach, and that minor breaches will not be punished in the way envisaged?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hope that I can give the hon. Gentlemen the assurances that they seek. It is not intended that the reporting conditions will be onerous or that they will be put into effect in an unreasonable manner. However, we want a better, more tightly managed process, and the clause provides the levers that we need for a rights and responsibilities reporting regime. Asylum seekers will be told from the beginning what is expected of them. They will be fully informed at the induction centres about the process, their part in it and their responsibilities.

Asylum seekers who report as instructed will have nothing to fear from our proposal to link the provision of support to compliance with the requirement to report, and their travel costs will be paid if they have to travel to a particular place in order to do so. If they fail to report as directed without reasonable cause, their support may be terminated. That is when the reasonableness test and the proportionate nature of the response applies. If someone has not reported for good reason—for example, if they or someone in their family has been ill—it would be ludicrous to visit extreme consequences upon them. That is not what the clause provides, as reasonableness issues are taken into account.

A more managed system, with regular reporting, will enable us to be in regular touch with those who seek asylum. The clause will clearly be more relevant to those who are not in accommodation centres. We want to keep asylum seekers informed, and we will expect from them a level of engagement with the process that has not been required to date.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The Minister encouragingly says that a reasonableness test will be applied when an individual has been told that their support will be withdraw because they have breached the conditions. Who will

apply the reasonableness test? In real-life circumstances, an asylum seeker who has breached a condition and is told that their support will be withdrawn is likely to visit a legal adviser, such as the Refugee Legal Centre. If they want to challenge the decision, to whom will they be able to go?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

After the induction at the beginning of the process, asylum seekers will be in no doubt about how the system works and what is expected of them. It will be important to make those points clear at the beginning to everyone who goes through the process. If they behave in a certain way or do not co-operate in a minor way, that will be considered by people in the reporting centre, who will decide whether there should be any consequences. They will be either immigration or casework officers.

If individuals believe that an incident has been taken out of proportion, they will be able to query that, which will ensure that they are given a fair hearing. They will need to contact the reporting centre, and NASS will make any final decision to end the support, which is what happens now. I imagine that support will be ended only in the most drastic circumstances when people are completely failing to comply with conditions of support. We hope that the clause will create a more married system, so that it will be a requirement on individuals and in their interests to keep in regular touch with NASS.

Individuals will have a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator if they disagree with a final decision. I hope that the system will work supportively, as we intend the contact to support the asylum seeker as well as the system itself. It will enable face-to-face contact, an update on what is happening with the claim and a range of activities to take place as a matter of course, which is not the case at the moment.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

That is helpful clarification, particularly on the question of challenges. I hope that they will not be needed, but an individual may want to challenge a decision because they feel that the reporting officer had a problem with them as an individual. There must always be a route for challenge when an individual's livelihood is seriously threatened. A total withdrawal of support would be significant to the individual, so I am pleased that there is some route to the asylum support adjudicator for a challenge.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I should also point out that support would be removed only if a serious breach had occurred and evidence showed that individuals were not complying with what was expected of them in an asylum claim. We must get the problem in perspective. The hon. Gentleman is using the most drastic example, and it is not appropriate for Government money to be spent processing an asylum claim if the individual is not remotely interested in making progress with it.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Again, that is a helpful clarification from the Minister, which I accept entirely. We wanted clarification of the regime, and she has helpfully described for the record what sounds like a sensible system.

I should like to raise a couple of other issues on this clause separately from the amendment, which I shall not press. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Another important question concerns the extent to which there will be any link between a breach of the conditions that requires some loss of support and the asylum claim. This is a fundamental question that will be of interest to individuals. The White Paper stated clearly that breaches of conditions for receiving support may affect the credibility of an asylum seeker. I can foresee circumstances in which that would be appropriate if the individual behaved in a way that undermined their credibility, and it would be fair and appropriate for that to be reported to those who decide the asylum claim.

However, I can foresee other circumstances in which the interpretation of excusable technical breaches, which NASS has decided are not a serious problem, is not appropriately communicated to the asylum decision makers. They may see those technical breaches described on a piece of paper, believe that an applicant's credibility has been undermined, and take an adverse decision. That would clearly have a significant impact on individual asylum seekers.

How does the Minister envisage these arrangements tying in with asylum decision-making arrangements? Can she give an assurance that individuals who have not seriously breached their conditions will not have their credibility inappropriately undermined?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We had a run around this course earlier in our proceedings, and I gave two examples, one of which involved the breaking of a cup, which I discussed with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Clearly, that incident would not find its way on to the desk of a decision maker and affect the credibility of a claim. However, if someone fleeing persecution were found to be working illegally while the claim was under consideration, and it emerged that the contract for that work had been organised before the individual entered the country, that might well have a significant effect on the credibility of the claim. Clearly, credibility is more likely to be affected if breaches are more serious. I would not expect technical breaches, such as illness, to have any effect.

With those clarifications, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand the provisions that we want to introduce on the reporting of conditions in clause 38.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Choice of form of support

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 217, in page 20, line 41, after 'subsection', insert

'and refused without reasonable excuse'.

During debates on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, we discussed how the Secretary of State's support system takes the individual circumstances of asylum seekers into account. Concerns remain about whether the individual can advance reasonable arguments to show why one support arrangement is more suitable than another.

The clause provides only one option. The Secretary of State will make an offer and any individual who refuses it will have no recourse to an alternative—or, rather, the Secretary of State has no duty to take account of that. The amendment is designed to allow an individual to provide reasonable grounds for failing to accept proposed accommodation. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State would have a duty to make a second offer.

We are worried about the family and social circumstances of individuals who have suffered persecution in their home country. They might have specific social requirements that would militate against dispersal. If an individual has been tortured or suffered persecution, those requirements should be advanced at an early stage of the process of applying for support, and the decision takers should take it into account. Some individuals might slip through the net and be offered support that is inappropriate in view of their particular social needs. At that stage, will they be able to advance reasonable grounds for not accepting a decision?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Can the hon. Gentleman explain what exactly he means by ''their particular social needs''?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am referring to individuals who have suffered persecution, making isolation a particular hardship for them. If evidence of torture is clear—the Medical Foundation mentioned this previously—such individuals may have a stronger requirement to be housed in a particular community than someone who has not suffered in that way. We discussed the fact that asylum seekers may have a stronger argument against being dispersed to inappropriate surroundings if they can provide clear evidence that they suffered persecution and degrading treatment at home. I hope that they can put that argument under the clause that deals with their choice of housing.

Amendment No. 218 would provide that the Secretary of State must, rather than may, have regard to individual circumstances.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. Only amendment No. 217 can be discussed.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

You are right, Mr. Illsley. Amendment No. 218 is in the next group. I will discuss ''may'' and ''must'' later. An individual should be able to present particular circumstances and be offered different options for support under the asylum support system.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I look forward to our debate about ''may'' or ''must''.

The hon. Gentleman believes that all those seeking asylum should have a choice between dispersal and an accommodation centre, or should be able to second-

guess the Secretary of State's decision about where they will be supported. We must ensure flexibility so that we can make the best use of the different methods of support, while they run in tandem. If accommodation centres succeed and become the norm, there may be no alternative for individuals to choose. We are currently running two systems in parallel, as we are trialling these new centres, but it is important that destitute asylum seekers should not be able to choose particular forms of support. The Committee will agree that it would be nonsense for accommodation centres to run at half capacity because people have chosen dispersal. We are here not to give that choice, but to facilitate quick decisions on asylum claims so that we meet our international commitments to support asylum seekers.

The hon. Gentleman's amendment would make it difficult for us to manage our arrangements effectively and efficiently, especially as they are currently running in parallel. We try to ensure that we make choices for individuals that support them, which is all that the Geneva convention obliges us to do. The amendment would cause administrative havoc, and might result in the system being run at a greater cost than necessary. It also risks creating a gap at the start of the process prior to allocation to a particular place for support, which under the 1999 Act was filled by emergency accommodation while people disputed dispersal. That is an expensive, difficult and highly undesirable way to proceed. The Committee should recognise that we fulfil our commitments under the Geneva convention, which do not involve giving asylum seekers a choice between dispersal or accommodation centres. It is important to avoid that situation, so that we can trial the system effectively.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am glad that the Minister found my amendment so helpful and received it in such a positive spirit. I have not often been accused of attempting to create havoc in a Committee. There is a clear difference between a system in which the final accommodation is dictated from the centre, and to which there is no alternative, and a system in which there is choice. We may come back to that point later in the debate.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I forgot to make the point that torture victims are not currently dispersed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is an alternative way of dealing with those who have suffered torture.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Again, it is helpful to have it on the record that the exemption for victims of torture will continue. I hope that the Minister does not mind us raising that issue, but this legislation restates the case for the ''one option only'' system. The Government are tightening up their intentions on choices, and on whether the Secretary of State's decision on where to place an individual can be challenged.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

How many victims of torture does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that this would apply to?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any numbers. The Home Office may be able to do so. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of

Torture is a well respected charity in this area that deals with the significant numbers of people who come to the UK each year. We are not talking about thousands, but probably hundreds of people. Those individuals have a difficult time under any system because of the specific nature of their trauma. That trauma often only comes out at a later stage. Under those circumstances it is right to be careful about the type of accommodation to which we send individuals.

People who have been detained and held in a specific set of circumstances will clearly suffer additional trauma if they fear any replication or threat of replication in this country. Clearly, the replication of torture is not on the table, but the type of accommodation may cause additional trauma. The foundation has quite properly raised those issues throughout our proceedings. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that those specific routes for exemption still exist. There is perhaps a difference of opinion here over the eventual nature of the asylum scheme, but I will not press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 124, in page 21, line 5, leave out 'section 95' and insert 'sections 95 and 98'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 218, in page 21, line 7, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 219, in page 21, line 7, at end insert—

'(aa) give priority to meeting the person's particular needs'.

No. 220, in page 21, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

This is where I was a bit previous earlier. These amendments deal with similar issues to those that we have just considered but try to approach them slightly differently by altering the way in which the Secretary of State must make his decisions. We do not challenge the fact that the Secretary of State makes the decision but try to set the criteria by which the decision is made. Amendments to replace ''may'' with ''must'' are a regular feature of Standing Committees, when Oppositions want to impose additional burdens on Secretaries of State and reduce their flexibility, from the Government's point of view, or increase their accountability, from the Opposition's point of view. It depends which side of the Committee one is on. We feel that ''must'' would give us additional reassurance about how a Secretary of State would decide where to place an individual under the asylum support system.

We have also included an additional criterion, which is to give priority to meeting the person's particular needs. Again, we felt that to be a more appropriate phrasing. It is interesting to note that the Government's criteria start with ''administrative or other matters''. We do not seek to remove the Secretary of State's ability to have regard to administrative matters, but we felt that the priorities were slightly wrong and that the needs of the individual were more important. Amendment No. 220 is designed to approach the question of the household needs. We feel that in order for the criteria

to be applied properly, fairly and successfully, household needs must be taken into account, particularly in respect of any children in the family. The package of amendments that we tabled would provide decision-making criteria that we find more reassuring and that would meet requirements more effectively. The current criteria plainly say that the priority is what works for the administration of the system rather than what works for individuals.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again: the Government are happy with the word ''may'' as opposed to ''must''. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have recognised the importance of administrative issues in making progress with the asylum process most effectively. That does not mean that we shall ignore the individual needs of those who are in the system, but it is important to be able to take administrative and other considerations into account. Personal circumstances ''may'' be relevant in some cases, but it should not be a case of ''must''.

As the White Paper said, one way in which we are thinking of allocating places in trial accommodation centres is by port of entry, induction centre or language background. It could be argued that that would be for administrative ease. However, if the amendments were accepted and we always had to take all personal circumstances into account, we could be prevented from allocating people to the centres in the most effective way, both administratively and practically.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not do anything crass. That is why the word ''may'' is used instead of ''must''. Otherwise, we might be presented with a range of personal circumstances that we had to take into account, but that we could not cater for. In such decisions, there must always be a balance between practicality and the needs and desires of individuals. Somehow we have to marry those up in a way that provides a coherent system and, we hope, faster and more efficient outcomes. Those are important challenges as it is, and using the word ''must'' might make them more difficult.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Naturally, I trust the current Home Secretary—with whom I share a city—not to do anything crass, but Opposition Members are always mindful of potential future Home Secretaries.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

It might be Simon Hughes.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I rest my case. [Laughter.]

I hoped that the Minister would accept the need to tighten the legislation with regard to possible future Home Secretaries, but at this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Asylum-seeker:

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 221, in page 22, line 15, after 'appellant', insert

'or witness expenses incurred by a witness'.

The clause deals with the appeal that an individual may make against the refusal to support. Under previous clauses, we have discussed the importance of support, and the Government have rightly provided for an appeal system. We seek to enable the asylum support adjudicator, who considers the appeal against the final refusal of housing and support, to pay witness expenses, as is the custom in other courts and tribunals. That may be the Government's intention anyway, but it is not stated in the Bill, and we felt that it would be helpful to tease that out.

As we move towards the greater use of accommodation centres, one can imagine circumstances in which support might be withdrawn from individuals because of incidents that had occurred in them. In those circumstances, people would naturally wish to call witnesses to the incident. Given that those witnesses may be other asylum seekers who also have very limited means, not paying their expenses could prevent people from putting their case effectively. We hope that the Government intend in any event to pay witness expenses but we thought that it was helpful to state that intention clearly in the Bill.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I am happy to tell the Committee that the amendment is unnecessary—that has cheered up the hon. Gentleman. Section 96(1)(c) of the 1999 Act already allows us to meet the expenses of witnesses who attend an asylum appeal in respect of a supported asylum seeker. Section 103(9) of that Act, which is reproduced in the new section 103B inserted by clause 41, allows us to meet the expenses of a witness attending an asylum support hearing and section 96(2) allows for forms of support other than those specified in section 96(1) to be provided where the circumstances are exceptional. NASS caseworkers who are responsible for administering such payments have instructions to that effect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the Minister for such a positive response, and I accept her advice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 222, in page 22, line 16, at end add—

'103C

(1) The Secretary of State may make a grant to a voluntary organisation which provides—

(i) advice or assistance to persons who have a right of appeal under this Part;

(ii) other services for the welfare of those persons.

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

I am not sure whether we will get such a positive response to this amendment—something tells me that

the Minister may be less forthcoming on it, but I stand to be corrected. We are trying to tease out the other aspect of the tribunal hearing. Having looked at the issue of witnesses to which she responded positively, we now consider the possibility of assistance being given to an individual attending a hearing. Bodies such as the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Legal Centre and others provide advice to individuals going through the process of making an asylum claim; those bodies are not very generously funded and there are limitations to their ability to represent individuals. It would again be helpful to state in the Bill that it is appropriate for the tribunal making the decision to be able to fund organisations offering advice and assistance to individuals going to an appeal at that level—as we have established, it is a significant level in terms of gaining access to support, because means of subsistence is in some ways almost as significant as the asylum claim.

I hope that the Government intend in any case to ensure that that assistance and advice are available but it would be beneficial to relate that explicitly to appeals on support issues. There should be an explicit reference to the ability to gain support from one of the organisations in the field.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I will not be able to make him as happy as I did last time. The Government are not convinced that asylum seekers appealing against refusal or early termination of their support need access to legal advice or assistance in representation. Generally speaking, the reason for early termination of support is based on fact: the asylum seeker has left accommodation or has breached a condition on which support was granted. There is some crossover with our earlier debate on breach of conditions. All asylum seekers are informed of the conditions on which support is offered and an additional briefing during the induction centre process will reinforce that message. If asylum seekers choose to ignore that information they will have to take the consequences of doing so. It would not make sense for the Home Office to grant fund the provision of welfare services to those asylum seekers whose support has been terminated early and who are appealing against that decision. Asylum seekers can go to one of the voluntary organisations that deal with these matters for advice, but we are not talking about giving legal aid in these circumstances.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he understands the reasons why we cannot agree to the amendment.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

One out of two was not bad. I am disappointed that there is not more clarity about the level of support. I want to press the Minister on the ability of the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre to support asylum seekers through these complex procedures. Members of Parliament, especially those who represent London constituencies, know that those who work in the voluntary sector are very stretched, as we deal with the spillover from their case loads in our surgeries, as is appropriate to our duties.

I will not press the amendment, but I register my hope that the Government will continue to review funding for the voluntary sector organisations that give advice to asylum seekers to enable them to keep up with the growing demand for their services. That demand could be made even higher by the additional requirements in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Voluntary departure from United Kingdom

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I beg to move amendment No. 250, in page 22, line 41, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

'(5) The following provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77) shall cease to have effect—

(a) section 29 (contributions to expenses of persons returning abroad), and

(b) section 31(d) (expenses).'.

Clause 42 replaces section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971, which enables assistance to be given to voluntary leavers, who in many cases will be failed asylum seekers. The clause broadens that assistance; it includes travel expenses, immediate arrival and reception costs, costs for settlement in a new place of residence and new items such as explore-and-prepare visits for people who wish to return to a country that may have failed but is getting on its feet again.

The amendment is technical, and consequential on our replacing section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 with clause 42. It provides that section 29 and the reference to it in that Act shall cease to have effect. It does not affect the substance of the clause and I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - International projects

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I pay tribute to the organisations that have gone to so much trouble to brief members of the Committee on various aspects of the Bill. I draw the Committee's attention to a matter raised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which has done some valuable work on the Bill. NACAB states that clause 43 provides a power for the Home Secretary to establish a refugee resettlement programme under which a small number of persons recognised as refugees while still abroad could be accepted for resettlement in the United Kingdom. The association welcomes the establishment of such a resettlement programme—with the proviso that it should not lead to a two-tier asylum determination process whereby those who arrive at the UK's borders independently are regarded as queue-jumpers and therefore undeserving of the UK's protection,

whatever the merits of their asylum claim. It seeks the Minister's assurance on that point.

Subsection (2) sets out financial provisions. Does the Minister have some idea of the level of budget provision these programmes will attract? From the notes on the clause we are aware that pilot projects have been undertaken. Will she explain how many have been completed and whether any further pilots are planned, or whether the Ministry is satisfied that the piloting exercise has been exhausted?

Subsections (2)(a) and (b) provide only for financial support to international organisations that arrange or participate in projects of the kind described in subsection (1). I would like an assurance that the drafting does not preclude, for example, the secondment of suitable personnel to international organisations—or does the Minister have in mind purely financial assistance with no consideration for any other type of assistance under (2)(a) and (b)?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I have a couple of points to raise about how individuals resettled from the UK may be affected in future if their resettlement breaks down. We welcome the focus on international projects. In the current circumstances in Sri Lanka, for example, individuals coming to the UK as asylum seekers may be granted refugee status, but as Sri Lanka moves to a more peaceful and stable situation, international efforts to rebuild the Sri Lankan community within Sri Lanka may be appropriate, which may affect individuals here. There is no certainty about the future, so with any resettlement programmes or international projects to assist migrants to return to another country it is important to clarify what would happen if those projects were to break down and the migrants needed to return to the UK because of unforeseen circumstances.

At what level do the Government anticipate these plans working? Is it at all levels, be it the European Union, the United Nations, or the UNHCR? How do we expect the criteria for the UK engagement in projects to be set?

In a domestic Bill dealing with asylum and immigration issues it is helpful to have a reference to international projects as a reminder of the fact that refugee crises primarily affect countries far from the United Kingdom. Whatever questions anyone raises in the UK about tens of thousands of asylum seekers, the problems are multiplied to the nth degree in poor countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, which accept many hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants.

I hope that the that the Government will follow that commitment, in the interests not just of the United Kingdom but of many other countries with a far more serious refugee crisis than us.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hope that my answers will satisfy members of the Committee about this part of the Bill.

The resettlement programme poses two separate issues: the return of migrants to their country of origin, and resettlement, which is a formal gateway into the country of people recognised as refugees by the UNHCR. For them, the resettlement programme

will develop as a result of the powers in the Bill: it will be a toe in the water. The purpose of the resettlement programme is to deal with a problem that many hon. Members often refer to—that people cannot enter the country legally in order to claim asylum. We are creating legal routes into the country.

Another important objective is to save refugees from the people smugglers and traffickers who profit mightily and obscenely from their trade in human misery. We are planning to develop the resettlement programme in association with the UNHCR. The resettlement programme will allow us to take into this country from abroad people who have already been classified as refugees. Initially, we are thinking in terms of about 500 people—believe it or not, making it one of the largest resettlement programmes in the European Union. The USA takes 78,000 a year, so ours will certainly not be the largest in the world, but it will be an important first step towards creating a legal gateway into the country for people classified as genuine refugees—and it will keep them out the hands of the people traffickers.

Some of the issues point the other way, to voluntary return to countries of origin. Clause 42 deals more explicitly with that, in so far as it allows us to spend money to facilitate voluntary return projects more practically than in the past. I hope that it will lead to sustainable, coherent return for failed asylum seekers or those who want to go back to their countries of origin—Afghanistan is an obvious example—when things are getting better, to rebuild their country. We hope that Sri Lanka will prove to be another positive example.

I shall now deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). There is no question of a two-tier process—a refugee is a refugee—but we are anxious to develop safer ways of acknowledging refugee status and legal gateways in order to crack down on the activities of people smugglers. That is what the resettlement programme is intended to halt. Creating such a gateway under the powers in the clause is an humanitarian tool.

Currently, such work is funded under the powers of the Appropriation Act, which provides a legal basis. However, it would be more flexible if we had our own powers to fund rather than having to rely on that Act, which limits project expenditure to short-term and one-off projects that do not run for longer than two years or whose individual costs do not exceed £900,000. Under the comprehensive spending review process 2002, we shall attempt to create some funding—I cannot tell the hon. Lady exactly how much—in order to develop sustainable return programmes for failed asylum seekers or those who wish to return.

I was asked whether financial support includes secondment of staff. Yes, it does. We provide a financial benefit to the relevant international organisation. We know from our work with international policing and immigration organisations and international non-governmental organisations that great mutual benefit can be gained from

secondments and support. The hon. Lady will know that we also work closely with the International Organisation for Migration in respect of voluntary returns, among other issues. We already have some experience, but we wish to expand it. The clauses are part of an holistic approach to immigration whereby we consider the difficulties in source countries and how the Home Office can help. There is also a role for Governments throughout the European Union and the developed world who experience problems of economic migration to work together to see what they can do to help source countries to stabilise. It is in everyone's interests to do so. The clauses give us the necessary powers to continue to develop work in this area more unambiguously.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

This is a welcome and positive development, which will allow us to consider resettlement programmes. Clause 43 covers more than refugees, to which only part of the power relates. That has been missing in our policies for a long time. I am pleased that the Conservative party is rejecting the two-tier system that they set out to create in 1996. They made a simple but flawed distinction between people who applied for asylum at ports of entry and those who applied in country. Those who applied for asylum at ports of entry would receive support, but those who applied in country would be deprived of it, on the flawed assumption that those two classes of people had different justifications for asylum claims. It was only because of the court case that followed those proposals that in-country applicants were left with any support through the local authorities.

My concern about the two-tier system is not so much that different rules may be applied but that different attitudes may be generated. We all know of problematic attitudes towards asylum seekers, and we must be careful to make it clear that we will not pursue the argument that those who undertake the resettlement programme are genuine, whereas others who do not undertake it are not.

I appreciate that we are dipping our toes into the water, but I am not clear how the resettlement programmes will function or how decisions will be taken about who is eligible to come as a refugee through them. The nearest and most recent equivalent was the humanitarian evacuation programme from Kosovo. The UNHCR acted as the gatekeeper and in effect decided who was suitable to come as part of that programme. That almost implies that an agency other than the Home Office will decide whether an asylum claim is justified. What is the interface between the two? Will the Minister say whether the Home Office will be involved in another country's decision to allow someone through that gateway?

I also welcome the support that is being suggested for people who are returning, whether they are doing so voluntarily or are being removed from the country. Unquestionably, we do not treat people humanely at present. They may suddenly find themselves on a plane with their family with no financial support to start to re-establish themselves. It will be interesting to see how this part of the Bill develops. The question remains

who will decide who gets on to the programme, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I should like to address a few comments to the Minister on clause 42.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. We are discussing clause 43.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I beg your pardon, Mr. Illsley.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made some welcome comments about the powers in clause 43 and what they enable us to do. We have not made final decisions on the matter, and we are discussing how we can develop the resettlement programme with the UNHCR and other interested parties. The criteria for resettlement are that the refugee's life, liberty, safety, health or other fundamental human rights are at risk in the country where they sought refuge, and once the UNHCR believes that someone may be suitable for resettlement, they will put them forward for consideration by us. We have not yet decided in detail how we will deal with that and are consulting other countries that have more experience of resettlement than we do. They include the United States of America, Canada and Australia, which all have much larger resettlement programmes. We will examine potential specific criteria that could be applied in addition by the UK, which may include security screening.

The UNHCR will then sift applications that concern them and pass appropriate cases to us for consideration. Field officers will ensure that each resettlement candidate has a good understanding of what life in the UK will be like and what will happen to them on arrival. The UNHCR oversees all resettlement programmes and assesses global resettlement needs annually. At this stage, we do not want the UNHCR to be responsible for assessing whether individuals meet UK-specific sifting criteria. The final decision on whom to accept from will be for the UK. We are at the early stages of working out how the resettlement programme will come into effect, but I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some idea of how we see it working.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I thank the Minister for her assurances on both the secondment and the point raised by NACAB. Far be it from me to make any spending commitments for the official Opposition, but I am extremely pleased that she is taking a grip on the finances of the potential projects. There is no doubt that investing in advance will save both money in the long term and human misery by ensuring that, as she said earlier, people are taken out of the hands of traffickers.

Will she ensure that the Opposition are aware at an early stage of any discussions on the expansion of the projects? We all take a great deal of interest in the matters, irrespective of our political party. I am pleased with what the Minister had to say and hope that she is successful in her negotiations to get suitable investment.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I am particularly pleased to see arrangements that allow the Secretary of State to assist with the settlement of migrants both in the

United Kingdom and elsewhere. Many people who come to the UK are in a winner-takes-all lottery. Either they are allowed to remain in the United Kingdom with the long-term potential to apply for citizenship and all the benefits that that brings, or they face the prospect of being turned out of the country and perhaps sent back to socially or economically unsettled parts of the world.

Despite the fact that we have spent most of our time in Committee discussing arrangements for the people who stay in the United Kingdom, the reality is that, according the latest figures, 78 per cent. of asylum seekers are not given leave to remain. We do a great injustice if we do not focus on the ultimate destination and fate of the vast majority of people who enter this country, which is not to remain here. We need to make far more provision for such asylum seekers, who are the vast majority of the total, to enjoy quality of life, even if they do not remain in the UK. We need to ensure that there are proper counselling facilities in accommodation centres, for example, to prepare people for returning to their country of origin or elsewhere and that proper welfare provision is made for them and their dependants to handle that transition properly, so that we do not just push them through a rough sorting process that allows the lucky ones to stay and turns everyone else out. A more equitable system that looks after the interests of all asylum seekers, whether they remain here or are returned elsewhere, may also prevent the current situation of so many people disappearing from accommodation centres or other places.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

It is wonderful to hear a younger occupant of the Conservative Back Benches speak in such inclusive terms about asylum seekers and refugees. When the hon. Gentleman says that he would like greater provision for those asylum seekers, whether they stay here or leave the country, does he see the Government as sole providers of such help or is he thinking in terms of an EU initiative or another wider scheme?

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I am sure that any international co-operation, whether through the EU, the Department for International Development or the United Nations, would have a greater chance of being more effective. However, international co-operation must not diminish our national responsibility to ensure that people coming into the country are resettled—we know that 78 per cent. of them will not stay here. Despite all the modifications to the system that we have discussed, no one anticipates that they will lead to a step change in the numbers ultimately able to stay in the country. The numbers included in a resettlement programme are tiny compared with the overall number of people trying to enter the country and a much broader, holistic solution that looks at the welfare and eventual destination of people coming here is to be welcomed. If the clause enhances a Secretary of State's ability to do that, whether through financial payments or provision of care through longer-term assessment of the needs of asylum seekers, that is also to be welcomed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Repeal of spent provisions

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I could not let the clause, which repeals sections of the 1999 Act that provide for the abolition of the voucher system of asylum support, to go by without simply acknowledging it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Detention by secretary of state

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 24, line 15, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—

'(3) A provision of Schedule 2 to that Act about a person who is detained or liable to detention under that Schedule shall apply to a person who is detained or liable to detention under this section: and for that purpose—

(a) a reference to paragraph 16 of that Schedule shall be taken to include a reference to this section,

(b) a reference in paragraph 21 of that Schedule to an immigration officer shall be taken to include a reference to the Secretary of State, and

(c) a reference to detention under that Schedule or under a provision or Part of that Schedule shall be taken to include a reference to detention under this section.'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 291, in page 24, line 46, at end add—

'( ) Section 53 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (bail) shall be amended as follows—

(a) at the end of subsection (1) add ''or under section 45 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002'', and

(b) at the end of subsection (3)(a) add ''or under section 45 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002''.

( ) Section 23(2) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c.24) (detention of suspected international terrorist) shall be amended as follows—

(a) omit ''and'' after paragraph (a), and

(b) after paragraph (b) add—

'', and

(c) section 45 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State).'' '.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to authorise the detention of certain categories of person, currently liable to detention on the authority of an immigration officer. It does not mean that people who cannot currently be detained will be liable to detention in future and it does not affect the number of people who will be detained. It increases the number of people able to authorise detention.

Amendment No. 290 is primarily a drafting change and is a substitute for existing provisions. Without that consequential amendment, the relevant provisions of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 would not apply to persons detained under the clause, including the ability to seek and be granted bail and the granting of temporary admission or temporary release. It merely puts those detained under the clause on the same footing as those detained under the powers of detention in the 1971 Act.

Without amendment No. 291, another consequential amendment, persons detained under the clause would fall outside the scope of the regulations relating to bail applications made under section 53 of the 1999 Act. The regulations to be made under that section have yet to be drafted but we intend that they should include a presumption to be granted bail in prescribed circumstances. Section 53 of the 1999 Act at present relates only to detention under the powers contained in the 1971 Act. Clause 45 gives a free-standing power to detain, and persons detained under that power would therefore be excluded. The amendment to section 53 of the 1999 Act rectifies that and ensures consistency of approach. A similar position applies in relation to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

I hope that that explains the Government's position on the amendments and that the Committee will accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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

Standing Committee E

Clause 45 - Detention by Secretary of State

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 238, in page 24, line 40, leave out subsection 8.

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. We come now to the important aspects of detention and removal. As the Minister will know, detention is a power to be used sparingly and only by those who are trained to use it. Given that the power of detention is now extended further, not only to immigration officers and the judiciary, but to the Secretary of State and, by definition, his caseworkers, I hope that Minister can confirm that they will be fully trained in all such matters.

This probing amendment would delete subsection (8), which is unsatisfactory as the Bill does not explain it properly. The meaning of ''of a particular kind'' is not clear, nor is the meaning of ''of that kind''. In fact, the more I read the subsection, the more mystified I am about its meaning. Would the Minister be kind enough to explain it?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The Government accept the comments of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) about the power to detain. It is a serious matter that raises important issues. The problem is that, although the Immigration Act 1971 had a clear division of powers and duties in that respect—immigration officers dealt with people seeking to enter the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State dealt with those already here—the distinction has since become rather blurred, especially as a consequence of certain changes made under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

New section 3A of the 1971 Act allows the Secretary of State to grant, refuse or vary leave to enter the UK in the circumstances set out under the Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2001, a function that was previously reserved to immigration officers. Section 10 of the 1999 Act transfers to an immigration officer the power previously held by the Secretary of State to remove overstayers and certain other types of immigration offender.

Our practical difficulty is that in the case of, say, an illegal entrant who claims asylum, a caseworker in the integrated casework directorate can decide the asylum application on behalf of the Secretary of State, but cannot authorise detention if that is considered appropriate. Furthermore, the caseworker cannot authorise release subject to reporting conditions in other cases. The file has to be passed to an

immigration officer to make that decision and then passed back. The position is different for an on-entry applicant. The ICD caseworker can authorise temporary admission subject to conditions, but cannot authorise detention.

The clause will overcome what we believe is an inefficient way to proceed. It will allow the Secretary of State to authorise detention and grant release subject to conditions in the following cases: when the Secretary of State has power to set removal directions, and when he has power to grant or refuse leave to enter. We are trying to simplify the process.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's points about the importance of such decisions. They will always be reviewed by a senior officer, and I confirm that appropriate training will continue to be provided, although in many senses the criteria will not differ. It is the group of people to whom they apply who will be slightly different.

If the amendment were accepted, no minor who is liable to removal as an illegal entrant under section 10 of the 1999 Act powers or following a refusal of leave to enter could be detained on the Secretary of State's authority. However, an immigration officer's power to detain someone under the age of 18 would not be affected. Obviously, detaining a child is not done lightly, but it is sometimes necessary to allow the removal of a family group to take place smoothly. It may also be necessary in other exceptional circumstances, such as when a child arrives unaccompanied late at night and it is impossible for local social services to make suitable arrangements. Detention in such cases would usually be overnight while alternative care arrangements were made.

The hon. Gentleman asked for examples of decisions ''of a particular kind''. That refers to the sort of decisions allowed under the clause: for example, subsection (2)(c) allows detention pending a decision by the Secretary of State to give legal directions. Under subsection (8), the power to detain under subsection (2)(c) can be exercised pending a decision by the Secretary of State to set removal directions when he has grounds to suspect that he may make a decision to set removal directions.

I emphasise that detention in family cases would be used only when necessary and not for an excessive period. As I said, limiting the power to detain under the clause in the manner proposed would not prevent the detention of a person under 18 by an immigration officer using powers contained elsewhere, in the 1971 Act. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member for Woking will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am greatly assisted by the Minister's response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 291, in page 24, line 46, at end add—

'( ) Section 53 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (bail) shall be amended as follows—

(a) at the end of subsection (1) add ''or under section 45 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002'', and

(b) at the end of subsection (3)(a) add ''or under section 45 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002''.

( ) Section 23(2) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c.24) (detention of suspected international terrorist) shall be amended as follows—

(a) omit ''and'' after paragraph (a), and

(b) after paragraph (b) add—

'', and

(c) section 45 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State).'''.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.

]

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 237, in page 24, line 46, at end add—

'(10) For the purposes of this section no person under the age of 18 shall be detained in accordance with its provisions'.

Under the amendment, no person under the age of 18 would be detained. It is a probing amendment. I understand that in the real world minors have to be detained from time to time, albeit only in the most exceptional circumstances, whereas the amendment would prevent the Government from detaining minors in any circumstance.

The Government have often said that minors should not be detained, but more family detention places are being built. The half of Yarl's Wood that burned down provided 450 places for families. I remind the Government that they signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, but to the great upset of many non-governmental organisations and others, the Government maintain their reservation on article 22 so that children can be detained.

The Ministers will have read the special report entitled ''Refugees in Britain'' by Martin Bright in The Observer on Sunday 12 August 2001. He gave many examples of youngsters who ended up in adult accommodation—some were even detained in prison. I will not go into details, but there were some sad and sorry tales. The 1997 detention instructions state that minors are

''unsuitable for detention in Immigration Service Accommodation''.

However, we still detain minors in the United Kingdom, contrary to the convention on the rights of the child and UNHCR guidelines.

The Minister will probably not be able to tell me how many minors are currently detained—the figure may vary from week to week. However, I seek from her an assurance that the Government will strive mightily never to detain minors, and an undertaking to write to me as soon as she can with an update on the numbers involved. Will she also tell the Committee that it is the Government's intention to reduce the number of minors in detention to zero or the nearest possible number to zero?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

For the reasons I have already given, I cannot give a complete assurance that minors will never be detained. In some cases, detention is necessary in the best interests of the child—for example, overnight detention. Minors may also be detained when appeals have been exhausted and a family has been refused asylum.

It is difficult to state the exact number of children detained, because that number changes almost daily. Although it is not possible to give accurate figures, I stress that we will do all that we can: for example, in cases involving unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the Government will seek to ensure that local authorities provide the necessary facilities for them so that, as often as possible, they need not be detained overnight.

I cannot accept the amendment. If the intention is to prevent the detention of anyone under 18, the amendment would not achieve it. It would prevent detention by a Secretary of State, but not by an immigration officer. Again, I stress that detention of minors is not done lightly, but it cannot be wholly avoided. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The purpose of my amendment was to flag up the Opposition's concern about the detention of minors, which has troubled us for a long time. I listened to what the Minister said, and although it was not entirely satisfactory, I understand to some extent the logic of her argument. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Escorts

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 252, in page 25, line 8, leave out 'arrests' and inserts 'detains'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 255.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Clause 46 amends schedule 2(17) of the 1971 Act. It will give detainee custody officers a limited power of entry to private premises in order to search detained persons prior to escorting them to a place of detention. People who are being taken to a place of detention must be searched before they are transported, most obviously to ensure that they are not carrying weapons or other dangerous items. That is to ensure the safety and security of the escort, the public and the detained persons. The power to search detained persons is provided in paragraph 2 of schedule 13 to the 1999 Act.

At present, escorting officers cannot enter private premises other than by consent, and when consent is not given, the detained person has to be taken to the nearest police station to be searched by the escort. That causes unnecessary delay, imposes a burden on police resources, and can be needlessly distressing to detainees. The clause removes those problems by ensuring that the search can take place at the detainee's address.

Government amendments Nos. 252 and 255 are linked and merely rectify a drafting error. To be consistent with escorts' existing power to search a detained person, which is contained in paragraph 2 of

schedule 13 to the 1999 Act, the power to enter private premises will be triggered by the detention rather than by the arrest of a person. The amendments are minor and will ensure that the trigger for the power to enter private premises is consistent with escorts' existing power to search a detained person. I hope that the Committee will accept that these are minor drafting amendments and will accept them accordingly.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I seek further clarification from the Minister on the difference between arrest and detention. I understand where the Government are coming from, and under later amendments we shall discuss our general concerns about escort officers carrying out that kind of work. There is a significant difference between an arrest situation and a detention situation. I understand that when an arrest occurs, a range of other safeguards kick in, in particular the codes of practice in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which, as the Minister knows, apply not only to police officers but to immigration service officers.

We are concerned that there might be a lowering of the standards of behaviour expected from, or mandated upon, those carrying out such functions. In particular, I question whether the proposed shift from the word ''arrests'' to ''detains'' will change the distinction between arrest and detention in any way, because escorting officers will not be carrying out a formal arrest. Will that disapply procedures such as those under PACE that offer safeguards to the person who is being taken away?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

No. I hope that I can give some reassurance on that subject. At the moment, if an escort accompanying an immigration or police officer has a warrant to detain a person, they cannot search that person there and then, because they do not have the power to assist in detaining somebody. The person can only be searched at a police station, because the officers would not want to carry out the search out on the street, which is what they would have to do if they did not have the consent of the person to enter the premises.

In respect of detention—which is different from arrest—we are trying to introduce a system that enables the escort to enter the premises and conduct a search there and then, rather than having to go to the police station to do that. The escort must conduct the search themselves if the detention and escort process are to be carried out in a lawful fashion. I hope that that clarifies the situation, and reassures the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan).

Amendment agreed to.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 262, in page 25, line 9, leave out 'if need be by force'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will convenient to consider amendment No. 236, in page 25, line 9, after 'by', insert 'reasonable'.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The amendment addresses our principal concerns about what might arise in the cases that the Government envisage wherein detainee custody officers effectively take over—or accept—a broader range of powers, which historically have largely been

exercised by police officers and immigration service officers. Our principal concerns are about whether the standards that apply to detainee custody officers will be as high as those that apply to police and immigration service officers.

As I have said, police officers are subject to a range of procedures when they carry out forcible entries and searches of individuals. Those procedures are well established in law. Immigration service officers, through their codes of practice, have effectively taken up the PACE codes of practice. We seek assurances that codes of practice that are equivalent to those of PACE will be applied to detainee custody officers who carry out such tasks.

With regard to detainee custody officers who take an individual away, past experience suggests that it is reasonable to expect that things might occasionally go awry. What kind of complaints mechanism will be in place if and when something goes wrong? The police and immigration service have complaints mechanisms in place, but we have concerns about the accountability of anyone else who might conduct such tasks.

It is likely that the detainee custody officers will not be public employees. It is reasonable to assume that the Government intend to employ private sector firms to engage in that work—I would like to hear whether Ministers have something else in mind, or to receive confirmation that they envisage private sector security firms will carry out this work. Every individual has the right to expect both decent standards to be applied and a means of redress if they are not, but that could be far more difficult to ensure in respect of a private sector firm than in respect of the police or immigration services.

I know of complaints that have been made against court officers employed from the private sector. There is a public expectation that court officers should conform to high standards and that there should be a clear route of accountability, regardless of whether they are employed by the private or the public sector, so that blame is not placed on a private sector manager rather than the public sector authority taking the blame and accepting responsibility for investigating any problems.

We are also concerned about the extent to which forcible entries and search events can affect a wider group of people than their immediate subjects. Often, the impact will not be limited to the individual who has been taken into detention. The proposal that forcible entry can take place will affect not only the person who is liable to be detained, but other people, who might include British citizens if the place that is entered is a person's private premises and other people are present at the time.

I do not want to create too large a distinction, but British citizens have an expectation in law that protections apply. Although the Government may be able to justify the overriding necessity to remove an individual detainee, people would find it difficult to accept that at the expense of the rights and liberties of those who are present in or who own the building involved. The worst-case scenario is that of a private-

sector organisation making a forcible entry and people who are worried and who want to raise their legitimate rights in law finding it difficult to obtain redress for what occurred. Amendment No. 262 would remove the forcible entry provision.

I hope that the Government will find amendment No. 236 more acceptable. A similar amendment was debated when the Committee on the 1999 legislation discussed similar powers for immigration officers. It gave rise to one of the rare moments of excitement in Committee when an Opposition amendment is accepted. That amendment proposed that the word ''reasonable'' should preface the word ''force'' when considering entry into premises. The then Minister, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), accepted that the reasonableness test should and always would apply to any use of force.

If the Minister cannot accept amendment No. 262, I hope that she will accept amendment No. 236. The phrase ''reasonable force'' is well known in law. If we extend the power from immigration service officers to people who are more at arm's length—detainee custody officers—there are stronger grounds for including the word ''reasonable'' because that would give people security about the way in which force would be used.

I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response on those points. The matter is of considerable concern to us because of the potential for things to go wrong and the possibility of the unfortunate consequence of individuals feeling that they cannot get redress. Situations may develop that should be handled by the highly trained professional officers in the police force: although I know that the police are reluctant to carry out a large amount of immigration work because it detracts from their other duties, they are trained to deal with tense situations in which physical contact is required. People in the immigration service are similarly trained, and we do not want a diminution of the professionalism of the service that will apply to tense and difficult situations.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I rise to speak to amendment No. 236, which in fact stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was confusing the amendments.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I entirely forgive the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased to have his support.

The tragic death of Joy Gardner teaches us that we should proceed with huge sensitivity in such areas. Will the Minister tell us more about detainee custody officers? I am anxious to know what training such people will have, whether they will be in uniform, the powers that they will have and whether they will be employees of private security firms. We must proceed with sensitivity if such persons may enter premises, especially if they may do so by force.

The clause does not limit the amount of force that a detainee custody officer may use. My knowledge of criminal law—you too will know this from your

experience, Mr. Hurst—suggests that if the word ''force'' is used in statute, it is often preceded by the word ''reasonable''. It is an absolute canon of the law on self-defence that one may use force to defend oneself provided that it is reasonable. That is laid out specifically in all directions that judges give to juries.

The Minister might say that there is an inference to be drawn that the force used must be reasonable, but that is not what the Bill states. It contains no reference to the requirement to use reasonable force, even though there are many other statutory references to reasonable force. The Minister loses absolutely nothing by agreeing to my proposal to include ''reasonable''. I am certain that the briefing from her officials does not say, ''Resist at all costs.'' Indeed, it might say, ''Resist mildly to begin with, but if the argument is persuasive, accept it.'' I hope that that is what the Minister's briefing says.

We all know that the police and the immigration service are subject to certain disciplinary procedures, codes of practice and all the rest of it; that is as it should be. We want to know that the position of a detainee custody officer is similar in a world where ample protection is given to all parties concerned. The force used must be reasonable—it cannot be unreasonable—so why can the clause not say so?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Let me deal first with amendment No. 236. We believe that the amendment is redundant because the only force that may lawfully be used is that which is reasonable. That is explicit in both the clause and paragraph 17(2) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. We are mirroring the provisions of that Act, and although we have considered alternatives, we believe that it is acceptable to use the same wording. Quite simply, if the force is unreasonable, it is likely to be unlawful.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I think that the Minister said that, if the force is unreasonable, it is lawful—

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Unlawful.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister may have meant to say that if the force is unreasonable it is unlawful. What consequences would flow from that?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I shall come to complaints in due course, but obviously if the action were unlawful, the person would have broken the law and would be liable for his action in the same way that anyone else would be in those circumstances.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I want to encourage the Minister to look more favourably on the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Woking. She has just spoken about mirroring the 1971 Act; I wonder whether she will offer a commitment to look at what happened in the 1999 Act? At the time, the Government said that the word ''reasonable'' was redundant, but to reassure the Opposition Members they included it in the Bill. The same argument may apply now. For the sake of public reassurance, it would be better if the Bill stated ''reasonable force'' rather than simply ''force''.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I was about to say that although we remain satisfied that there is adequate protection, we will certainly consider instances such as the one to

which the hon. Gentleman referred. At present, we are extremely satisfied that it is not necessary to add ''reasonable''. We would have to look at any repercussions that there might be for Acts when the word ''unreasonable'' is not inserted. I hope that that reassures him.

Amendment No. 262 would make the clause inconsistent with paragraph 17(2) of schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, to which it is directly linked. The clause gives detainee custody officers a limited power of entry to private premises to search detained persons before escorting them to a place of detention. As we said, our problem is that there are currently unnecessary delays, as police officers have a larger burden. The experience can needlessly distress detainees, as they must be taken to the nearest police station so that the escort can search them.

A detainee escort's power of entry is limited. It would be exercised only when escorts accompanied police or immigration officers to premises for which a justice of the peace has issued a warrant. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked how escorts will be held accountable for their actions. As I said, escorts are as accountable in law for their actions as anyone else. That would remain the case, even given the limited power of entry. They are responsible for escorting detained persons safely and securely to and from places of detention. They are detainee custody officers, who are certified under section 154 of the 1999 Act to perform escort and custodial functions.

The hon. Gentleman asked about qualifications. The Secretary of State issues a certificate of authorisation only when he is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to perform the authorised functions of a certified DCO and has received training to an approved standard. The training covers the skills and competences necessary to perform escort functions, including safe use of control and restraint techniques, first aid, race awareness, suicide awareness, child care and child protection. The escorts are employed by Wackenhut UK Ltd, which is the immigration and nationality directorate's contracted service provider of in-country escorting of detained persons.

Complaints about an escort's actions are directed to the immigration service's escort contract monitor. Under schedule 13(1) of the 1999 Act, the escort contract monitor is required to investigate and report to the Secretary of State any allegation made against an escorting officer about any act done or failure to act while escorting a detained person. The DCO certificate may be suspended during such an investigation and subsequently revoked in appropriate cases. I emphasise that in addition to that robust complaints procedure, any escort is answerable in law for his or her actions.

On restrictions on searching detainees, rule 7 of the detention centre rules 2001 applies to detained persons when they are taken into custody. That includes searches by escorts as well as those conducted on reception at removal centres. The rule requires that a detained person shall be searched in as seemly a manner as is consistent with discovering anything concealed. I understand the points made by the hon.

Gentlemen, but I hope that they will be reassured by the fact that the clause merely enables escorts to conduct searches on premises, as opposed to a detainee or person who will be detained having to be taken to a police station to be searched. Escorts will always be accompanied by a police constable and immigration officer who will carry a warrant that will enable the escort to do the searching there.

With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam will withdraw the amendment.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful for the Minister's considered response, in particular her offer to re-examine the use of the word ''reasonable'' as used in the amendment of the hon. Member for Woking. It will be better if we return to the subject after that reconsideration has taken place, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Detention centres: change of name

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 263, in page 25, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).

It is this amendment that confused me in the last group. Amendment No. 263 following No. 236 is too much for my brain to grasp at this time of day.

The amendment is important because we are concerned about the Government's redesignation of detention centres as removal centres. We do not perceive the logic, unless it is Government window-dressing. All the evidence suggests that if the current pattern of detention continues, the individuals detained in the centres will not necessarily be those who are about to be removed. The redefinition as removal centres will allow the Government to talk up their removals policy by classifying anyone in the centres as someone with whom they are dealing from a removals point of view.

Significant numbers of people are involved. At the end of December 2001, there were 1,410 asylum seekers in detention, and the Home Office estimated in March 2000 that some 15,000 people were detained under 1999 Act powers. Of people in the system the end of March 1999, 60 per cent. of asylum detainees were awaiting an initial decision, 25 per cent. were awaiting the result of an appeal and 15 per cent. were awaiting the result of a further challenge to documentation for removal. In other words, a large number of people are being held in detention centres—lawfully so, under to the Government's regime, although we could debate whether any individual should be detained—pending initial hearings rather than pending removal.

It seems perverse to reclassify as a removal centre a detention centre that mainly holds people who have been detained for perfectly good reasons under the 1999 Act but who are not awaiting removal. The reclassification can only point to some other agenda, one that allows the Government to talk about dealing

with removals, which we accept are a difficult issue, despite the fact that the removal centres will not hold people who are at the point of removal.

We are worried about how being in what is deemed to be a removal centre will affect those held. What message is sent to an asylum seeker in a removal centre who is awaiting an initial hearing if, even before his case has been heard, he is effectively—by the name of the centre if not in law—classified as someone who is awaiting removal? That could cause the Government additional problems if they have to detain people who are waiting for a hearing to take place. It might be more straightforward for all parties if such people were detained in a detention centre, rather than forced into a removal centre where they may feel less co-operative because of the message sent out and the tone of the system.

Taking someone to hearings from a removal centre might send a message to those who will make decisions about that person—a message that classifies those held in accommodation centres as ''the good guys'', unlike those held in removal centres. That sends a strong message, even though no logic is involved. Many of the reasons for detention involve uncertainty and do not necessarily imply that the detainee has a less valid asylum claim than a person held in an accommodation centre. Having two routes into hearings—one from a removal centre and the other from an accommodation centre—will create an additional negative message about the person held in the removal centre. We do not believe that that is merited if that person is, as we believe many people will continue to be, awaiting initial decisions.

I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the logic behind the redesignation and whether the Government intend the pattern of detentions to change. Perhaps the fact that he is awaiting initial approval could be a valid reason to hold a person in an accommodation centre rather than a detention centre. Will the proportion of people awaiting removals increase, or is the new name a simple reclassification that does not change the composition of the population held in the removal centres?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Our purpose in renaming detention centres removal centres is to reinforce the key role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful basis to stay in this country. It does not signal a change of function for such centres, which will remain designated places of detention for the purposes of immigration legislation; nor does it signal a change in the powers to detain.

The amendment would restrict the use of detention in a removal centre to certain classes of people, such as those who at the time of their detention could not lawfully be removed from the United Kingdom, those who are removed within two months of their detention, or those who are over 18. It would mean that we would have to release people in spite of the

evidence used to put them in detention—people whom we fear would abscond or are close to being removed. For example, we would be unable to detain an asylum seeker whose claim or appeal was outstanding. That would cause chaos in the system.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman, like the rest of the Committee, wants a system wherein the failure of an asylum claim—the person is not granted any other form of leave to remain—ultimately results in an outcome different from that of a claim that ends in someone being granted refugee status. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman should tell me the point of the system.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I was going to elaborate on subsequent amendments that relate to the question of who should be held in detention centres. At this stage, I merely wanted to probe the issue of the naming of the centres, rather than raise other issues that relate to a subsequent group of amendments.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I have explained why the Bill will rename detention centres removal centres: it is to reinforce the role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful basis to stay here. That includes not only asylum seekers but overstayers and people who have fallen foul of the immigration rules and are due to be removed. If that is the answer that the hon. Gentleman wanted, that is the one that I give. I will answer the rest of his questions when we debate his next group of amendments.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which was not entirely unanticipated. There is still a major point of difference. It is not in the interests of good, open and transparent government to call something a removal centre when, as the Minister said, the policy on who is to be detained is not being changed and most of the people in the centres are not awaiting removal. We might return to that issue. In order to have a proper debate on the next interesting group of amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 235, in page 25, line 26, after 'persons', insert—

'whom the Home Office is lawfully entitled to remove'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this we will take the following amendments: No. 264, in page 25, line 26, after 'persons', insert—

'who are removable within the next two months'.

Amendment No. 265, in page 25, line 26, after 'persons', insert—

'over the age of eighteen'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

What is in a name? A removal centre is not a removal centre under the Bill. It should be what it says it is. On 14 February, there was a ghastly fire in Yarl's Wood caused by arson. At that time, Yarl's Wood held 380 persons of whom only 294 were due to be removed; the other 86 were current asylum seekers. There is a great deal of potential for confusion about who is in what establishment.

Will the Minister give the Committee her best up-to-date figures on the total number of removals from the United Kingdom from January to December 2001?

Will she also tell us whether the Government are sticking to their target of 35,000 removals per year? If so, when will they be on line to achieve that target? The Immigration Advisory Service tells me that Ministers have confirmed that the function of removal centres is no different from that of detention centres, as they used to be called: such centres will continue to house persons who have claimed asylum but not received an initial decision, whom the Home Office cannot lawfully remove.

The effect on an asylum seeker who has not yet been given an initial decision but is sent to a removal centre could be severe. It is likely to engender fear and cynicism about how seriously the claim is being considered. The change in name is ill judged. The Home Office may simply be trying to send a clear message to the public that the Government are serious about removal, in which case, let us hear the figures.

Other objections to the clause come from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which objects to the redesignation of detention centres as removal centres for the same reason that I outlined—it is inaccurate. Many people held in detention centres are not liable for removal in the near future. Many have not had their initial application determined, and some are not returnable at all in the foreseeable future because of upheaval in their country of origin.

The redesignation will not encourage detainees to regard the process of seeking immigration status as fair and will tend to undermine trust in the independent Immigration Appellate Authority. If a detainee is placed in a removal centre when the application is made, the implicit message is that the application is doomed to failure. The name is badly chosen. The redesignation may be designed to give the impression that the Government are increasing their ability to remove those who do not qualify for asylum or for leave to enter or remain, in which case, let us see what progress has been made.

My amendments would do justice by ensuring that such removal centres could be used only to house people who are to be removed. It is important to flag up the issue and to find out from the Minister why the change has been made.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants have expressed the same objections as those that were expressed by the organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the renaming will cause much anxiety for people whose first language might not be English and who therefore might not understand the relevant nuances, so that they will think that they are being put in a place that only houses people who are to be removed? That will double the anxiety of a group of vulnerable people.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My hon. Friend is right. Not only will the measure cause anxiety, but it will cause it to be felt by a group of vulnerable people. They will make their applications and find themselves being sent to a removal centre, which will make them scratch their heads.

I do not understand why the Minister is doing this, which is why I have proposed the amendment.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

Every time I hear the hon. Member for Woking speak from the Conservative Front Bench, I am astounded at how far his party appears to have moved in such a short time. It seems like only five minutes ago that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was speaking from the Home Office brief and suggesting that every single asylum seeker should be locked up the minute they stepped off a boat or a plane.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman has a serious reputation in the field of asylum and immigration, and he knows that Conservative Committee members are trying their best to be thoughtful and constructive, and to contribute in a decent and workmanlike manner. I therefore feel a bit sad that he is teasing me. I hope that he will recognise our sincerity and not tease us too much.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I always welcome sinners who repent. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has approached the Committee—and the entire Bill—in a constructive manner, and I do not wish to be churlish about what he has been saying about this issue for quite some time.

Like many other hon. Members, I have been concerned for a while about the way that detention is used in connection with immigration and asylum cases. I do not argue for one moment that detention should never be used. That is the case not only in asylum matters. I recall an immigration case in which a woman was claiming to be someone when it was blatantly obvious that she was not that person because that person was dead, yet the woman refused to admit who she really was. I acknowledge that sometimes one has to deal with difficult people. However, in the area of asylum, there has always been a concern that far too many people have been detained before an initial decision is made about their claim. Several hon. Members have already mentioned that.

It is difficult to know precisely what happens in many such cases because, unfortunately, the Home Office no longer keeps the relevant statistics. Three or four years ago it was possible to get statistics that showed what had happened to people who had been detained—whether they had been granted asylum, or exceptional leave, or had their claim refused, or won appeals, or whatever. It appears that those statistics are no longer available. I do not know why.

If a decision to detain someone were taken, one would assume that there were good reasons for it. One would expect a pretty high failure rate of asylum claims among people who were detained. However, when those statistics were available, they clearly showed that quite a lot of people were ultimately successful—they were granted either full refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. I have no reason to believe that that position has changed.

For several years, successive Home Secretaries have told hon. Members that detention should be used only

at the end of the process and only for people who are going to be removed. I recall precisely that being said in the Committee that considered the 1999 legislation, which included provisions on detention and bail. Ministers said then that they wanted to ensure as far as possible that detention was used only at the end of the process. We all accept that earlier detention can sometimes be justified—for people who commit criminal offences or who have absconded, for example—but in the main, it is most appropriate at the end of the process.

The renaming of detention centres as removal centres indicates far more than just a change of name. It suggests a clear change of policy from using detention at the end of the process when removal is imminent. I am disappointed that exchanges in the debate so far have not revealed the fact that a change of policy is intended in favour of detaining people at the beginning of the process before their claims have even been looked at.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I was interested to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who speaks with considerable experience. I, too, remember during debates on the 1999 legislation hearing many Government commitments to refocus detention on removal. However, the action of refocusing it on removal is currently absent: we have merely a change in name rather than in practice, which is worrying.

The two Liberal Democrat amendments are designed to assist the Government by refocusing their removal centres on removal. We lost the argument about the name a few minutes ago, so we move on to what the removal centres should do. We simply say that removal centres should be used for removal.

We also want to help the Government to meet their commitment to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child by excluding those under the age of 18. The Government gained an exemption from article 22 some time ago, but we continue to challenge that. It is right to criticise and press hard on the issue of holding children in detention.

The fact that we want to redefine removal centres should not lead the Minister to argue that we want to let loose many people who should be detained. Our suggestion is that three classes of centre are needed. We need accommodation centres for those normally held in the community, and it is appropriate to use removal centres for removals, but another category of people—not necessarily only asylum seekers—will have to be detained from time to time for various reasons. I await the Minister's clarification of precisely whom the categories will include.

People arrive at a port of entry for various reasons, some perfectly legitimate, but the immigration service may not be able to let individuals leave that port. Can individuals who have to be held for a variety of immigration reasons, not just because of asylum claims, only be held in removal centres? Some issues might need to be clarified before an individual can be

allowed to go about his business in the UK, and detention might unfortunately be necessary in the short term.

I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow that detention should be kept to a minimum, but that it is necessary in certain circumstances. I do not want someone suspected of criminality to be set loose in the country. Such a person should be detained while the circumstances are investigated. However, I question whether it is right to place that individual in a removal centre, given that at a later date he may turn out to be entirely innocent at a later date. Perhaps there should be the three categories that I suggested, which include accommodation centres for those going into normal community accommodation and removal centres for those who are to be removed, which is what the Government want to establish.

Let us be honest: detention may be required for various reasons. We must make a clear distinction between removal and detention and not make a clumsy attempt to wrap up the two together, thereby creating a large category of people in removal centres who are not about to be removed. The figures show that such people are likely to be at the beginning of the system, not at the end.

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

I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about the current use of detention. I have seen far too many cases in which there was no basis in the first instance for someone not to be granted bail or to be detained. I hope that the emphasis placed on the change of name signifies a change of policy. Above all, our discussion shows the need for improvements in the quality of the decision-making process, because bail has been allowed in due course in too many cases. I accept that we are not discussing bail conditions, but in too many cases detention was not justified given the objective analysis of the facts before the decision maker.

I hope that the Minister can say how we can ensure that the process is changed so that people are not detained unnecessarily. I am worried that one of the downsides of an otherwise good Bill might be an increase in the number of people who are detained when they should not be. I hope that we can ensure that that does not happen as a result of our discussions and the administrative decisions that will follow thereafter.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

We have had a useful discussion. Concerns have been expressed by those on both sides of the Committee who are genuinely concerned about the clause. Given that, I do not see a need to press amendment No. 235 to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am puzzled. I did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was expecting a ministerial response. I had been looking forward to it.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I did not expect much of the Minister.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I was about to respond. I was expecting the hon. Gentleman to add something that he had forgotten to say in his initial speech, but clearly his expectations of me are fairly low.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I apologise. I sought to withdraw the amendment too early. The hon. Lady is always courteous in her responses. I intended no offence.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

None taken.

I confirm that our priority for the use of detention space is to support the removal of failed asylum seekers and others with no basis to stay here—generally, illegal entrants and overstayers. That is the main purpose of the detention, now to be called the removal estate. However, members of the Committee are right to point out that apart from detention to effect removal, which includes deportation for immigration offenders rather than asylum seekers, we may detain both asylum and non-asylum cases while the person's identity or claim is established. Clearly, that must be at a beginning of a claim, not at the end.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow was right to point out that the immigration and nationality directorate is often faced with people who claim a certain identity that we cannot verify. He mentioned circumstances in which someone claimed an identity of a verifiably dead person and, despite being presented with the facts, still maintained that she was that person. The IND has to deal with such matters all the time.

There are sometimes multiple claims using many different identities, which we are beginning to pick up more regularly through our electronic fingerprinting systems. We have fingerprinted asylum seekers for many years, but the new systems allow us to compare the prints with large banks of records much more effectively. The equipment that allows us to do that can be portable in some circumstances. We are picking up more and more evidence of multiple false claims and different identities.

It is proper that we detain while we investigate those false claims, and clearly that has to take place at the beginning rather than at the end of a case. There are certainly people in detention whose identities we cannot establish or whose stories we doubt. If we can confirm their identity, they are usually released from detention quite quickly, and they go on into the system in the normal way. Hon. Members will know that there is quite a throughput, which means that giving figures and particular statistics provides only a snapshot of one day. We can also detain because a person is likely to abscond. That can take place at different stages of the claim.

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

I have a great deal of empathy with that point, but I am not confident that the people being held in detention fall precisely into those sensible categories. If the Department has statistical information to demonstrate that, it would help to allay fears. My hon. Friend has certainly outlined categories of people that few members of the Committee would challenge, but we would like to see the evidence on which those categories are based.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I regret to say—this is as much a frustration for me as it is for anyone else—that the paper-based nature of the casework means that it is difficult to collate the statistics in the way that my hon.

Friend wants. I can assure her that we are proceeding as quickly as possible with—I dread to use the phrase—information technology that will give us more effective and up-to-date statistics, but at the moment the system is overwhelmingly based on paper files, and without a disproportionate use of resources it is difficult to keep a constant track on the way that the files are circulating around the system. I would prefer to be able to give hon. Members the information that they require, and I hope that help will be at hand in due course.

The final category of people whom we are likely to detain will be part of a fast-track case processing facility. Oakington is the example of that, subject to whatever the House of Lords decides.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I remind the Minister that I asked about removals in 2001 and the target for 2002. Can she give us those up-to-date statistics?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I can give the hon. Gentleman provisional statistics that come with all the usual health warnings. I was about to get on to that, so perhaps he should have had slightly more faith that I would remember his questions. The provisional figure for 2001 is 9,285, which is a 3 per cent. increase on the 2000 figure, a 93 per cent. increase on the 1996 figure and the highest annual figure on record. It clearly falls short of our target of 30,000. That was always an ambitious target, but we are striving to achieve it.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

When does the Minister expect to achieve it?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We are seeking a step change in the way in which we carry out removals. We are making many administrative changes as well as some of the changes in the Bill to increase the integrity of the asylum process. As I have said before, I firmly believe that there has to be a difference between someone who claims asylum and fails to get either refugee status or other lesser forms of protection, and someone who succeeds. The difference between someone who fails and someone who succeeds should be that the person who fails is returned to his country of origin. That is a vital part of our work to step up our ability to remove people.

As hon. Members know, removing people according to law, in good order, in safety, and so on, is difficult. To return people to their country of origin requires the consent of the country to which we are returning the people, the issue of travel papers, spaces on airline flights, or in some cases the chartering of our own flight. It is a huge logistical task.

We have administered a range of provisions to help reach the target: creating arrest teams—an aspect of which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary discussed on previous clauses; serving determination in person in some cases; the Association of Chief Police Officers protocol which enables us to use the police to arrest people; the expansion of the removal estate despite the setback at Yarl's Wood; the biometric smartcard which enables us to keep closer contact with asylum seekers; the chartering of flights for removals in certain circumstances; and an increased number of

departures through voluntary assisted returns. The figure that I gave earlier includes all enforced and voluntary returns. Other means include fingerprinting and closer co-operation with local authorities to see how we can remove failed asylum seekers living in local authority accommodation.

There is a range of work across the piece to try to increase integrity in the system once the asylum appeal has been determined.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I appreciate the Minister's comments. Is she still confident that the Government will hit the 30,000 figure?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We need to remove 2,500 people per month to hit 30,000. One does not need to be much of a mathematician—I am not—to realise that. It is an ambitious figure. However, we are committed to gearing up the system to achieve 30,000. Hon. Members have the figures in front of them.

The amendments would make it harder for us to achieve the figure, partly because they create a distinction between what we have called removal centres and the decision to rename all detention centres removal centres. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam even suggested that we should have detention centres and removal centres and, I presume, shuttle individuals from one to the other depending on the status of their cases.

It is our intention to ensure integrity in the system and effect removals in good order. We will continue to keep immigration offenders as well as asylum cases in detention when there is a reasonable justification for doing so, in the circumstances I outlined. Hon. Members should remember that only a small minority of people are detained. I dispute the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) that people are detained almost arbitrarily. I will not say that mistakes have never been made—he may have come across some—but there are opportunities to put them right and we do not take lightly a decision to detain someone.

I hope that, with that explanation of how removal centres will be used, the amendment will be withdrawn. If accepted, it would make it harder for us to run an effective removal system and to put more integrity into the system.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

For the second time, I rise to say that, for the reasons that I gave, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Bail

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 234, in page 26, line 22, leave out 'eight' and insert 'seven'.

This is a short probing amendment. The right of an applicant detained for further inquiries at a port under section 16(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 to apply to an adjudicator or immigration officer for bail under paragraph 22 of schedule 2 to that Act becomes effective after seven days. Why does clause 48 refer to eight days, which is a day longer than the more traditional period that applies in the earlier legislation and in the criminal justice system? No explanation for the increased period is apparent, other than administrative convenience. I should be grateful for an explanation.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hope that I can provide an explanation that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. The transfer of authority to grant bail after the eighth day of detention reflects organisational changes in the immigration and nationality directorate that are part of ongoing improvements in service delivery. The provision is part of the measures to ensure that immigration officers are deployed to best effect—on front-line control and enforcement work. Bail applications need not be dealt with exclusively by immigration officers.

The transfer of the power to grant bail from immigration officers to the Secretary of State or IND officials will help to ensure that immigration officers can be deployed in enforcement work. The timing of the transfer—after the eighth day—reflects the point at which management of a person's detention is planned to switch from the port or enforcement office to IND caseworkers. It is sensible for the authority to grant bail to be transferred at the same time, rather than a day earlier.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am grateful for that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 256, in page 26, line 41, leave out subsection (6).

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 266, in page 26, line 42, leave out 'cease to have effect' and insert—

'have effect immediately with the coming into force of this Act.'.

No. 233, in page 26, line 42, leave out 'cease to'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Amendment No. 256 would prevent the repeal of part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and deals with the important topic of bail. I am sure that many members of the Committee are disappointed and concerned about the proposed repeal of those provisions, which provide for automatic bail hearings for detained asylum seekers. The Government accepted the need for such hearings in 1999, but the legislation was never implemented.

When introducing the then Immigration and Asylum Bill, the then Home Secretary said that:

''detention . . . is necessary in a small number of cases, but there must be proper safeguards. Part III fulfils the commitment in the White Paper to introduce a more extensive judicial element in the

detention process. That will be achieved by introducing routine bail hearings for those detained under immigration legislation.''—[Official Report, 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 39.]

It is a major disappointment to many NGOs in the field that part III has never been implemented. Indeed, the implementation of those provisions may well be necessary to ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR, which guarantees

''liberty and security of person''.

The Bill contains no alternative safeguards to those in part III, so it is obvious that repealing those provisions will mean that there is no proper judicial oversight of the original decision to detain. That could lead to non-compliance with UN guidelines on arbitrary detention. The Minister may say that it is open to the person concerned to make an application for bail, but in reality that is not satisfactory. The automatic triggering of bail applications that we envisage is a good thing, and should be introduced without delay.

I express my regrets—which I think are shared widely—about the provision. I argue for the removal of subsection (6), as that would enable the bail provisions in part III of the 1999 Act to be implemented.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

This is one of the provisions of the Bill that I find very disappointing. We had a long discussion in Committee in 1999 about the need for the provision of automatic bail. As the hon. Gentleman said, people may apply for bail in any case, but my experience is that for many people there are significant difficulties associated with doing so. It is often difficult to find adequate legal representation to make a bail application. Also, many people in such circumstances have problems finding sureties, even though there are now some organisations that try to help in providing sureties when they are required.

When we are dealing with the detention of asylum seekers and immigration detainees, we are generally dealing with people who are being detained on an administrative decision without having committed a criminal offence. No court has made the decision to detain them. We should be as careful as possible to make sure that a person's detention can be scrutinised and challenged.

On Second Reading, there were suggestions that bail would be used to frustrate the process of detention and removal. It is difficult to argue that, as that has not happened. Let us imagine the case of someone in detention whose asylum claim has been rejected; whose appeal has been refused by an adjudicator; who has tried to take their case to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and has been refused; and whose lawyer has tried to get a judicial review and has been refused. I can understand the argument that if removal directions have been set and that person is due to be removed in 10 days, there would be no point in a bail hearing after they had been in detention for seven days. I would perhaps have sympathy with that argument.

However, that is not what this is all about. It is about ensuring that those who are detained have the opportunity to challenge the decision to detain them. I am sure that some hon. Members will have seen the

study undertaken by the faculty of humanities and social sciences at South Bank university, which considered what happened to people who had been given bail. It found that the vast majority—more than 90 per cent.—of those given bail complied with their bail conditions. There is no evidence that when people are given bail they abuse it and do not comply with the conditions. It is also tremendously expensive to keep people in detention, compared with letting them out on bail in compliance with bail conditions.

I cannot see the argument behind removing access to bail. We spent long hours only three years ago discussing why it was needed. In the end, the automatic bail hearing was accepted as a Government proposal, but it was never put in place or tested to examine whether it would work.

I go back to points that were made during the earlier debate. We are clearly detaining many people who are at the point at which decisions have not been made on their claims. I heard what the Minister said about shifting the process, but there is a long way to go to achieve that. It has been said that detention will occur at the end of the process and just before removal, but we are a long way from that. I know that only a small percentage—about 2 per cent.—of people are detained at any one point, but if one examines the totality of how many asylum seekers have been detained, a considerably higher percentage have been detained at some point during their claim process.

I am disappointed by the change to remove what most people considered to be one of the relatively few positive changes that were made by the 1999 Act.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have sat through the same debates, and he and hon. Members of all parties told the Government why automatic bail hearings were essential if we were to have a system of administrative detention for immigration purposes that complied with the European convention on human rights and commanded respect as being fair. The principle of the bail hearing to check automatically at a reasonable interval whether an individual is detained properly is essential, because in practice individuals are detained for long periods without access to proper legal advice. The bottleneck is caused when people in the legal establishment, whether they work for voluntary sector organisations or pro bono, are not immediately able to get round to see people in detention. Many people were not seen.

The Government's concession in introducing the automatic bail hearing during consideration of the 1999 Act was significant, and they claimed credit for that at the time. It is extremely disappointing for anyone sitting here three years later to see the withdrawal of the Government's concession before it was ever implemented. One wonders what one must do to make an argument that sticks with the Government, rather than one that they will accept when convenient in order to get a Bill enacted.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I do not think for one minute that that thought was in the minds of the Ministers who put

part III in the 1999 Act. I shall explain in due course why we have decided to repeal it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that the insertion of part III was a cynical ploy to keep people happy, because that is not my understanding of what happened.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I have clearly watched too many episodes of ''Yes, Minister'' and other programmes that create cynicism about the machinations of Government. I accept the Minister's assurances that there was a genuine intention to implement the provision, and I look forward to her account of why that has not occurred.

Like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, I understand that if the regime were changed to one in which the vast majority of those held in removal centres had finished the process and were about to be removed, the automatic right to bail might be less necessary. However, the Government have not suggested that there will be a change to stop many people being detained for long intervals without having committed a crime—such people should have their cases reviewed at appropriate intervals. We have a legislative framework for the new concept of removal centres in which the vast majority of people await removal and questions of bail may be less necessary. However, there is no sign that administrative practice will change in such a way that we can expect removal centres to contain only those people. Instead, they will continue to contain many people who are detained for various immigration reasons and to whom bail provisions would apply.

It was suggested that lawyers considered alternatives to bail, such as judicial review and habeas corpus, but none proved as satisfactory as the automatic right to bail. That is why Ministers and members of the relevant Committees accepted the logic in 1999. The withdrawal of the provision concerns us. Will the Minister tell us why she believes that it is justified? I will explain our gentle amendment No. 266, which would reverse the sense of the clause by bringing the bail provisions immediately into effect, rather than repealing them. We still believe that those bail provisions should be brought into effect.

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

Hon. Members have received many representations from NGOs and voluntary organisations, which appear to oppose almost universally the provisions that would repeal those in part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I note especially that the UNHCR believes that the provisions for routine bail hearings are essential to safeguard against arbitrary detention. That is why I share hon. Members' concerns. I understand that there are proposals to simplify the general appeal procedures. If so, there may be an opportunity to revise the system of routine bail hearings as part of that simplification process, which I hope the Minister will consider.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I shall share with the Committee some of the thinking behind the decision to repeal the routine bail provisions in part III. As hon. Members pointed out, those provisions were never implemented.

I remind hon. Members that they would have required a first referral for all detainees in the system before the eighth day of detention, and a hearing before the 10th day. They would also have required a second referral by the 36th day of detention, with a hearing by the 38th day. They were not brought into effect, as we have been trying since the 1999 Act to work out the frequency and logistical implications of automatic bail hearings for each detainee. We concluded that it would be a logistical nightmare that would divert scarce resources from processing asylum applications. That would make it harder for us to complete the asylum process as speedily as all members of the Committee want.

We sometimes have to be open about such administrative decisions, and I intend to be open with the Committee. Implementing the part III bail provisions would significantly increase the burden on the Immigration Appellate Authority. If one listened to some people, one would think that no bail is allowed. Hon. Members have pointed out fairly that bail hearings can be granted under the existing system. Between April 2001 and March 2002, there were 8,498 bail hearings before adjudicators, of which 1,740 were granted. That is with a nominal removal estate of 2,800 places, and 700 hearings a month. It does not include the bail applications to immigration officers, as those records are not kept. We can assume, therefore, that more such applications are made that do not go to adjudicators. Those may be processed routinely and bail granted.

With the increase to 4,000 removal places, we estimate that under the existing arrangements there will be 12,000 bail hearings before adjudicators, which puts the figure up from 700 to 1,000 per month. In anticipation of putting part III into effect, we did a great deal of work to try to estimate what the implications would be of routine bail hearings for everybody in detention. We came to the conclusion that that would create a further 2,100 hearings per month. The Immigration Appellate Authority had a total of 74,144 hearings in the period from 1 April to 31 March 2002. Of those, 59,779 were asylum hearings, 8,206 were immigration hearings, 5,271 were visit-visa hearings and 888 were human rights hearings.

An average of 5,000 asylum hearings and an average of just over 6,000 appeal hearings take place per month. Were automatic bail hearings under part III of the 1999 Act brought into effect, the percentage increase would be substantial. That is why amendment No. 266, which would bring them into effect now, would grind the system to a halt.

We have to be honest and open about these issues. The administrative consequences of automatic bail hearings are substantial. Given the figures and the potential for bringing the whole system to a halt, it was our reluctant judgment that unfortunately it would not be realistic for us to introduce part III bail hearings. We thought it more open and transparent to repeal those provisions, as the amount of available funding and the priorities we have for getting asylum claims through the system would not allow us sensibly to

bring them into effect without that having an adverse or catastrophic effect on our system.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

Those were very interesting figures, particularly the number of bail hearings that occurred in the year. That tells us something about the figure, which is often quoted, of 1,800 asylum seekers in detention at any one time compared with the number of people in detention at some point during their claim.

I have looked at the figures and weighed up possible actions. Rather than repealing this provision, have the Government considered keeping automatic bail hearings for people who are detained before an initial decision has been made on their claim, especially if the intention is that detention should mainly be at the end of the process?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hope that we are not mixing up the lawfulness of detention—which can be challenged by judicial review and habeas corpus—and decisions about compliance with bail conditions. The two matters are separate. Judicial review and habeas corpus exist for challenges on lawfulness. We have already had challenges on the Oakington process, which have now proceeded to the House of Lords.

Detained persons are notified of their right to apply for bail on the form that advises them of the reasons for their detention. They are also advised to contact either the IAS or the Refugee Legal Centre for free advice, and are given telephone numbers and information leaflets when they go into detention centres. To argue that they are ignorant of their rights would be wide of the mark.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response, and it is helpful to have the facts and figures. I have a couple of points to place on record, although I do not expect an immediate response. First, judicial review or habeas corpus procedures are not a substitute for bail hearings. The Minister accepted that they are different. I hope that she will not suggest that they would provide an alternative, because they are about lawfulness rather than bail conditions.

Secondly, if individual detainees are to be given reasons for their detention and told about their right to bail, that is a useful step forward from the 1999 Act. The Minister said that there would be huge administrative difficulties if the number of bail hearings increased, so how will it work? If individual detainees want to exercise their right to bail, and do so in increasing numbers, will that not have the same administrative effect as having automatic bail hearings?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We are already planning for a substantial increase in the number of bail hearings, and I gave the hon. Gentleman the figure. That will come as a result of the fact that we have expanded the detention or removals estate—whichever description he wants me to use. We are already planning for a thousand hearings a month before adjudicators. The trouble with automatic bail hearings is their inflexibility and the sheer numbers of hearings that

would be imposed on a system that would already be experiencing increases. We considered those practical issues in great detail and decided, reluctantly or otherwise, that we could not run the system with automatic bail hearings for all detainees. That was our judgment, and we thought that it was more transparent to repeal the procedures in part III of the 1999 Act rather than leave them hanging around on the statute book, never being put into effect. Those are practical decisions that Ministers must sometimes make.

I was not trying to say that habeas corpus and judicial review are a substitute for bail. As the hon. Gentleman will know from my figures, there are many bail hearings already, and we do not record the ones made to immigration officers. They are not counted but they still happen.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I thank the Minister and applaud her honesty, but I am dismayed by her response. Since when have we sacrificed a principle because of administrative difficulty? We have heard moving contributions from the hon. Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith and for Walthamstow, both of whom agree that there is no need to repeal part III of the 1999 Act. Indeed, there is a strong need to implement it. How can the words of the Home Secretary in 1999, which I quoted earlier, not be valid today? The Minister was frank and said that the implementation would result in a logistical nightmare, but I repeat my question: since when have we decided that something is absolutely right but that we will resile from it because it is difficult? That is no way to proceed.

Labour Members know that my amendment is right and that not to support it would go against their consciences. They are experienced Members of Parliament and know that it cannot be right for a Minister to say, in terms, ''You may be right on the principle—I'm not even going to talk about the principle—but the fact is it's very difficult.'' If we move into that sort of world, where are we going?

This is one of the most serious moments of this Committee. The Home Secretary's words of February 1999 were important. It has been pointed out that many people outside Parliament believe that there is a strong need to implement part III. How can we send a message to the Government that they must do that and not hide behind the shield of administrative difficulty? If something is right, it does not become less right because it is difficult. I therefore urge everyone present to support the amendment, which is the only proper way to proceed.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We have not sacrificed a principle because of administrative difficulties. There are already chances to apply for bail, many of which are taken up by people in detention. We have decided not to put into effect automatic bail hearings for all detainees on the eighth day, to be heard in court by the 10th day, or on the 36th day, to be heard in court by the 38th day, because that would mean an increase of 2,100 appeal hearings for the IAA, which currently manages 6,000. That would have major implications for the speed at which we can administer the asylum system.

The hon. Gentleman cannot tell us that we should be able to hear asylum cases from beginning to end in five weeks and then insist that we have automatic bail hearings at the same time. It simply is not credible. We are not sacrificing any principle. Bail is still available, but I have given the Committee the reasons why we have decided not to put part III into effect. When it was put on to the statute book there were 900 places for detention. We are now moving towards 4,000 places, and the implications of automatic bail hearings in terms of cost effectiveness and speed are too much for the present system. Those who wish to apply for bail can still do so, and in large numbers.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Clause 49 - Reporting restriction: travel expenses

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 232, in page 27, line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

This relates to travel expenses. For the system of reporting to work properly, the person travelling to report should be provided with costs: it should not be discretionary. I want to probe the Government on that point.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I hope to reassure him. As he said, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to meet the travelling costs of those required to report to a police or immigration officer. I confirm that we already meet the travel expenses of supported asylum seekers to enable them to attend their appeal hearing, and that includes the travel expenses of dependants. We also meet the expenses of those attending bail hearings in connection with a family member who is detained under immigration powers.

The clause proposes that the reasonable costs of those required to report ''may'' be met. Final decisions have not yet been taken, but it is currently proposed not to meet travel costs if the reporting is less than three miles from the person's home. I can reassure hon. Members that exceptions will be made for the elderly, the physically infirm and heavily pregnant women.

Some people required to report will be able to fund the cost of travel themselves, but requiring the Secretary of State to meet the travel costs of all

those required to report would add considerably to costs. The immigration service is examining several options to deal with the problem of reporting centres that are a considerable distance from some people's homes. We referred in an earlier debate to using mobile reporting centres, creating more static centres and converting some IS offices to multifunctionality. We shall also continue to use the police where necessary.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we cannot fund the costs of all who attend to report, but we are prepared to consider specific cases.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am grateful for the Minister's response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 - Induction

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 229, in page 27, line 16, leave out

'without regard to his personal circumstances'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 230, in page 27, line 18, leave out '14' and insert '7'.

No. 267, in page 27, line 19, leave out 'believes' and insert 'is satisfied that'.

No. 231, in page 27, line 21, after 'location', insert—

', which programme will include full access to legal advice and representation'.

No. 269, in page 27, line 27, leave out 'but disregarding section 16(1)(a)'.

No. 268, in page 27, line 32, after 'process', insert—

'and will include access to appropriate legal advice and representation at each stage of the programme'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

We now come to induction. It is important that people's medical problems are taken into account. The clause fetters the Secretary of State's discretion to make allowance for a person with medical or other unforeseeable problems, which could make a residence restriction inappropriate at a particular time, or at any time. In its present form, the clause does not allow the Home Secretary to have regard to personal circumstances. That is why I tabled amendment No. 229.

Amendment No. 230 raises an important issue of principle about how long asylum seekers will stay in an induction centre, which the Bill states should not be longer than 14 days. We all know that the first few days of an asylum seeker's application are the most important, which is why amendment No. 231 proposes that full legal advice should be available at the induction centre. If a person is to stay for at a centre for many days, it is important that all services are brought into play straight away. Good, quick legal

and medical assistance will usually save a lot of time in the long run and create a fairer situation.

I was interested to learn that asylum seekers may spend up to 14 days in an induction centre. I tabled a parliamentary question about that issue last Thursday, to which the Minister replied:

''Eventually all asylum seekers will pass through induction centres. Those seeking National Asylum Support Service accommodation will remain in the induction centre for approximately seven days; whereas those seeking NASS financial support only or no NASS support at all, will remain in the centre for approximately one day—this may, in some cases, involve an overnight stay.

It is envisaged those asylum seekers who are to be housed in accommodation centres in the future, will remain in the induction centre for around two days''.—[Official Report, 9 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 325W.]

There we have it. An asylum seeker may spend various periods of time at an induction centre: one day, two days or seven days.

I also asked a question about the induction centre at Dover and received the answer:

''Applicants are housed on a full-board basis. Migrant Helpline and the National Asylum Support Service provide support services daily leading to dispersal within seven days of arrival.''—[Official Report, 9 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 334W.]

Two parliamentary answers both say that seven days is the expected period for an asylum seeker to spend at a centre. That is why my amendment proposes that 14 days should be replaced by seven days. It is an important issue. If a person is to spend only a brief period at an induction centre, we should let that be publicly known, because there would be less need for essential services on site. The longer that a person spends at a centre, the more vital it is that those services are provided.

Amendment No. 231 would make legal advice and representation available at the induction centres, and that becomes all the more compelling if a person stays there for a longer period, by which I mean anything over a few days. The Minister will understand why the amendments would impose a maximum of seven days at an induction centre and, in addition, would require that legal advice is available. I anticipate that the hon. Lady will say that many people may stay at a centre for up to 14 days. In that case, legal advice and assistance on site will be extremely important.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Amendment No. 268 is similar to one of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking, and seeks to secure access to proper legal advice for asylum seekers. We believe that that would be of public benefit. Plenty of research evidence shows that claims by asylum seekers who have access at an early stage to proper legal advice from reputable agencies progress more swiftly and efficiently than people who go off into the system half-cocked and perhaps receive less appropriate advice later on.

A key target of the 1999 legislation was to ensure that advice services were the best possible. We want people in induction centres, where those services could be made available and controlled, to be introduced to the right legal advice so that their claims can be processed more effectively and efficiently.

Amendment No. 269 would exclude unaccompanied children from induction centres, but would not exclude the dependant children in a family, who may well be in an induction centre as a group. We want to clarify the appropriateness of the induction regime for unaccompanied children. We have concerns about whether it is appropriate, so we want to tease that out by referring back to the definition of an asylum seeker in clause 16 as anyone aged at least 18. We want to remove the exemption so that, in the context of induction centres, asylum seekers are deemed to be only those aged 18 and above. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on those points.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hope that I can reassure hon. Members about the way in which the induction process will work. It is trying to establish a programme for all asylum seekers at the outset of their claim. They will be advised of their rights and responsibilities, and provided with an explanation of what will happen to them during and after consideration of their claim. Providing such information is the foundation of an effective asylum system, and will ensure that everyone knows where they stand and what the next stages are. We hope that the process can then operate more smoothly. Induction is not part of the decision-making process for asylum claims; they will not begin to be decided at induction centres.

On amendment No. 229, it is important that we have the power to require people to reside close to or in an induction centre, so that we can put them through the process that I have described without them having to travel long distances. The powers in clause 50 are reasonable, because of the short stay that induction is likely to involve.

The hon. Member for Woking was right to read out my replies to his parliamentary questions on induction. We do not envisage that large numbers of people will have to stay for 14 days; we are considering a target of people leaving within a week. We expect the stay of people who do not go for any form of NASS support or dispersal to be shorter—a day or two, or possibly an overnight stay. We certainly hope that the rest will go through the process within seven days, but our experience with the induction centre in Dover has shown that, in some circumstances, the stay will extend a little beyond seven days. The seven to 14-day period in the Bill is simply designed to create leeway, so that we do not have to remove people from induction centres who are right at the end of the process if it has lasted slightly longer than seven days. We do not intend people to be left in the centres for 14 days as a matter of policy, and we certainly hope that that will not happen.

Full legal advice has been mentioned under amendments Nos. 231 and 268. Again, induction is not part of the decision-making process and does not involve consideration of the merits of an asylum claim. Induction involves giving asylum seekers information about the overall process and their rights and responsibilities. We do not believe that legal advisers need to be present while such information is being provided, although information about legal advice will form part of the induction programme. Before a

person leaves, they will be given information about how they can access legal advice in the area where they will be living, if they are to be dispersed, or in an accommodation centre, if they are to go there.

People will be given a date for the interview on the substance of their asylum claim, which will normally be held two to three weeks from the date on which they leave the induction programme. All asylum seekers will, if they wish, have the opportunity to discuss their claim in advance of the interview, but we do not intend such interviews to be held at induction centres. We do not think that there is reason to have legal advice available. I hope that, after those clarifications, the hon. Gentlemen are reassured.

On amendment No. 269, it is not our view that unaccompanied children should be put into adult induction centres. However, we believe that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children should go through an induction process. We will arrange for that to be done separately, not in centres in which there are 200 to 400 people—that is the size we are thinking of—and which consist almost overwhelmingly, although not completely, of single men, as hon. Members know.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am mildly reassured—not entirely, but sufficiently to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 270, in page 27, line 36, leave out from 'shall' to 'House' in line 37 and insert—

'not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution in each'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 272, in clause 51, page 28, line 21, leave out from 'shall' to 'House' in line 22 and insert—

'not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution in each'.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

These amendments will be familiar to any veteran of a Standing Committee. They seek to change regulations that can be annulled by negative resolution into ones that require affirmative resolution. It is an important matter of principle for Liberal Democrat Members that regulations that affect the liberty of a person—attendance at induction centres is compulsory—should have proper scrutiny by the House. We believe that that proper scrutiny requires affirmative resolution, which is widely acknowledged to be more comprehensive than negative resolution. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these modest amendments, which would change the procedure so that we could better scrutinise the Government's regulations.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear a Minister say, in response to such an amendment, that negative resolutions are adequate. Funnily enough, I think that they are. They are appropriate for what the regulations cover. The Bill sets out the powers for imposing restrictions, and the regulations are confined

to setting out which dependants are to be subject to those powers.

Two factors will determine whether someone is to be treated as a dependant for the purposes of clauses 50 and 51. The first and polite question is whether a person wishes to be treated as a dependant—that is, whether they are seeking to enter or remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of their relationship with the principal applicant seeking asylum. If a family is not seeking to enter or remain on that basis, the person will not be seeking to stay as a dependant, and that will not come within the scope of the power in the clauses. We cannot impose any restrictions unless a person wishes to be treated as a dependant.

The second factor is whether we think that the person qualifies as a dependant. That issue has led us to adapt a regulation-making power, rather than define the term ''dependant'' in the Bill. There are a variety of circumstances in real life that could produce different kinds of dependants. We aim in the regulations to capture that variety, while retaining the core definition of spouse and minor children, which are not at issue.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will decide that negative resolution is employable. If he objects violently to the provisions, he should keep his eye open for them when they appear before the House.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the Minister for that tip-off to look out for the regulations. We will consider those issues again as we go through the Bill, and we will decide whether we think more such amendments are required. However, on this occasion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Asylum-seeker: residence, ÿ restriction

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 271, in page 28, line 14, leave out '50 and insert '16'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 253.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The amendment takes us back to the issue of unaccompanied children. I was reassured by the Minister's comments about the induction centre requirements and how unaccompanied children would be dealt with differently. The amendment seeks to align the definition of asylum seeker in the clause with that in clause 16, which, as I have already said, excludes unaccompanied children under 18. The amendment is a way of testing the Government's intentions in imposing restrictions on those who are legally defined as children. It has been a constant and appropriate theme that we continually question the status of children in the system, and I should be interested to know the Minister's intentions. The clause as drafted, in referring to section 50, explicitly includes unaccompanied children in the ability to impose restrictions under the clause.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.