Lords Sitting of 9 May 1996

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

AEA Technology plc: Privatisation Plans
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the privatisation of AEA Technology plc.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, following vesting on 31st March 1996, AEA Technology plc is now fully legally separated from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Her Majesty's Government plan to privatise the company later this year.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, and start by wishing her a happy Europe Day. Is the noble Baroness aware that, although vesting day was on 31st March, the Government's intention of splitting the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and of privatising that part of the business which is now AEA Technology was mooted over two years ago? That uncertainty has now been hanging over the business for two years. Is not the noble Baroness aware that the kind of business undertaken by AEA Technology, which is technical research and the provision of scientific services, is very competitive and that that uncertainty is a competitive disadvantage to the company? Will the noble Baroness speed things up and give us a date on which something will happen?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his good wishes. Although I could find better ways of spending Europe Day than in answering his Question, I shall nevertheless do my best. As I have already said, Her Majesty's Government plan to privatise AEA Technology plc later this year but, as the noble Lord said, no timescale has been formally announced. The Government will sell AEA Technology as soon as it is ready to be sold. The Government have consistently said that the decisions that they will take on the sale will be in the best interests of AEA Technology as a business, and in the best interests of its employees and the taxpayer. Those things take time, and the Government take the time that is necessary.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that back in 1980 or 1981 the Government's first privatisation measure by law was to privatise another part of the Atomic Energy Authority; namely, Amersham International? That has grown and grown to
200
be an extraordinary success within the private sector. Is there any reason why this part of the company should not do the same?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am happy to repeat that privatisation is in the best interests of companies and their employees.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Baroness cast her mind back to what happened to INMOS when it was privatised some years ago? That company in the microchip industry was quickly flogged off to the French, who have exploited it ever since, much to our disadvantage. Although we were originally one of the leaders in the microchip industry, we now have to go abroad for that commodity. Can the noble Baroness give an undertaking that that will not happen in this case and that we shall not once again lose one of our industries of excellence?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that has nothing to do with the Question. Furthermore, I am happy to say that that happened before my time.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that AEA Technology has taken great strides to improve its efficiency and that it is now an effective company which has responded enormously to the opportunities of the Bill that was recently passed? Does my noble friend further agree that it is important to keep that company as whole and effective as possible so that it can play the important role that it should play in the world marketplace?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The vesting was a significant milestone in that company's history and plc status will give AEA Technology greater flexibility to respond to customer needs. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend that my noble and learned friend the Minister of State announced on 23rd October last year that the Government had no intention of breaking up AEA Technology in advance of the sale. He went on to say that the Government aimed to sell the business as a single whole. That remains the position.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, are the Government aware of the existence of over 40 technology clubs which are run by AEA Technology and which deal with groups of small businesses, teaching them about the technology to keep their businesses up to date? How will the Government ensure that that situation continues? In view of the Government's commitment to the wellbeing of smaller businesses, surely it is important not only that the uncertainty should be removed quickly, but that those clubs should continue.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we have every confidence that the management of AEA Technology will deal with that matter. Whenever companies are privatised they always seem to do very much better in that respect.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Joint European Torus at Culham will

201
continue its research into nuclear fusion? Given that this is Europe Day, does she agree that that is a prime example of the United Kingdom leading Europe in atomic technology?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have to confess that I am not absolutely sure of the answer to that question. Perhaps it would be safer for me to write to my noble friend rather than stand here at the Dispatch Box and make what could only be a good guess.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest a rather innovative approach to the drafting of the Bill which the noble Baroness has promised the House later this year. In view of the worry about standards in public life, would it be in order to include a clause in the Bill to state that any Member of your Lordships' House who votes in favour of the privatisation of that company should not be allowed to buy shares in it?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that is rather an unusual suggestion. I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect me to respond to it.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, what would be the Government's view if the controlling shareholding should fall into foreign hands?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Government welcome foreign investment. The Government will consider in due course the need for safeguards against unwelcome purchases. It follows that the Government will consider the need for a special share, a golden share, and any other form of protection that is necessary in the light of decisions on the method of sale and discussions with the business's major partners.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the—
Lord Strathclyde: Next Question‡
Lord Peston: I beg your pardon—
Lord Strathclyde: We have already had seven minutes on this Question.
Lord Peston: I should have thought that I might as well ask a question and throw some light on the subject.
May I ask the noble Baroness what she meant by, "As soon as it is ready to be sold"? If the company is doing so well and has been set up as a separate plc, surely it is ready to be sold. Will the noble Baroness clarify another matter on which I got a little lost? Will legislation be required for this sale or is it one of those enterprises which can now be sold directly? I think that it is important for your Lordships to know the answer to that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, no decisions have yet been taken on the method by which AEA Technology will be sold. The Government have said consistently that all options, including flotation, remain open. That remains the position. It is too early
202
to say whether a flotation or a trade sale will offer a better return to the taxpayer and would be in the best interests of the customers, particularly government customers. That decision will be taken with regard to the performance of the business and the market circumstances. When they are ready to deal with it, it will be dealt with.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I wonder whether the time has come for us to move on.

Southern Lebanon
3.10 p.m.
Lord Moyne Lord Moyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to end the occupation by Israel of parts of southern Lebanon in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1039 of 29th January.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we fully support UN Security Council Resolution 425, and other resolutions on this issue, including Resolution 1039 to which the noble Lord refers. We call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon, as envisaged in the Taif Agreement of 1989. We believe that the Middle East peace process provides the best chance for a lasting settlement in the region, and will continue to work actively in support of it.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his fairly reassuring reply. Can he confirm that the Government are telling the Israelis fairly sharply that by continuing to occupy this area they are promoting Hizbollah from the status of a terrorist organisation to that of a legitimate resistance movement?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government support the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon. Our support over the years of Resolution 425 of 1978 has been unswerving, but the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon is part of the overall question of the Middle East peace process. The solution will come only from a comprehensive settlement. We greatly support the talks which will begin shortly between Syria and Israel and between Lebanon and Israel as the best way to achieve a lasting settlement.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government support the resolution drafted by Lebanon under consideration in the Security Council today which demands compensation for Israel for the recent attacks? If not, why not?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the question of compensation is a matter for the Secretary-General rather than the Government to determine.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, although I am sure that much valuable work has been done behind the

203
scenes recently, from now on will Her Majesty's Government adopt a much more open profile, working closely with the French, to ensure that steps are taken to build on the ceasefire and bring about lasting peace? Will my noble friend bear in mind that both the French and the British have a long tradition in, and understanding of, the countries in the area and therefore have a special role to play? Is not the first and most important step that all countries concerned should recognise the integrity of one another's boundaries?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is exactly what Resolution 425 and succeeding resolutions are all about. We warmly welcome the ceasefire and hope that it is the start of a full and final solution. We totally supported, and were actively engaged in, activities behind the scenes, but we felt that it would not be useful to have a number of different approaches being made at the same time. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister met Minister Hariri and discussed Lebanon in Moscow with Presidents Clinton and Chirac. President Hrawi transited London and was seen by my right honourable friend Mr. Hanley. The Foreign Secretary spoke on the telephone to Messrs. Barak and Christopher and exchanged numerous messages with others. We have kept in close touch with the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian governments and also with the Americans and our EU partners.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Israel's only demand is that the Lebanese Government should take effective control of their southern region? Does he agree that this is particularly important in view of the fact that there are 40,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is very much what we have been saying. We fully support the integrity of Lebanon, but the only way to achieve it is by discussion with Syria, Lebanon and the Israelis.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I very much welcome the ceasefire. Does the Minister recall that it was necessary for the warring militias to be disarmed in and around Beirut? Do not similar considerations apply to southern Lebanon?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, this is part of a long lasting peace process. I do not believe that it can be exerted on its own without an extended process beyond that.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the only power which can exercise decisive influence in that part of the world is the United States, particularly since the origin of the problem is the weapons channelled from Tehran via Damascus to Hizbollah? Does he agree that only the United States is in a position to put an end to that traffic?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, possibly the greatest support we can give is in the form of international
204
efforts to exert pressure on Iran and Syria to control Hizbollah and not provide it with arms or a route by which arms can be provided to it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister comment on remarks made by Sheik Ndurdin, a senior representative of Hizbollah, that Hizbollah would recognise Israel in exchange for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon? Is that not a step forward which requires a positive response from the Israeli Government? Further, can the noble Lord inform the House whether or not the UK Government have been pursuing this either in the United Nations or with the US Government?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are pursuing all possible avenues, particularly in the United Nations from which we believe the Middle East peace process will devolve.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not well established by now that whenever the Israelis have occupied their neighbours' territory, whether in Syria, the West Bank or Lebanon, they have aroused intense hostility which has undermined rather than strengthened their security?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is an interpretation which the noble Lord may choose to make. However, it does not take us forward. We are trying to achieve a total and fulfilled peace process in the Middle East, and one that will last.

George Blake Memoirs: Judgment
3.18 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view, if any, of the comment of Lord Justice Scott, when deciding that Mr. George Blake should receive £90,000 in royalties from his memoirs, that the Government's insistence on a lifelong duty of fidelity from members of the security and intelligence services represented "an interference with rights of free expression".
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it would not be right for me to comment on the judgment in the Blake case while an appeal is under consideration. However, I would refer the noble Lord to the following passage in the judgment:
"I would readily accept that former members of any of the security or intelligence services owe the Crown a lifelong duty not to disclose confidential information acquired by them in the course of their duties".
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that in the judgment it is also said that no one is entitled to expect lifelong fidelity as to the matter of keeping secrets? Has he not also observed that Lord Justice Scott, who headed the arms for Iraq inquiry, denounced the Government for

205
claiming that there were state secrets involved? Therefore, was he not an unwise choice to head this inquiry?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is making an actual quotation from the judgment in Blake. The judgment runs to some 18 pages. I do not imagine that your Lordships will find it convenient if I read all of it out at this stage, but it is a public document which I believe will repay careful study. As far as concerns the choice of Sir Richard Scott to head up the inquiry, the noble Lord has his view of that; I am sure that there are also other views.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, since we have heard from my noble and learned friend that this matter is now sub judice in the Court of Appeal, would it not be best to close the discussion?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the judgment has been given. An appeal is under consideration. Strictly technically I believe that the matter is not sub judice according to the rules of the House, but I accept the sense of what my noble and learned friend said, which is why I thought that it would be inappropriate for me to comment upon the terms of the judgment. While conforming to that precept, which I laid down for myself, I thought I could give what I believe to be an entirely accurate quotation from part of the judgment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that taking six words from an 18-page judgment and trying to form a conclusion from them is almost as fallacious as taking six words from a columnist in The Times and extrapolating from that what is meant to be the policy of the paper as a whole?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that there is some underlying connection between the latter part of that question and the Question on the Order Paper. I think, and I am sure that many would agree, that if one is going to get the sense of a judgment of 18 pages one probably has to read more than six words of it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I must declare an interest in asking this question as I appeared for Mr. Blake at his trial in a professional capacity and secured for him the longest term of imprisonment that has ever been handed down by a British court? From that somewhat equivocal position, may I ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm that on no occasion has the Crown sought to suppress this book or contended that any secret or confidential information was disclosed? Was not the trouble here the fact that the security services failed to take the elementary precaution of seeing that there was an undertaking in Mr. Blake's terms of employment not to disclose material without express permission? In those circumstances, did not the learned Vice-Chancellor decide the case, as learned
206
judges still resolutely decide cases, according to law, without fear or favour, whether the defendant happens to be a spy, a journalist or even a Minister of the Crown?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am glad to notice that the noble Lord considers that Ministers of the Crown should enjoy justice. The first part of his question is extremely sweeping. I am not in a position to say precisely what happened at all stages, but it is true, as he said, that he represented Mr. Blake, as a result of which, but no doubt not in consequence of his representations, that very long sentence was passed. The reasons for the judgment are, as I say, expressed succinctly in 18 pages. It would be inappropriate for me to try to summarise them further.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did Mr. Blake receive legal aid in order to help pay the fees of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson? If he did, is it possible to recover that money from the royalties of £90,000 which Mr. Blake will receive if that is allowed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the occasion upon which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, represented Mr. Blake at his trial was some considerable time ago. I am unable to say whether the noble Lord was supported by the Legal Aid Fund at that stage. He nods, suggesting that he probably was. So far as concerns this case, Mr. Blake did not have legal aid. If he had had legal aid, the Legal Aid Fund could be reimbursed in so far as there was money being paid to Mr. Blake as a result of success in the action.

Reading: Improvement of Teaching
3.25 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further measures they consider necessary to improve the teaching of reading.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, following the Ofsted report on the teaching of reading in three London boroughs, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced a number of additional measures designed to identify and tackle poor teaching standards, and to monitor the performance of local authorities and teacher trainers.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he not share with me the grave anxiety felt, especially by parents, and the acute frustration felt by employers and the rest of us, that after years and years of highly welcome educational reforms at government level, so little has apparently percolated down to school level that we cannot even grapple with the problems of basic literacy? Is it not appalling that, in this report to which the Minister has referred, Mr. Woodhead found that four-fifths of children, after

207
two years of education, did not get to where they ought to have got, and that one-fifth did not seem to get anywhere at all?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to highlight the pretty damning evidence that comes from the report. He is right to point to the importance of some of the Government's reforms percolating down to the LEAs and the schools. I should like to emphasise and underline what he said, which underlines what Her Majesty's Chief Inspector said in his latest report and in his earlier report about the importance of adopting the right methods of teaching, laying particular stress with regard to reading on teaching by means of phonics. It was a distinct lack of the use of phonics in the 45 schools in those boroughs which created many of the problems that he has highlighted.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the serious problems would probably not have arisen had there been a strong professional organisation for teachers such as exists in other professions, and would the Government consider supporting the formation of such an organisation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend that that would be the simple solution to the problem. The simple solution is for teachers to adopt the right teaching methods. To ensure that that takes place it is important that the teacher training institutions address initial teacher training and ensure that teachers are taught in the appropriate methods and can teach by means of phonics. To that end my right honourable friend has asked the Teacher Training Agency to look at the methods that the initial training institutions are using and at further improvements in in-service training.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if the Government really care about reading standards in primary schools, why has it taken 17 years for them to see what is going on under their very nose? Why did they withdraw support from the highly successful reading recovery scheme knowing full well that local authorities could not possibly pick up the bill? While he is at it, could the Minister kindly explain to me why the Ofsted report on Tower Hamlets, Islington and Southwark has still not been delivered from his department to the PPO in your Lordships' House? I should like to know where the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, obtained his copy.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my apologies to the noble Lord for not being able to obtain a copy of the report. I shall see that he obtains a copy immediately after this debate even if it is only my own copy. I shall find another. Perhaps I may point out to him that we have done a considerable amount over the past 17 years. Much of what we have done has been opposed by the party opposite, particularly in terms of raising standards and improving inspection regimes. I point out also to the noble Lord—I do not like to bring party politics into this matter—that the report relates to 45 schools in three
208
authorities in London. Those authorities are Islington, Southwark and Tower Hamlets, all of which are under Labour control, I believe, and have been for aeons.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most valuable reforms has been the establishment of Ofsted, which took the place of HMI inspections which occurred only infrequently, if at all, in primary schools, and that the valuable information that we have received is a most important result of one of this Government's many educational reforms?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments about the importance of the work of Ofsted. Some of the remarks which come from some of the friends of the party opposite accusing Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of political bias in his report are highly regrettable. That is merely trying to evade responsibility. These are matters that they should address in their authorities and we will seek to ensure that they do so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the report in the Guardian that passages were deleted from the report before its publication substantially correct? If so, can any of us be asked to give the report any academic credence?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the report is one by Ofsted, a body which is independent of the Government. It is for Ofsted to put together its report. Obviously, a report goes through a number of different drafting stages and the body concerned will produce its final report, as has been done. The noble Earl has suggested, as have his colleagues in the party opposite, that the report is politically biased. That is nonsense and nonsense in the extreme. Those authorities ought to be addressing the very serious problems that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Mr. Woodhead, has raised and seeking to improve standards in their schools.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister agree that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Mr. Woodhead, said that, while he did not accept that class size mattered for most ages, it is a relevant factor for very young children? Will the Government accept responsibility for cutting during the past four years the funding available per capita for primary school children and the increase in class sizes? Will the Minister also accept that many members of his party buy such class sizes for their own children?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously, class size is important but, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector made clear, it is not the sole factor. The most important factor is the method of teaching employed in schools. I can assure the noble Baroness that funding in all three authorities that I mentioned is considerably higher than in other parts of the country. The noble Baroness's Leader in another place and the spokesman for health in another place have been sending their children to schools in Tory-controlled authorities and not to those in their own local education authorities.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Lucas will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the district auditor's report on Westminster City Council.

Education Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Education Act 1944 and certain other enactments relating to education, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

School Inspections Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 and Part V of the Education Act 1993, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

King's College London Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Transfer of property, etc.]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 32, after ("include") insert ("such interests as the Schools may have in")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak to all the proposed amendments.
All the proposed amendments, which are technical, are to references to properties or to interests in property owned by the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals, later called "the Schools", and specified in the schedules to the Bill.
Clause 5 provides that all the property of the schools will transfer to King's College, London, later called "the
210
College", on the appointed day. Subsection (4) of that clause goes on to provide that the property which would be transferred includes the properties and interests in property specified in Schedule 1.
Clauses 6 and 7 would restrict the use by the college of certain of the transferred properties, including the properties specified in Schedule 2. The proposed amendments to Clause 5(4) and Clause 6(6) cater in general terms for the possibility that before the appointed day there may be alterations to the land holdings of the schools specified in Schedules 1 and 2. They prevent inconsistency arising between the property interests which are actually transferred—that is the property interests owned by the schools at the relevant time—and the property interests referred to in the Bill as listed in the schedules.
The proposed amendment to paragraph 15 of Part IA of Schedule 1 is to take account of a change in an interest held by the schools in a particular property which has taken place since the Bill was deposited. The Bill as deposited has a description of an interest which is no longer correct and the amendment would rectify that.
The proposed identical amendments to page 11, line 18, and to page 19, line 8, rectify an error in the Bill as deposited. The title number of a particular property included in both Schedules 1 and 2 is incorrect and the amendments would substitute the correct title. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Constitution of Continuing Trustees of Schools]:
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 6, line 16, after ("means") insert ("such interests in")
Page 6, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("as are transferred to the College under section 5 (Transfer of property, etc.) of this Act")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Specified freehold or leasehold properties and other interests in property and trust funds transferred to the college]:
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 11, line 18, leave out ("101653") and insert ("101683")
Page 11, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert—
("(15) An interest in Phase 3 of Guy's Hospital Redevelopment")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Specified properties subject to restrictions]:
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("101653") and insert ("101683")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that, the Bill do now pass.

211
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Westminster City Council: Auditor's Report
3.36 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question that has been asked in another place about the auditor's report on Westminster City Council. The reply is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, the appointed auditor for Westminster City Council, Mr. John Magill, has today published his findings in relation to the objections to the accounts of Westminster City Council in the form of a public interest report, made under Section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. He has at the same time published a statement of reasons on which his decisions are based.
"This case is still subject to the due process of law. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for me to inform the House about the auditor's decisions, but not to comment on them.
"The auditor's decisions are that he has issued a certificate in the sum of £31,677,064 to each of Mr. Graham England, Mr. Peter Hartley, Mr. Paul Hayler, Mr. Bill Phillips, Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor David Weeks under Section 20 of the 1982 Act. They are jointly and severally liable for this amount. He has decided not to uphold the objections in respect of Councillor Judith Warner, Mr. Barry Legg MP and Mr. Robert Lewis.
"The auditor has now issued his certificate. Those surcharged have 28 days from the date they receive the auditor's statement of reasons to appeal against his decision to the High Court. I understand that they intend to do so.
"I have made it clear that I would condemn utterly any failure to meet the highest standards of propriety whenever it is found and whoever is found guilty.
"If the decisions in respect of Westminster are upheld by the courts I shall not hesitate to condemn those responsible, as in any similar case. But neither the Government nor this House nor I should pre-judge the findings of the courts".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating in the form of a Statement the response made to a Private Notice Question in another place. I agree with the Minister that Members on all sides of the House are anxious to preserve the highest standards of propriety in local government. Nevertheless, the district auditor's report confirms that Conservative councillors on Westminster City Council were guilty of unlawfully using
212
£31.6 million of public funds for the benefit of the Conservative Party. They conspired to deny housing to homeless families and instead to sell council flats which fell empty to those who they assumed would he Conservative voters.
The scale of this is enormous. The loss to public funds is difficult to exaggerate: £31.6 million would buy more than 600 new homes or 10 new schools; it would pay the salaries of 1,200 extra teachers. No fewer than 272 councils in England have less to spend in one year on services for all the people in their area than the Westminster Conservatives squandered on this scheme.
This is probably the biggest single financial scandal in the history of local government. But it is a scandal not just about money. It shows how a Conservative council, with the support of massive subsidy from a Conservative Government, conspired to deny decent homes to homeless families; to treat homeless families harshly; and to drive them out of Westminster to be rehoused elsewhere. The report is not just an indictment of the Conservatives in Westminster; it is an indictment of the Tories in government. They will stoop to anything to win elections.
Lord Tope: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the Minister because I missed the Statement. It came rather sooner than I expected but I heard it being made in the other place. I find the Statement predictable but no less disappointing for that. I feel that we are in great danger of allowing the quite proper process to obscure the real issues we should be examining. After many years of investigation, the district auditor has found proven a number of practices which, whether, in the end, found lawful or unlawful, nevertheless fall far below the standards we expect from all parties in local government. That is beyond question, whatever legal technicalities may arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, describes it as probably the biggest scandal in local government. My noble friend Lady Seear whispered to me, "What about Lambeth?" Let us not argue about the scale of how had this is. We are talking about a magnitude of proven and deliberate wrongdoing in local government the like of which we have not seen before. We are not talking about obscure councillors but about leading councillors deliberately using their council for electoral purposes and for gerrymandering to the disadvantage of those least able to help themselves.
From time to time things happen in councils controlled by any of our parties of which we are not proud, although never on this scale. One of the true tests is how the party deals with such issues. Whatever may be the end of the legal process, I hope that the Minister will accept that many in this House and in local government will look to the Conservative Party to see how it deals with an issue where leading members of that party have fallen far short of the standards expected of them.
Finally, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the district auditor in this case, John Magill, has recently been appointed district auditor to the council which I lead. In the light of that, I wish to conclude by asking the Minister for an assurance that the Government accept that Mr. Magill, my council's district auditor, is without question

213
independent and a man of integrity and that we may accept his judgments because today the Government appear to be casting some doubt upon them.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am frankly astonished and greatly disappointed that the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Tope, seem to presume the guilt of those people who are charged. That is frankly disgraceful. People in this country are innocent until proved guilty. They are yet to have their day in court. When that is concluded, we may comment upon their guilt or otherwise. To do so in the terms which noble Lords have used is disgraceful and a discredit to themselves and to this House.
As regards the question which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked, I shall certainly not question the integrity of the auditor or the accuracy of his report today. I shall not seek to interfere in any way with the proper process of law or to abuse parliamentary privilege. I am afraid that may rather restrict my answers to questions by Back Benchers but I am sure that the House will understand.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one who many years ago had the opportunity to make some criticisms of the administration of Westminster City Council, I should like to make a few comments on the observations which have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord. I believe, and my colleagues believe, that innocence should be presumed in the absence of satisfactory proof which may culminate in legal action. But the intimation of an intention to appeal does not make the matter sub judice. When the actual appeal is entered and process has begun, then and only then is the protection afforded to the accused.
I express astonishment—this time genuine and not synthetic—at the observations made by the noble Lord. When the affairs of Lambeth and other unfortunate Labour councils were subjected to exactly the same criticism, and public criticism, by auditors, I did not notice any reticence on the part of members of the Conservative Party either in this House or in another place. One thing of which I am sure—and, on reflection, I am sure the noble Lord will have some sympathy with this—is that no Member of this House in his heart of hearts wants anything other than justice to be done. I am hopeful that on reflection, when justice is done and seen to be done, retribution will be served on those who have perpetrated those crimes against society equal to the indignation felt by those on this side of the House.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am saddened that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, should have made those last remarks because up to that point I thought that he was being quite sensible and reasonable. A grave accusation has been made but as yet there is no proof in a court of law that there was a crime, let alone that anyone in particular committed it. That is the right principle under which we all live in this country; namely, that a man is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, it is not even proven that there was a crime. It is clear that we should all try to hold to that principle.
214
In relation to the other remarks made by the noble Lord, I understand that the matter is not yet sub judice but that does not alter my opinion about how we should conduct ourselves. As regards other councils and misdemeanours, I hope that we have always been restrained in our opinions and remarks until matters are decided in a court of law.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is obviously a difficult situation for him to be in and he has my sympathy. I must declare an interest as a resident of Westminster. Therefore, I shall not ask the question about the district auditor's surcharge because, as an interested party, it would obviously be improper for me to comment. But I do have a technical question for the Minister regarding the fact that the findings of the district auditor suggest that poor people who became homeless within Westminster and who had a right to be rehoused and carry on living there were denied that right. Does the Minister know whether those people who were refused the right to live in Westminster have any redress for their individual grievances?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord trespasses a little on the principle that we should presume innocence. However, it is quite clear that that accusation is made. No, I do not know what individual remedy these people would have if indeed the district auditor's accusations were correct, but I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter. I should say that the noble Lord is extremely lucky to live in Westminster; indeed, it is one of the best run councils in the country. He has my congratulations.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to trespass on Back-Bench time, but very little time has so far been taken on the matter. Perhaps I may try to lay one particular canard to rest. As I understand it, the procedure whereby district auditors investigate the affairs of local authorities is laid down in the provisions of an Act passed in 1982 when, if my memory serves me correctly, a Conservative Government were in power. The purposes of such investigations are to ascertain whether or not public money has been spent properly. The district auditor will, prima facie, investigate the matter—and may, as in this case, take a long time in doing so—and will eventually bring forward his conclusions. Under the 1982 Act that is, in effect, an alternative to judicial investigation. That is the point that the Minister has not grasped.
The legislation also provides for some form of judicial appeal from the decision of the district auditor—I emphasise the word "appeal"—but not a trial at first instance. Therefore, what we have before us and what we are considering today is not just an allegation which is being made against these people; what we have is a conclusion from the district auditor reached in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 Act passed by a Conservative Administration. To hear the noble Lord opposite tell us that that is similar to an indictment in a criminal trial is, frankly, nonsense.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord's memory and imagination serve him well in all but one respect. We have always, I hope, followed the principle that when the district auditor comes out with his conclusions that is not the proof of guilt: the proof of guilt, if it is taken to appeal, is the decision by the court. So far as I know, we have not trespassed on that principle in the many other cases that have occurred under those provisions.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, from the very moment that the investigation started, the provisions of the 1982 Act mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, were flagrantly abused by the district auditor? I shall justify that statement. Is my noble friend also aware that the 1982 Act required that a report of a district auditor should not be published without the consent of those named in it? Is my noble friend further aware that the first report was published with the maximum of publicity, and a very highly publicised press conference by the district auditor, with no such consent and that when he was challenged as to why he had failed to observe the law, the district auditor said that it was not his report and that it was merely a draft report that he was minded to make?
Is there not some suggestion that the district auditor somehow got himself hooked on this very early on when he made such public statements? Surely that must cast some doubt as to whether his report is indeed as valid as the party opposite seems to think. The law was not obeyed in the first instance.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, neither I nor the Government will question the integrity of the district auditor, his actions or the accuracy of his report. If we wish to review this particular incident, we shall do so when the process has reached its end; and not before.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister invite his noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding to repeat the points that he has made outside the Chamber—that is, outside parliamentary privilege—so that the district auditor himself can take account of them?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, should be careful of repeating what he said outside the House.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
216
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Entitlement to housing accommodation and assistance]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling the first amendment, I must inform Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 97 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 99 or 100.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 6, line 40, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 112, 114, 117, 119 and 121. In Clause 9, we come to a most extraordinary clause and a quite extraordinary tactic of government in proposing legislation to Parliament. Members of the Committee will be aware that the Housing Bill which we are due to debate on Second Reading next week would, under Clauses 160 and 161, actually repeal Clause 9 of this Bill. In other words, Parliament is being asked to debate, deliberate, consider and, indeed, approve two different versions of government policy on the basis that whichever reaches the statute book first may be overturned by the second Bill. I find such a situation quite extraordinary, both in terms of public policy and in terms of the degree of respect which the Government appear to have for Parliament, its time and its processes.
In terms of public policy, the issue is not unimportant. We have two differing versions of what the Government wish to do with respect to the housing entitlements of those whom they offensively call "immigrants". I say "offensively" because that is what the Bill before us says, although I acknowledge with gratitude the undertaking by the Minister at a previous stage in Committee to bring forward amendments at a later stage which would remove that offensive word.
However, the result is that those who have to implement the legislation—and we are talking about local authority housing departments—have to prepare themselves for two alternative versions of the law. 'They have to prepare themselves in terms of briefing, in terms of understanding, government regulations, guidance and advice notes and as regards all of the procedures which they will have to observe in order to implement the law under the provisions of this Bill and under the provisions of the Housing Bill which is at present in this place. Therefore, there is a very considerable extra and totally unnecessary expense involved due to the fact that those two versions of proposed law are being put before Parliament at the same time.
In addition to the public policy aspect, I ask Members of the Committee to consider whether there is any precedent for two different versions of government policy being put forward as alternatives in two separate Bills before Parliament. If there are, of course we must examine those precedents and consider whether they justify the present situation, but my understanding is that there are not, and that Government are simply seeking

217
to protect themselves against their own indecision and their own inability to pursue legislation with due diligence and speed, and they are doing so at the expense of this Chamber. Therefore when we consider Clause 9 as a whole, in a clause stand part debate, I propose to explain briefly—because I do not wish to rehearse at length the arguments I have just been putting—why it is improper for this clause to be in the Bill at all.
Having said that, I consider that it is our duty to look at Clause 9 in detail and to consider the extent to which the proposals made in the clause can be justified or ought to be amended. These amendments seek to remove one of the two principal elements in Clause 9. Clause 9 is designed to exclude those people who are called "immigrants" first of all from the provisions of what is called the "accommodation part" of the Bill and, secondly, from the provisions of the "homelessness part" of the Bill. However, I should not refer to the Bill in this regard but rather to the relevant legislation in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. We are concerned in these amendments with the accommodation part, which is what in ordinary terms we would refer to as the allocation of houses and the waiting list. I remind the Committee that the term "immigrant" which is still in the Bill includes, under the definition in Clause 12, all of those who not only require leave to enter or remain in this country but also those who have leave to enter or remain in this country. That is qualified in Clause 9 which refers to those who also fall within,
"a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
It is my understanding that the Government's intention in such an order is to exclude from the scope of this clause those who have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. I invite the Minister to confirm that when she responds to this debate. But even if she confirms that, it does not explain the extraordinarily roundabout way in which the Government reach a definition of who is to be covered by the clause. First of all, they define those people widely in Clause 12 and then that definition is restricted by order in Clause 9. Even if the Minister says that that is the intention of the Government, I am afraid that will not satisfy me that the Government's intention is adequately restricted and that there is not power for a future Secretary of State to take a different view of who should be covered by the order because the power is given in Clause 9 as drafted.
I must make it clear that in housing legislation we must be careful not to state that entitlement—that is, housing need—should allow the possibility of different treatment for different kinds of people. Those who have equal housing need ought to be treated equally as regards housing legislation. It should not be a matter of their immigrant status, the colour of their skin, or any other consideration. Yet the clause as drafted makes it possible for one group of people with equal housing need, who may be neighbours of another group of people with equal housing need, to be treated differently. That is simply not acceptable. Housing legislation should be about housing need and not about immigration policy.
It is not as if a significant sum of public funds were involved. As we know, over the years public subsidy for public housing has been diminished almost to the point of non-existence. Public housing is no longer heavily subsidised in this country. The argument of the protection of public funds is not a valid one with respect to this clause, or any part of it. The Conservative Party is supposed to be the party of the family. According to the definition in Clause 12, we are talking now about people who are legitimate, permanent, or long-term residents of this country. We are saying that their right to housing of a quality which is necessary for good family life will be inferior to that of other people with the same housing needs. I cannot think that that is the correct policy for a party which claims to be the party of the family. This is legislation which sets priorities not on the basis of housing need or of family need but on the basis of the colour of someone's skin or someone's immigration status.
Where does this legislation leave us? We are left in a situation where local authority staff do not know which Bill they should pay attention to. They are faced with costs not only in the provision of accommodation but also administration costs which are quite unnecessary. In addition to the indecision to which I have already referred, we are left with the possibility, when this legislative exercise is completed, of severe injustice and the distortion of housing need. I suggest to the Committee that we should not allow this part of the clause, or indeed any part of the clause, to pass into law. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: Before I say anything else I wish to thank the noble Baroness for the concession she made on the use of the word "immigrant" in the Bill. That is a welcome concession, but to understand the significance of this clause we shall have to wait to see exactly what form of words is to be put in its place. That, I understand, we may hope to discover at the Report stage.
The next point that concerns me, if I want to discover who exactly will be covered by this exclusion from housing waiting lists, is the phrase to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has referred; namely, someone,
"who is of a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
It is a little like the famous example of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of the company promoted during the South Sea Bubble, for a purpose hereafter to be disclosed. It is of course also true that we do not know what will happen in the way of future Secretaries of State. We do not know how long this clause will be on the statute book, if indeed it gets there. Whatever the intentions of the present Secretary of State, we have to take into account that we are creating the vires to do something which may be far-reaching and which may affect people who pay tax and national insurance and work here and have been here a pretty long time.

219
I am sure that the Minister will have a great deal to say about the interests of the taxpayer. Before she does so, I remind her that I am a taxpayer myself. However, one should take into account the interests of actual taxpayers who may suffer under this clause.
We need to think also about the difficulty of turning local authorities into immigration officers. We have been over all this ground in the debate on the British Airways amendment as regards Clause 5, and in the debate on Clause 8. It does not make the points any less true that we have said them before. We have already had reports in the Department of the Environment's research on the application of the code of guidance, published quite recently, that the immigration checks required of local authorities under the 1993 Act are putting a pretty significant burden on local authorities. I do not think that we all appreciate quite how desperate the burdens on local authorities now are, nor how much worse they will be made by the Bill. The Minister, I am sure, in her reply will make reference to illegal entry. But that is entirely redundant because under a 1993 judgment, those who enter illegally, or who have overstayed their leave, are not entitled to any local authority housing under the existing law. The Minister looks puzzled. The 1993 judgment to which I refer is The Secretary of State v. Tower Hamlets. The new effect of the clause will only be in respect of those who have a perfectly legal right to be here, some of whom may be living here for the remainder of their lives.
In exercising the duty to conduct immigration checks, local authorities are under conflicting pressures. On the one hand, they must not infringe the clause. On the other, they have a duty under the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote harmonious relations between the communities in their local authority area. So either they must have a series of checks which are so officious that they cause considerable resentment, or they have to risk discriminating against specific racial groups, and putting themselves in danger of the lot. They are, if I may so put it, "damned if they do and damned if they don't". It is a burden from which I believe they will have some difficulty finding their way out.
I wish to cite a case about which I wrote to the Minister yesterday. It bears on Clause 8 rather than Clause 9, but the principle is the same. On Monday, I stood at a bus stop and looked at the window of my local Jobcentre. I observed an advertisement for waiters or waitresses, all of whom of any nationality were being required to produce ID and passports. Not every British subject possesses a British passport. It costs £20 to obtain one and not everyone on income support can afford £20 to get a passport. Shall we have a burden like that—proving your immigration status—under Clause 9? The noble Baroness shakes her head; I am glad to see that she does. However, if that shake is to be compelling, she must tell me exactly what local authorities are supposed to do to check immigration status under this clause. That would make the answer compelling; and I would find that interesting.
We are told that one of the reasons for the clause is to make seeking asylum in this country less attractive. I am not sure that seeking asylum is ever a particularly attractive prospect. Neither am I sure that the details of
220
local authority housing eligibility in Brent are necessarily common knowledge in the back streets of Jaffna or in East Timor. I am not quite certain whether the proceedings of our House really receive that much attention. We risk flattering ourselves.
I also believe that we risk severely exaggerating the attractiveness of our welfare system. I once said that the Department of Social Security regards itself as a honey pot surrounded by benefit-seeking wasps. That attitude now seems to be spreading into the Home Office and indeed, as appears from this clause, into the Department of the Environment. The level of our welfare benefits is one of the lowest in the European Union. If people are being attracted to claim asylum by the generosity of the benefits and the social protection that they receive, they will be drawn to Norway, Sweden, France, Belgium and even Ireland long before they are drawn to this country. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, shakes his head. I shall look forward with a great deal of interest to hearing his reasons for saying that I am wrong.
Moreover, a great many such people were much better off in the countries from where they came than they are ever likely to be now. Some noble Lords may remember the evidence from Turkish doctors to which we listened in the debate on torture before the Division as regards Clause 1. Two of those doctors will go on trial in Turkey next Friday on the charge of running an illegal medical centre. Running an illegal medical centre means that they did not tell the security forces all about the medical details of the victims of torture whom they were treating—so they were being required to commit a breach of medical confidentiality. When those doctors escape ultimately from prison, as I hope they will do in due course, should they apply for asylum in this country I do not believe that they will be drawn to give up the life of a doctor in Turkey by the prospect of accommodation in the Chalk Hill estate in the London Borough of Brent. It really defies belief.
We need to remember that many of these people may be in this country for the rest of their natural lives. They may eventually become British. It is the way that many of our ancestors arrived here and the way that I hope many people will continue to arrive in future. It does not mean that they come to this country with the idea that it is a particularly generous place. Bearing in mind that all the English are immigrants within the British Isles, and that there is a great deal of feeling now about what happens to Englishmen with second homes in Wales, the Committee may understand what I am getting at when I say that this clause sounds as though it has been drafted by Meibion Glyndwr.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an important point when he told us that illegal arrivals and over-stayers in this country do not have a right to local authority housing. We should all be grateful to him for that.
I am sorry to say that I am driven to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government have become completely hostile both to asylum seekers and to a

221
variety of classes of immigrant. First, they will not allow such people to take work even if it were available to them during the first six months of their stay. Secondly, they deprive them of social security benefits. In this clause they now seek to deprive them of all access to local authority housing.
What are likely to be the consequences of these measures? It seems to me that there will be destitution, despair and suicide; and there is already some evidence for that in recent events. For example, an asylum seeker tried to throw himself into the Thames from, I believe, Tower Bridge.
The consequences in the case of asylum seekers and immigrants with children will be the breaking up of families and the taking into care of children. I support the amendments.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): Perhaps I may start by reminding the Committee what council housing and housing association housing is for. It is a valuable asset. It is there for people who are here on a long-term basis, including people who have been here all their lives, and their fathers, grandfathers and so on before them. It is for their use and, if they are allocated such a house, it gives them a tenancy of a house gained for life. The person who gains tenancy can stay there for as long as he wants. He also acquires succession rights whereby he can pass the tenancy on to a close relative, and certain rights of assignment. He can exchange the property with another tenant elsewhere; and, thanks to this Government's legislation, he can acquire the right to buy that property.
So the Government are concerned that such housing should go to those with clearly established long-term needs—people who have the right to remain in this country indefinitely. I was slightly puzzled by what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. He seemed to cast doubts on the last point that I made: that people who have a right to remain in this country indefinitely will be entitled to apply for and receive local authority housing and housing association housing. For example, people who have been granted asylum, who have exceptional leave to remain or who have leave to remain on a long-term basis will not be affected by the proposals before the Committee this afternoon. The classes of immigrants whom we propose to exclude from council housing are listed in the papers before the Committee. We state clearly—
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance about people with exceptional leave to remain. However, am I correct that the vires permit subsequent Secretaries of State to disentitle those people under future regulations?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am used to the noble Earl showing extreme suspicion of future Secretaries of State. It is the normal line of argument that he takes whenever secondary legislation is considered. However, the issue is more complicated than he usually suggests. As he knows, governments cannot just use secondary legislation for any old thing.
222
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is careful in ensuring that it is used in the way set out in the original legislation. In addition, people can look back at what Ministers said and are saying as regards the groups we have in mind for the regulation. I quote from the Background Notes by the Home Office:
"The main categories excluded from council housing would therefore be…illegal entrants".
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asks us to believe that illegal entrants ought to have the right to be considered for council housing, the long-term tenancies which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. The document continues:
"overstayers and persons given temporary admission; asylum seekers; visitors, students and all others given limited leave on the basis that they could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds".
Those are the classes of immigrant whom we propose to exclude from council housing. They are all generally here for a limited period only and if they have a need for housing it can only be on a temporary basis. We believe that that can properly be met in the private rented sector and not by them becoming long-term council tenants.
Most of the groups whom we propose to exclude from entitlement to social housing are already excluded from other forms of social assistance. There is no reason they should be entitled to housing created with public assistance, particularly when there are people with settled residence seeking such housing. That applies equally to immigrants here on limited leave and asylum seekers. I remind the Committee, from speeches I have made on the subject before, that only a tiny proportion of asylum seekers—less than 8 per cent.—are granted full refugee status. Double that number are granted exceptional leave to remain. However, I underline the point that, if those two groups are granted leave to remain, they then acquire the same rights to council housing as people with settled residence. If I heard him correctly, I fear that that is something which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not appreciate. I hope that I have been able to reassure him on the point.
We do not have a comprehensive picture of the distribution of people with limited leave across the country, but if we look at the most visible subset—asylum seekers—we find that the vast majority, probably 90 per cent., are in the London area. That is precisely the part of the country where housing pressures are greatest and waiting times for council housing longest. For established residents to see temporary immigrants—people who are here for only a short time and who have not been given asylum or exceptional leave to remain—being allocated permanent social housing is not fair.
We spend a great deal of money on housing. The Government have this year invested about £2 billion in the creation of new housing and the improvement of existing stock. The expenditure should go to help the housing position of the established population. That includes people from abroad who come here and have leave to remain. But it should not include those who do not have leave to remain in the longer term. That is the important point.

223
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew the Committee's attention to the forthcoming Housing Bill and asked how this Bill's provisions relate to it. First, it is naturally an immigration issue rather than a housing issue. Secondly, the Housing Bill extends only to England and Wales, but we wish these provisions to operate on a UK-wide basis. Thirdly, we wish the provisions to take effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent in order to relieve the burden on local authorities following the change to housing benefit entitlement which came into force on 5th February. We expect that the Bill will reach the statute book earlier than the Housing Bill. Moreover, all the Housing Bill's homelessness provisions will need to be commenced together, which may take a few months longer than the Royal Assent to the Housing Bill. Also, the corresponding powers in the Housing Bill, which will he found in Clause 144 on housing allocations and Clause 165 on homelessness, are cast in broader terms. That is because we wish to use the powers to catch European Union benefit tourists as well as people who require leave under the Immigration Act 1971. The two different provisions will achieve the same effect. They will not involve two rounds of implementation. We shall issue guidance on implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Bill which will in most respects be valid when the Housing Bill comes into force.
I turn to the problem raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on how local authorities screen. Anyone who knows local authorities realises that when councils accept someone on the council list, questions have to be asked. Applicants must be asked where they have lived for the past five years and other questions in order, if a points system is operated, to ascertain how many points a person may be able to accumulate. So local authorities must ask questions. That already happens and the Department of the Environment issued a revised homelessness—
Earl Russell: Is the Minister aware that a number of people have been asylum seekers for more than five years and their claims are still not determined?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure about the figure for those who have been here that long looking for asylum. I suggest that part of the reason their claims have not been determined is that they have managed to spin out the procedure, for example, by asking for adjournments and the like during the appeals procedure. In any case, on the more general point, the noble Earl underlines the argument that I have put before the Committee on other occasions. It is that if we try to reduce the number of people coming here looking for asylum with no justifiable reason, we will be able to treat genuine asylum seekers much more quickly and better than at the moment.
I turn now to the Department of the Environment's revised homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. In 1994 it was drawn up in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality. It contains advice on the subject, and we have every reason to believe that the procedure works well and has not given rise to complaints.
224
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why people should come here when our benefits system is not all that good. He may recall what I said when we debated the general proposition of excluding asylum seekers who do not seek asylum at the port of entry from our benefits system. I explained what other countries do against the background that, until the Government's changes, someone seeking asylum here had immediate eligibility for benefit and sometimes had had that eligibility for a long time while they went through the first decision process, the appeal process and the tribunal process. All that could be spun out to some extent. In Belgium and France the benefit stops after a year. In Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Spain asylum seekers are not allowed to work, whereas after six months in Britain they are allowed to work. As the noble Earl knows, the rest of Europe has tightened up procedures and we have seen their figures for asylum seekers decrease while ours have increased considerably.
For all those reasons, this seems to me to be a fair and equitable way to proceed. People who come from abroad and have a settled right to live here should, along with the natives—if I may call them that—of this country, have the right to seek council housing. I do not think that those who are here with limited leave to remain, or whose leave to remain is still questioned because they are asylum seekers and no decision has yet been taken, should have access to long-term council housing. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment. If he does not withdraw it, I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Division Lobby.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister concludes where he started with an entirely specious argument about the long-term benefits of council housing. He rightly referred to the fact that people in council housing in this country have the right to stay there, have certain rights of nomination and succession, and certain rights to buy in certain circumstances. I hope that he is not suggesting that those rights, which have existed ever since public housing started in this country, are now at risk and that the Government think they are matters that could possibly be changed.
The suggestion he makes by his repeated reference to the phrase "long-term" is that, somehow, the rights of those in public housing are superior to the right to remain in this country. He appears to suggest that the long-term rights somebody has because he is in a council house are somehow more important than his right to remain in this country, and if he loses his right to remain in this country those rights would then disappear. That is clearly not the case and is not suggested in the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There may be confusion here; perhaps I intervened a phrase too soon in the noble Lord's remarks. I make it clear that anyone with a settled right to remain here, from wherever in the world that person comes, has the right, along with any other British citizen, to apply for and receive a council

225
house. It is people who do not yet have any settled right to remain here who we believe should not be eligible for council housing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: At this stage of my speech, as the Minister said, all I have referred to is the quite specious use of the word "long-term" as applied to the rights of those in public housing. Clearly, there are no rights that are longer term than the right to remain in this country.
I turn to the separate issue of what is meant by the Bill and to whom the clause applies. The Minister has now given me, in terms, the assurance for which I asked; namely, that those who have the right to enter, or remain in, this country are not covered by the clause. He will recall that we debated earlier in Committee the extraordinary approach of the Government which means that Clause 12 contains a very wide definition of "immigrant". It includes those who have the right to enter or remain. The definition is half restricted in earlier clauses by the statement that the Secretary of State may by order restrict that right. I believe in the sincerity of the Minister's assurance that that is the Government's intention at the present time. However, that is not a protection against future Secretaries of State changing the provisions under Clause 9 and using the protection given to the Secretary of State by the definition in Clause 12. So we object as strongly as we did before to the process of having a wide definition in statute constrained only by ministerial statements about what will subsequently be contained in orders.
The Minister referred to the potentiality for conflict between the Housing Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Bill. He gave references to Clauses 144 and 165—although, I notice, not to Clauses 160 and 161—of the Housing Bill. He rightly pointed out that the Housing Bill refers only to England and Wales, and that there are other real differences.
The wording of the Housing Bill is entirely different from the wording in this Bill. It is very difficult for those working in local authorities to know to which they should pay attention. The Housing Bill refers to a person from abroad who is ineligible for social assistance. It refers to an asylum seeker or dependant of an asylum seeker if he has any accommodation in the United Kingdom, however temporary. These are words in housing legislation, and the Minister claims that the present Bill is not housing but immigration legislation.
We are entering the realms of absurdity. The Government must make up their mind what it is that they want to enact and must decide to put forward a coherent and consistent view before Parliament in one piece of legislation. It must not rely on ministerial explanation from any Front Bench, however conscientious and sincere, to tell us which piece of legislation should be prepared for by local authorities. I am not satisfied with the argument of the Minister that it depends on which piece of legislation is enacted first. It is up to the Government to get their legislation through in the order they think fit. It is not up to us to try to support it; and it is certainly not up to local authorities to prepare for any possible deficiencies in the Government's business management.
226
The Minister referred to the requirements on housing departments'to obtain information from applicants about where they have lived for the past five years. When it was pointed out to him by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that some asylum seekers had been in the queue for more than five years, he responded as though it were entirely their fault. In practice, people who applied for asylum before 1993 and who are on the waiting list have been kept in the backlog precisely by the timetable imposed by the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, which has given priority to subsequent applications. That is why some people have been in the queue for more than five years and why they would not necessarily appear to local authorities as asylum seekers.
I said that I should not be satisfied with the assurance as to what the Government mean to do with this legislation. We have to deal with the legislation as it is presented to us. As it is presented, it is both unfair and incompetent. I ask the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 97.
4.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 97) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hooson, L.

Avebury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bath, M.

Hughes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Berkeley, L.

Hylton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kennet, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kissin, L.

Chorley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clancarty, E.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNally, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Diamond, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Methuen, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eatwell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Nicol, B.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Feversham, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Flowers, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Geraint, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Haskel, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Healey, L.

Sandwich, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seear, B.

227

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tope, L.

Serota, B.

Tordoff, L.

Sewel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stallard, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taverne, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Harvington, L.

Abinger, L.

Hemphill, L.

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Ailsa, M.

HolmPatrick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Howe, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Inchcape, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Inchyra, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inglewood, L.

Balfour, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Kimball, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Berners, B.

Liverpool, E.

Blake, L.

Long, V.

Blaker, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brightman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Cadman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Nelson, E.

Cockfield, L.

Newall, L.

Coleridge, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Parkinson, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pender, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Denham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Digby, L.

Prior, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rennell, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Erroll, E.

Romney, E.

Finsberg, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gage, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goold, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmsworth, L.

[Teller.]

228

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Westbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wilcox, B.

Swansea, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Tollemache, L.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Yarborough, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.46 p.m.
[Amendment No. 98 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and whose status has been notified to the housing authority by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104. The two amendments are concerned respectively with the accommodation and the homelessness part of the housing legislation. They are concerned with one particular aspect of the difficulties that local authority housing departments will have with the legislation as it is drafted.
In London there are approximately 4,000—possibly even more—families in temporary accommodation. As the Committee knows, that usually means bed and breakfast accommodation. They are awaiting a Home Office decision on their refugee status. That could be a decision on the original application or on the appeal. The average time-scale for an original decision has been of the order of eight months and the average time-scale for an appeal has been of the order of 10 months, although, as we know from previous debates in Committee, the number of outstanding appeals is rising dramatically month by month and presumably that average 18-month figure will be surpassed very rapidly.
As drafted, the clause puts local authorities in a considerable dilemma. They have the duty of determining eligibility status in order to decide what to do to fulfil their statutory duties under the housing legislation. Without going over all the ground that we covered on the previous amendment, the nature of their statutory duties under housing legislation is subject to the possibility, even the probability, of change under the Housing Bill which will be debated at Second Reading next week.
In order to decide how to fulfil their statutory duty and, indeed, what that statutory duty is, local authorities depend on information from the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office. With an average delay of 18 months between the time an asylum application is made and the time it is finally determined, it will be obvious that they are dealing with a considerable number of cases. Of course, some of those people are vulnerable for other reasons than being asylum seekers and therefore do not come into the consideration. Also, some of them have been accepted

229
into this country and have then applied for asylum status on the basis that they have sufficient funds to cover themselves. I recognise that those people will not be applying immediately to local authorities for housing.
The dilemma which local authority housing departments face is that, if they accept the duty to house, and it turns out that the applicant is not entitled, then the council tax payers will have paid for something which is not in accordance with the statutory duty of the local authority and will therefore not be accounted for in the revenue support grant. If the local authority takes the decision to deny that it has such a duty, then it could be liable for failing to comply with its statutory duty.
In order to deal with that Catch 22 situation in which they find themselves, local authorities should be aware of the status of an applicant and therefore the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office should give the information to the local authority housing department so that it can make a proper decision.
I am not suggesting that this amendment deals with anything other than a matter of administrative efficiency. It is not an issue of huge principle, but if there are two departments in public life, one being a local authority housing department acting under housing law and the other being the Home Office acting under immigration law, and the Home Office has the relevant information, it should be required to share it with the housing department so that statutory duties can be properly and efficiently fulfilled. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This amendment is designed as a solution to the problem I raised on the previous amendment: how a local authority is expected to know whether the person concerned is of the class specified by the Secretary of State. I noticed that the noble Baroness shook her head when I said that it would create a burdensome procedure. I invited her to explain how else it should be done. She resisted that invitation. But if the Ministers are to resist this amendment, they will have to answer that question now.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As was explained, the intention behind these amendments is to require the local authority to apply the housing provisions of the Bill only to those cases where the immigration status of the applicant has been notified to the authority by the Secretary of State, which means in practice by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Department. I understand the arguments put forward, but do not believe that they provide a realistic solution.
We do not generally require immigrants here on limited leave to live in a particular area, nor do we tail them from place to place. They are free to come and go in just the same way as any British citizen. So there is no practical way that the immigration department could know that a particular immigrant was applying to a given authority for housing or assistance under the homelessness legislation.
The only way in which the immigration department could ensure that housing authorities are aware of the immigration status of anyone approaching them would
230
be for the department to send details of all immigrants falling within a class specified by an order under this clause. Given the very large numbers of people who visit this country each year, the vast majority of whom are entirely self-supporting and not interested in seeking social housing, it would be an impossible task for the department to send out such details to around 400 housing authorities throughout the United Kingdom, for authorities to monitor them and for that list to be kept up-to-date.
We are aware of—and respect—the concerns that a number of authorities and welfare organisations have about the screening of applicants for housing for immigration status and its possible effects on race relations. Indeed, the noble Lord raised this issue and I answered him briefly during the last debate. But that concern can be overstated. In December 1994 the Department of the Environment issued a revised third edition of its Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, which contained advice on how to screen persons making an application under the homelessness legislation for illegal entrants (who have no entitlement under the homelessness legislation), and for asylum seekers (who have a more limited entitlement). The guidance was prepared in consultation with housing practitioners and the Commission for Racial Equality, and has, we understand, been well received.
The Department of the Environment will build on that experience by issuing revised guidance on how to screen for people without an entitlement to housing when this legislation commences. That will cover both people seeking assistance under the homelessness legislation and those seeking council housing through the waiting list. It will also cover the procedures to be adopted in liaising with the immigration department to establish immigration status.
The Government are sensitive to the concerns expressed about intrusive inquiries and good race relations. But the only practical way of implementing this legislation is through the screening processes of the housing authorities, through which everybody who applies for council housing has to go. We will ensure that procedures are in place to that end before this part of the Bill is enacted.
I hope, with that assurance of how we propose to proceed and a remembrance of the guidance already issued to local authorities, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister gave us a considered answer. He may possibly be right that this procedure will not work. But it is not incumbent on those of us on this side of the Chamber to put forward a procedure that will work. We do not want this clause working at all. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to put forward something that will work. He has not convinced us that the screening process can work without great labour and a risk of discrimination. Those answers are not enough.

231
I hoped that he could say a little more about how the screening process would be used. I fear we are disappointed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Though I listened carefully to what the Minister said and he knows that this was only a probing amendment concerning an administrative issue rather than an issue of principle, I was a little taken aback by one of his objections to the amendment.
The Minister said that asylum seekers are free to live anywhere they like and that they are not tracked from place to place. I understood the position to be that aliens settled in this country are required to register with the police in the areas where they settle and to notify any changes of address using the green card system. That appears to be in conflict with what the Minister said. I understand that in London aliens register with the Aliens Registration Office. Is it not easier, therefore, to keep track of aliens settled in this country than the Minister suggested in his original answer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Without going into detail, the point is this. Many people come to this country for a limited time and are allowed in by the immigration authorities—people from all parts of the world with every intention of going back. They create a formidable list of people. To send that list to every local authority would be impossible. It would be difficult to keep track of such people, although one could send a list to the local authority in which they are believed to be living on the offchance that they may apply for council housing.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is saying. However, it is far better to provide a sensible screening process for local authorities who are used to dealing with these matters rather than, dare I say, implementing the impossible system suggested by the noble Lord.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think the Minister can brush away the problems I have raised by calling them details. I was responding to the precise statement that he made about the inability of the Home Office to track aliens living in this country. My understanding is that it is possible to track aliens living in this country. I think that the Minister's original answer was, of course unintentionally, misleading. I do not think it is wrong for me to press the matter when the noble Lord has responded to the problems I have raised as if they were details.
Of course there are difficulties in what is being proposed here. I am not suggesting otherwise and I was not proposing to press the amendment to a Division. But I wonder whether the Minister would not feel able to think about this matter a little more constructively than he has done so far. If it is not possible for the original notification to be made by the Home Office to all local authorities—I understand the difficulties—is it not possible for the Home Office to have a register that is available on request to local authorities which seek to use it? I can see that there could be civil liberties
232
difficulties about that as well. But if the Minister is to approach the matter constructively, he ought to consider alternative ways of achieving the same objective as he appears to accept that local authorities will have legitimate concerns in dealing with these applications.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I accept the concerns that the noble Lord has raised but I have outlined the way to deal with them which has been in use since 1994 in certain cases where local authorities use the homelessness code of guidance. We have no indication that that has not worked in a perfectly reasonable and humane manner. I indicated that many people come to this country as visitors and so on. We are talking about more than 6 million people every year. It would be impossible to track them as it would be to send a list of more than 6 million names to every local authority in the country. Local authorities would be the first to complain if they had to monitor 6 million names to see whether someone who had applied for one of the council houses or had come to them under homelessness legislation was one of them. Even the power of the modern computer would still find that a fairly time-consuming operation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am beginning to suspect, reluctantly, that the Minister is not treating this amendment seriously. He cannot be serious in suggesting that the amendment deals with 6 million people. There are 6 million visitors to this country each year but we are talking here only about people who are aliens settled in this country. It is a very much smaller number of people. The figure of 6 million is simply a diversionary tactic.
I should like to think about what the Minister has said. I do not think he has been as helpful or constructive as he should be and I do not think he has been as receptive to the real concerns of local authority housing departments. Perhaps they should be expressed to the Home Office more clearly than they have been, in which case we can see to it that that is done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 100A:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) This section shall not apply to students from overseas who have leave to enter for a limited period and who comply with their conditions of entry.").
The noble Earl said: Before saying anything else, I must declare an interest in this amendment as a university teacher. I should also like to thank the Minister's honourable friend Mr. Curry for a meeting this morning and for giving very careful consideration to the arguments behind the amendment.
This is a classic case of the law of unexpected consequences from legislation. One does not normally think of students in the category of local authority housing. Indeed the case to which this amendment refers is one about which I knew nothing myself as recently as Second Reading. But it transpires that a number of universities, a high proportion of them in Scotland, have leased accommodation from local authorities in areas

233
where there is a very small housing demand. The Gorbals turns out to be one of the cases in point. There are areas where there is not a sufficient body of applicants to justify keeping accommodation for the waiting list and where universities are able to use it for students with families, some of whom are from overseas and some of whom are not. It is a perfectly constructive arrangement in the interests of all parties, a classic case of public/private sector partnership of the kind of which the Government usually approve. The overseas students, who are only a part of this, earn this country more than £1 billion a year for our balance of payments, something I for one would rather not do without.
The Government's concern in this is that these students should not have recourse to public funds. It seems to me that this is met in this case. Universities are not public bodies; they are not nationalised industries; they are private corporations. The university leases these properties and the students are the tenants of the university. Under existing legislation universities are not allowed to subsidise student rents. So it appears to me that this is not a case of public funds being involved. If we can find a suitable form of wording—I have no wish for the wording of the amendment to be set in stone—it ought to be possible to reach a perfectly satisfactory form of words to deal with this case. I should also be extremely grateful for an assurance that property leased to universities by housing associations would not be involved under this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Goold: I wish to support the amendment and add my name to the thanks to Mr. David Curry for meeting us this morning. I must also declare an interest as chairman of court of the University of Strathclyde.
This clause, in aiming to prevent access to local authority housing to oversees students, will have a very serious effect. My university rents 290 flats in and around Glasgow from local authorities. This is not a cost to the taxpayer. Generally, the flats are in poor condition, in poor areas and are often empty. They are flats people do not want. The university pays to improve them. They are then occupied by overseas students and often their families. When the university vacates them they revert to the local authority, and in better condition than we got them.
Unfortunately, there are not sufficient private rented flats at prices students can afford. If access to council flats is denied, many overseas students will not be able to come to universities in Britain, with considerable consequent damage to the economy of the universities and of the country, to say nothing of the loss to research. I hope that my noble friend the Minister may be able to accept the amendment or produce a similar one at Report stage.
Lord Dainton: I wish to support the amendment. I was present yesterday and I heard the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, from the Government Front Bench commenting on the fact that there are 100,000 overseas students in this country. We have heard that each overseas student brings in around £10,000, which makes £1 billion, which I presume was how the noble Earl, Lord Russell, came to the figure of £1 billion. It seems
234
to me that we are doing ourselves harm here. Overseas students in British universities are good for British students. They enlarge their horizons and they change their outlooks in a significant way, even though it is not a matter which is within the curriculum. More important than that, many of those overseas students return home and go on to have distinguished careers.
I have just come back from my almost annual visit to Singapore. Perhaps I may tell the Committee about Singapore's two major universities, which I had a hand in establishing some years ago. The chief executive of the National University of Singapore is a medical man who was trained in this country at Cambridge. The same is true of Nanyang Technological University. It is headed by an engineer who was trained at Cambridge. The man who runs that great endeavour, Jurong Town Development Corporation, was also head of that country's defence forces and was a student at Sheffield where he had a distinguished record in engineering. One cannot omit the senior minister, who is still a man of very great influence and power, Lee Kuan Yew. He received his education in this country and has never failed to acknowledge the debt that he owes to us in that respect.
We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we were to impose any impediment which made it impossible for able students from abroad to come to this country. They are now all self-financing and are not a charge on the taxpayer in this country. They often have different accommodation needs from our own students. Having left their own country, often many miles away, they do not return in the vacations and need to occupy accommodation for much longer periods of the year than home students. In addition, they are often older and married, sometimes with children. It is for that reason that many universities in this country have seen them as having a special problem for which they wish to cater by whatever means they can.
The rise in student numbers in this country over recent years has been so great that the universities have looked everywhere within their means to be able to provide accommodation for those much-valued students. The method by which they lease accommodation from local authorities or housing associations and sub-let it to the students is admirable. It brings into good use accommodation which, as has already been said, might not otherwise be used. Such accommodation is also useful for foreign students who come here for brief periods. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who is at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, will probably remind the Committee that most of the distinguished foreign medical people who go there are housed in housing association accommodation.
It would be a very great pity if, by this legislation, we were to deny foreign students the accommodation that they need. It would harm foreign students in the short term, but I beg the Minister and the Committee to consider carefully the long-term damage that it would do to the standing of this country overseas. This is not a trivial matter. It is an extremely serious matter.

235
Therefore, I hope that an exception can be made by the Government in due course, perhaps along the lines of this amendment.
Lord Winston: I rise briefly to support all that has been said already. I have nothing much else to say except to point out that many overseas students are postgraduate students. As such, they are often here for a postgraduate degree of, say, three years or occasionally more. One of their most common questions to us is whether there is accommodation for their families. The usual university accommodation is simply not appropriate for them.
I am sure that it is not the Government's intention to exclude that important source of immediate wealth to us or to ignore the long-term investment implications for this country. I beg the Government to consider a way of making sure that students can continue to come here and to occupy such accommodation.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has already made, only very much better, the very points that I had wanted to make. Therefore, I strongly support the hope that some way may be found to solve this problem in favour of students.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I explained in our other two short debates, our general position on this subject is that persons from abroad who have entered this country on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds should not be entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation; and that persons from abroad who are here only for a limited period should have no call on social housing created with public money to meet long-term needs. This is what Clause 9 of the Bill provides for generally, both for students and for others here on limited leave. I appreciate that noble Lords are not suggesting that overseas students are in some way a special category deserving a general exemption from those provisions.
I totally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and my noble friend Lady Park, that we have had a long and honourable tradition of providing education and training for people from a wide range of countries. We welcome overseas students, but we admit them on the same basis as anyone else who is granted limited leave; namely, that they should support themselves, including meeting all of their housing costs.
I understand that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is concerned that the provisions may bite on certain universities and colleges which have arrangements under which they lease accommodation from a local authority which they then let on to their students, some of whom may be from overseas. I know of the interest in this matter of my noble friend Lord Goold which relates to his position at Strathclyde University. There are number of houses in Glasgow which the local authority finds it hard to let; nobody particularly wants to live in them. A mutually beneficial deal has been struck between Strathclyde University and the local authority whereby those houses remain in
236
occupation and, as my noble friend said, are improved. Students then make use of them. I understand the issue entirely.
We should be clear that that happens only when a local authority does not require the housing—either because its housing list is not long enough and no one demands the house or because of other factors, which I shall not go into. However, in the case of the Glasgow example which was mentioned by my noble friend, it is probably true to say that most people on the council waiting list would rather wait for a house in a different part of the city than be housed in the accommodation to which we are referring. There are circumstances where an authority may genuinely not have a use for all its housing stock and may find difficulty in letting it. If the authority is simply leasing out accommodation that would otherwise be standing empty, and there is little or no local demand for the accommodation, there may be scope for flexibility.
I discussed the matter a few hours ago with my honourable friend Mr. David Curry, the Minister responsible for housing and local government. Before I spoke to him, he met the noble Earl and my noble friends Lord Goold and Lord Jenkin. Perhaps I may assure the Committee that we shall consider the need to bring forward at Report stage an amendment to the order-making power in this clause to enable local authorities to continue to lease surplus accommodation to universities and colleges for use by overseas students who are here lawfully. I hope that with that assurance the noble Earl will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful for that reply by which I am entirely satisfied. I look forward to seeing the draft of that amendment. It appears to meet absolutely fair and square the point that I was making. I accept the condition that the Minister makes about where there is little or no demand. After all, I too am aware that there are social needs to be considered. That is a fair condition.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment and for the way in which the debate has been conducted entirely irrespective of party. I should like to thank again Mr. Curry and the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 101, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 103 to 106 inclusive.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 101, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 113, 115, 116, 118 and 120.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said on the first amendment, Amendment No. 97. I assume that the Minister still stands by the three categories of individual to whom this part of the Bill refers; namely—I hope that I have got this right—overstayers, illegal entrants and

237
asylum seekers. He also referred to people who came to this country and had recourse to public funds, having given an undertaking not to do so. I am puzzled by what the Minister has said because it does not quite stack up.
Before I go into the details, perhaps I may set the context. In the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 provision is made for the housing of asylum seekers and their dependants. The Act provides that nothing in the homelessness legislation shall require a housing authority to secure that accommodation is made available for occupation by asylum seekers or their dependants. That power gave local authorities the option not to provide homelessness accommodation for asylum seekers or their families. It did not make it mandatory. I suppose that the reason why the Government have introduced this much tougher provision in the Bill is that they have found to their dismay that too many local authorities have done the right and proper thing and provided homelessness accommodation to these priority categories in need. The Government are saying that the 1993 Act is not tough enough and they are introducing a tougher measure.
We are dealing with the right of a very limited number of persons to homelessness accommodation. As far as I am aware, neither overstayers nor illegal entrants are likely to be given homelessness accommodation by local authorities. There is already guidance from central government that they should not do so, and there is no evidence that it is happening. We are talking about the third category as identified by the Minister: asylum seekers. We are concerned with a very small proportion of asylum seekers, that is, those in priority need, broadly households with children or sick, disabled or elderly adults. Those priority groups account for a very small proportion of all asylum seekers.
What is to happen to such people who quite properly and legally come to this country because they have a well-founded fear of persecution? Where are they to live while the Home Office decides on their status? These are vulnerable people who may well have suffered intolerably in the countries from which they have fled. We are now saying that there is no accommodation or anything for them. They do not come with money so that they can buy their way into the private market.
The Minister has said that the United Kingdom is more generous than other European countries. I contend that in this particular instance that is certainly not the case. I ask the Minister to list European Union countries as regards what they do in the provision of accommodation for such priority groups. I believe the Minister will find that many European countries provide at least some kind of hostel accommodation through whatever local government structure is in place. That is the case in the Netherlands, Germany and, I believe, in Denmark. If this provision is agreed what will happen to these vulnerable people? Are they to sleep in the streets? I believe that the Government are making a mistake. Even if the broad premise underlying the Bill is accepted—I do not accept it—it may be said that there
238
is absolutely no need to be so harsh and inhumane to the small number of highly vulnerable asylum seekers who will be caught by the provision. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The question that we must address in considering this amendment is whether people who have sought leave to enter this country on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds should be entitled to set aside that undertaking. The immigration rules state quite explicitly that the homelessness legislation falls within the definition of public funds. This extends to those people who sought asylum after entering this country, since to obtain leave to enter they would have had to satisfy the immigration officer that they had the resources to maintain themselves in this country.
The purpose of the homelessness legislation is to ensure that families and vulnerable individuals who lose their homes through no fault of their own are provided with a proper safety net. It is one component of a wider set of welfare provisions that we have in place to help people through a crisis and allow them to continue their normal lives. But it focuses naturally and rightly on those people who are settled in this country.
The principle behind the provisions in subsection (2) is by no means new. In 1993 the Court of Appeal held in the Tower Hamlets case that a person not lawfully in the country because he had entered it illegally or had overstayed his leave was not entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation. The Home Office is entitled to cancel leave to remain granted to anyone who entered the country lawfully but subsequently breached an undertaking not to have recourse to public funds. To that extent what we are doing here is no more than translating a well established principle in the homelessness legislation.
Your Lordships will be aware that the purpose of this measure is to align entitlement under the homelessness legislation with entitlement to housing benefit, which was withdrawn from most groups of immigrants here on limited leave in 1994 and from asylum seekers earlier this year. Local authorities rely on housing benefit to support a substantial part of the costs they incur. As we have seen from their protests over the past few months, following the withdrawal of benefit entitlement from certain asylum seekers—in particular those who claim in country—it is not tenable to leave the homelessness duty with them in the absence of housing benefit support.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pointed out, it is true that other countries have different kinds of provision. For example, Germany and Holland provide accommodation in camps and benefits are mainly in kind. We have decided not to go down that route. Those people who seek asylum at the port of entry are eligible for benefits while the Home Office is considering their applications for asylum. If they are turned down and appeal, in those circumstances they are not eligible for benefit. We contend that they should not be eligible to be considered under homelessness legislation either. Similarly, those who enter the country under the strict

239
condition that they will not be a burden on public funds are not eligible if they decide after weeks or months in this country that they wish to apply for asylum.
We believe that we have an effective welfare system in this country which is geared to meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of society, but we must resist attempts to exploit it by people without a proven case and a permanent base in this country. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord. If he decides not to withdraw it and to put it to the Vote, I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Lord Dubs: Having listened to what the Minister has said, I feel he is not his usual persuasive self. I notice that the Minister has dropped his argument about illegal entrants and overstayers as regards this group of people. (Perhaps he was persuaded by what I said earlier.) Let us confine ourselves to asylum seekers. What he seeks to do is to draw a distinction between those who claim asylum at the port of entry and those who claim asylum after they pass through immigration at Heathrow or Dover and, a few days later, make a claim. I understand why he does that. He seeks to bring it into line with some of the other measures which have been introduced by the Government and those in this Bill. One will still be left with people who are vulnerable and who are without accommodation. It is not clear to me from the wording of this particular clause that asylum seekers who claim asylum at the port of entry, and do it properly by the Government's book, will be entitled to homelessness provision. I find it hard to interpret the measure in that way. Perhaps the Minister can give further assurance on the point.
Nevertheless, the noble Lord has said that the Government do not intend to go down the route followed by countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. He made reference to camps. I think that they are more likely to be hostels than camps, but it may be both. Therefore, he is saying that nothing will be done for these people. It is my contention that when we are dealing with people who are so vulnerable, as a humane, civilised country, we are under an obligation to do something. We talk about those people who fail to claim asylum at the port of entry but do so later. We have all heard the arguments as to why, reasonably and understandably, some asylum seekers do not understand the importance of the distinction. Even if we say that people should apply for asylum at the port of entry, and because they have not done so they will be punished, what about their children? Should they be punished as well because one asylum seeker failed to make the right statement to immigration when coming into the country?
We are dealing with people who are vulnerable, who have not made themselves homeless intentionally, and who are clearly a priority group. They are people who, in most cases for reasons beyond their control, find themselves sleeping on the streets of London and other cities. Surely we do not want that to happen to the small number of vulnerable people who are victims of persecution in the country they left. We are going to make them the victims of the Bill when they get here.
240
That is not the way we should go forward. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to comment on my query about the two groups of asylum seekers.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the Minister replies perhaps I, too, may ask a question. I understood the Minister to say that people who said that they could maintain themselves and came into the country on that undertaking, and who subsequently claimed assistance, were not to be supported. They might have come in with a well-founded, genuine belief that they would be able to support themselves. They might have work in prospect or a generous relation who was going to fork out. Both of those optimistic futures might be denied them. They might start in a job and lose it. The relation who is going to help might help for a while and then abandon them. They would then be penniless and homeless. Are we going to do nothing about those people even if they were genuine when they first arrived?
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question before he replies to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about the children. I should like to know whether local authorities, under legislation relating to children, would be obliged to take the children into care. If that is so, has the cost of doing so been taken into account in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, because I cannot find it anywhere there? The assumption is that anyone who has applied too late, after going through immigration control procedures—whether he has three, five or eight children—will be denied the housing to which he would otherwise have been entitled under the homelessness legislation.
In those circumstances will the local authority have to pick up the pieces by offering the children places in a local authority home or by fostering them? If so, has the Minister any idea what that will cost this country's ratepayers and taxpayers?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As we all seem to be raising points for my noble friend to reply to, I should like to follow up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. As I understand it, a common pattern that local authorities find is that people arrive with a letter from someone guaranteeing to support them and that they will be no burden on the state. As I understand it, we take that on face value in this country.
A few minutes ago I met a woman who works in the House. She told me that she was very pleased because the Australian immigration authorities had just agreed to allow her to go there. It has been quite a battle, and I have been involved in it. She said that her daughter was paying the money. I asked her what she meant. She said, "Oh well, I have to put up"—I wrote it down on my hand because I was called out of the Chamber to have a word with her—"3,500 dollars plus 1,500 dollars for my husband and 1,500 dollars for my mother. That is 6,500 dollars to ensure that we do not claim state benefits for a period of two years. We have to pay a further 800 dollars per person to be sure that we do not call on the health service".

241
This country does not demand that people put up a guarantee in the form of a bond or money. We take people's word when the letters say that they will be supported. It is a great breach of trust if that is not true. It is happening all the time: people arrive, and a few days later they claim all these benefits. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that it could go on a long time and that people could run out of money. That is different. If it goes on a long time, they might qualify for some entitlement from the local authority. People arrive deliberately with documents assuring everyone that they will be no burden on the state when they have every intention of being such a burden. We cannot accept that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall respond to the questions that I have been asked. My noble friend Lady Gardner made a good point. We should look at what other countries do. We accept what people say abroad when seeking a visa to enter this country, or what they tell the immigration officer at the port of entry when they say why they are here. If they say that they are here for this reason or that reason and will not be a burden on public funds, I like to think that we can continue to live in a world where we take them at their word, and do not have to go down the road of asking them, so to speak, to put down deposits as a mark of their good faith.
But it is a problem when people turn round a few days, weeks, or months later and say, "Oh, by the way, all that I said about not being a burden on public funds and coming here for a holiday, to see my relatives, or whatever it is, was not true. I am coming here because I want to seek asylum". That is not right. The provision that we have made is clear.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. That is not the question that I was asking. I hope that my question will not be confused in the reply that he is giving. I was talking about people who came here genuinely, who may have obtained a job, and who months later, as so easily happens, lost it and became in need. They may be genuine people. I agree with the Minister that if they are trying to fool the authorities, and two or three days later turn round and say that the offer is not valid, their request should not be considered. But if they are genuine, and have been here for months, and then fall on bad times, are we saying that we cannot do anything for them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the noble Baroness had been patient for a moment or two she would have saved herself a second speech; I was coming to that issue. I was addressing a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I shall turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in a few moments. First, perhaps I may turn to her noble friend Lord Avebury who asked about the duties of local authorities under the Children Act. Local authorities have a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need within their area. That involves a general duty to promote the upbringing of such children by their families.
242
It is for individual local authorities to decide what form that assistance will take. They can make cash payments in exceptional circumstances, but those can be for a limited period only. They may decide not only to take a child into care, but also to help the parents and the family to house themselves and the children. Under the Children Act we cater for children who enter in those circumstances. We will come later to the question of the costs.
In previous debates on income support and housing benefit we made it clear that we would be in discussion, as we are, with the local authorities, to quantify the additional costs, and that we are prepared to pay them up to 80 per cent. of what we identify jointly as the additional costs arising from their obligations.
Lord Avebury: Which does the Minister think will be more expensive: for the local authority to offer the parents of the asylum application family accommodation so that they can look after their own children, to take the children into care in a local authority home, or to foster them? Which will be more expensive?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that I covered almost all those eventualities. I said that it was a matter for local authorities to decide. As regards a child who has come to this country alone, fostering or care might be the only option. However, if a child has come as part of the family the most sensible course of action for a local authority might be to help the family with housing. Those costs are being discussed between ourselves and the local authorities with a view to arriving at a sensible arrangement.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made my case for me. The people to whom she referred came to this country and said why they were coming. They were not intent on seeking asylum. They came here to visit relatives or to find work. Many people who come here cannot obtain a visa in order to find work; they must go through more hoops than that. However, many people, for whatever reason, come to this country, go about their business and fall on hard times. They cannot just turn around and say—or can they?—"Wait a minute! I know how to get out of this dilemma. I will claim asylum". We are not talking about people who come here to claim asylum. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made my case for me in relation to people who make in-country applications. When many of them enter the country, making a claim for asylum at the port is the furthest thing from their minds. They come here to do all kinds of other things. But for a variety of reasons, when many of them are here they decide to claim asylum.
I turn to the main point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I hoped that I had made this clear. The categories of immigrants which will be specified in regulations under this subsection will make it clear that the orders will not apply to asylum seekers who claimed asylum on arrival during the period when their claim was under consideration by the Home Office. That provision is entirely consistent with the availability of income support and housing benefit to asylum seekers at the port of entry and for the duration of the time

243
during which the Home Office is considering their application. I hope that that explanation clarifies the position.
However, I know that, although the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may be pleased to hear that clarification, he would prefer to retain the position which existed before we made any changes; that is the position in which all one had to do was to come here and either at the port of entry or after having lived here for some time claim asylum and then be able to claim income support, housing benefit and the protection of the homelessness legislation. We are proposing to remove most of those concessions to people from abroad but we intend to keep available income support, housing benefit and the application of the homelessness legislation to those people who claim asylum at the port of entry.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for that clarification but I take issue with the fundamental argument that he is putting forward. Perhaps I may try to clear up some confusion. It is clear that the clause applies to asylum seekers, but it appears to apply also to people who seek properly to come to this country as migrants on the condition that they do not have recourse to public funds. An intermediate group of asylum seekers does not claim asylum at the port of entry. They are, therefore, in the Minister's eyes, by implication, arriving on the condition that they do not have recourse to public funds and they then make a claim. There are three groups of people and perhaps I may disentangle the arguments relating to them.
I shall deal first with people who come to this country on a planned basis in the way in which the Minister would wish. Those people have the resources to look after themselves but may find themselves in changed circumstances before their immigration status has been confirmed. They will not be eligible for the homelessness provisions, even though the change of circumstance, such as a house being burned down, is beyond their control. That is one group of people.
In relation to them and in reply to a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I understand that when people arrive in this country we do not take sponsorship letters or such undertakings at face value. Before giving entry clearance, the Home Office scrutinises the financial support that is available. Therefore, the issue is not quite as simple as the noble Baroness maintained—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for clarification. If the Home Office makes a check and discovers that the financial support exists, why do so many of those people appear on the doorstep of the council to claim housing benefit or other support?
Lord Dubs: I am not aware that many such people do, but there may be some. The noble Baroness may be talking about asylum seekers who are faced with difficulties. There may be a dispute between us about the figures, but I have seen no indication that that happens other than on a very small scale.
I turn now to the two groups of asylum seekers. The Minister will be aware that, of the asylum seekers who do not claim asylum at the port of entry, the vast
244
majority, some 80 per cent., make their asylum claim within a week of being in the country. As a result of that gap of one week they are to be penalised in the way proposed. I contend that that is unjust. We tried—and we may try again on Report—to put into the Bill a safeguard that they will be covered provided that asylum is claimed within a short period. As yet that provision is not on the face of the Bill. I believe that to punish people in such a way is very harsh. It may also result in local authorities having to bear heavy costs of caring for children who must be taken into care because there is no accommodation for them.
Surely a clear principle is involved. We are talking about people who are vulnerable, who represent only a small minority of asylum seekers and for whom a little decency in terms of the way in which we treat them will not be a magnet for asylum seekers, or those purporting to be, the world over. I am talking about the way we treat people who have a well-founded fear of persecution.
Another group will fall through the net because, even on the Minister's own statement, if asylum seekers claim asylum at the port of entry and are then refused asylum by the Home Office and wish to exercise their right of appeal, they will lose all benefits between the date of the Home Office refusal and the date of the appeal hearing. That may be many months, if not years. I can interpret what the Minister said only as meaning that if during that period the local authority has provided them with accommodation for homeless people, they will be thrown out of it because they will no longer be eligible under the terms of the Bill. This is a miserable measure and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 101) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 144.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Halsbury, E.

Avebury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Healey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hooson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hylton, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Diamond, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kennet, L.

Dubs, L.

Kissin, L.

Eatwell, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Exeter, Bp.

Longford, E.

Ezra, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Gallacher, L.

McNair, L.

245

Mallalieu, B.

Sandwich, E.

Mayhew, L.

Seear, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Sefton of Garston, L

Methuen, L.

Serota, B.

Mishcon, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Taverne, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Tope, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Richard, L.

White, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Russell, E

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Addison, V.

Holderness, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Inchcape, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inchyra, L.

Balfour, E

Inglewood, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kimball, L.

Berners, B.

Kingsland, L.

Biddulph, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blaker, L.

Lauderdale, E

Blatch, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Boardman, L.

Leigh, L.

Bowness, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Burnham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Cadman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Camock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mersey, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L

Milverton, L.

Cockfield, L.

MonkBretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Monson, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mottistone, L.

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Munster, E.

Crickhowell, L

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cross, V.

Nelson, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Newall, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L.

Northesk, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Digby, L.

Orkney, E

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Parkinson, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Peel, E.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Goold, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Goschen, V.

Prior, L

Greenway, L.

Quinton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harmsworth, L

Rennell, L.

Hemphill, L.

Renwick, L

246

Rodney, L.

Swansea, L.

Romney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tebbit, L.

Seccombe, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Selsdon, L.

Thurlow, L.

Shannon, E

Tollemache, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Westbury, L.

Stockton, E.

Wilcox, B.

Strange, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Stratncarron, L.

Windlesham, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Wynford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

[*The Tellers for the Not Contents reported 144 names. the Clerks recorded 143 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
[Amendment No. 102 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 6, line 46, leave out ("or assistance").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. It is intended to probe the Government on the meaning of one specific phrase in Clause 9. As it stands, the clause states that the person:
"shall not be eligible for accommodation or assistance".
I should like to know what the words "or assistance" mean.
The fear is that it may prevent local authorities from giving any advice at all to an asylum seeker of whom they have knowledge and who is in housing difficulties. That is the interpretation of the present drafting of Clause 9. And yet it is difficult to believe that that could be the intention because we have referred already today to the Housing Bill. In Clause 154 of that Bill, which I understand will supersede this provision when the Bill receives Royal Assent, local authorities will be under a duty to provide such advice. Therefore, I am rather puzzled as to why, for the period between now and the time at which the Housing Bill receives Royal Assent. assistance or advice cannot be given by local authorities. It can be given in the present situation and it will be possible to give it again when the Housing Bill becomes law. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government fully recognise the importance of housing advice in preventing homelessness and helping people to find suitable accommodation. In that respect, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I are fairly well in agreement. The provisions in the Housing Bill, shortly to come before this House, give local authorities a new general duty to provide advisory services for the prevention of homelessness which will be available to everyone in the authority's area, including immigrants who have no substantive rights under the homelessness legislation.

247
The provisions of this Bill amend the existing homelessness provisions in Part III of the Housing Act 1985. Broadly, these place a duty on local authorities to secure accommodation for applicants who are homeless and who have, or appear to have, a "priority need" for accommodation. Where homelessness is established but there is not a priority need for accommodation, the authority owes a lesser duty to provide advice and assistance.
The effect of the amendment would be inequitable. It would mean that homeless immigrants who had a priority need for accommodation would be owed no duty at all, while those who did not have a priority need would he owed a duty of advice and assistance. I know that that is not the noble Lord's intention. As I said earlier, I have some sympathy with what I believe to be the noble Lord's intention; namely, that everyone should have access to housing advisory services, regardless of their immigration status or whether they are entitled to substantive housing assistance.
As I said, the provisions in the Housing Bill will place a general duty on housing authorities to provide advice for everyone in their district. We would expect to see those authorities which are not already providing advice services to begin doing so in the autumn, when that legislation takes effect. It would not make sense to require them to establish services at an earlier date solely for persons subject to immigration control.
Therefore, I should like to assure Members of the Committee, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that when the new duty to provide advice takes effect it will extend to people with limited leave to remain here and to asylum seekers. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and that he will also be able to support me when I come forward with a proposition under the Housing Bill.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his response; it is indeed most welcome. I shall certainly support him when he brings forward that proposition under the Housing Bill. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 6, line 47, leave out from ("Part") to end of line 4 on page 7.
The noble Earl said: The above amendment would remove from the Bill the part dealing with homelessness. Therefore, it would restore to asylum seekers what they had before under the Private Member's Bill moved by my late noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, who is sadly missed. It would give them back the same entitlement to help with homelessness as enjoyed by the rest of the population. The Government will undoubtedly produce a strong series of moral arguments on the issue. However, when the Government start being moral, I cannot help wishing that they were capable of being a little more practical at the same time. We really must consider exactly what will happen when homelessness help is withdrawn from
248
people who are affected by the clause. It means that, if their houses are burned down, no one will give them anywhere else to live.
Sadly there has recently been a great rash of arson cases around the country; indeed, there has been a considerable number in my own area. If we think of the reaction of those unpleasant people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, referred on Second Reading, it seems to me that they may think that this is a temptation to indulge in arson. They do it often enough already. Therefore, to argue that people in that situation should be left on the streets without any help as regards homelessness seems to be a little perverse. It will shift burdens, not remove them, within local authorities from the housing departments to the social services. The burden on local authority social services is already pretty severe. Moreover, the operation of social services is necessarily a great deal more complex than that of a housing department merely because of the degree of individual assessment involved. Therefore, it will create more pressure, more expense and more work while not necessarily saving very much money in the end.
Under the homelessness powers we have a situation with which we shall deal under a later amendment, but which is also relevant to this issue—where help with homelessness is withdrawn from those British subjects who are married to a person deemed to be homeless under the legislation because they fall to be treated under the Bill as if they were single. That will bear most heavily on those Asian families who have a habit of arranged marriages with people from, say, Pakistan, and so on. Apart from the hardship, it is a disincentive to marriage. We have heard a great many times in this Chamber about the need to support marriage. Imposing so strong a penalty on marriage is not quite the sort of consequence one believes that the Government intended. I wonder whether they thought it through. That situation would occur under subsection (2)(b).
What will happen to those people who are made homeless and who receive no help? One presumes that they will sleep on the street. However, obviously there comes a point when even the streets are liable to become overcrowded. It is not particularly good for any country to have a large proportion of its population sleeping rough. Quite apart from any argument about inhumanity, it tends to spread illness. I must remind the Government—I have said this before, but it bears repeating—that the rate of TB among the homeless on the streets of London is 200-times the national average. Leaving aside any issue of humanity, I do not believe that spreading that sort of danger is a good idea. Therefore, even from sheer, crude and practical self-interest, once people are here and homeless it is better to give them help than not to do so.
The fact that I tackle the matter on a practical front does not necessarily mean that I accept the moral arguments put forward by the Government. The people to whom we owe help are the people who are actually there and to whom hardship is happening. One cannot limit it by nationality in the way intended by the legislation. That is an abnegation of a responsibility which, because it is in front of us, I do not think we can give up. The late George Brown sometimes reminded

249
me of the girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead. It is true to say that when he was good he could be very, very good. I shall never forget him speaking at the eve of poll rally at the Layton by-election in 1965. He was facing 200 National Front hecklers and said to them, "Now then, if you want to have go, you can have a go; but you must come one at a time". One of the hecklers happened to be sitting next to me. George Brown baited him until the whole audience was watching. He then turned round and asked: "How far back can you trace your English ancestry before you find something else?" The man turned white as a sheet and was silent for the rest of the evening. However, when he left at the end of the meeting, he murmured to me that he was "most impressed".
As it happens, the very first nationalist agitation against immigrants in British politics was started by Simon de Montfort who was himself a Gascon. I wonder what people who start that sort of agitation about our own people are really trying to prove. All of us come from somewhere else at some stage. If one looks at a pool by the seaside, if the tide does not flow back into it it will become stagnant and the water will become bad; nothing will live in it. If one studies The History of the World by my former tutor Professor John Roberts, one will see that he considered the question of what made certain areas flourish, succeed, grow prosperous and intellectually adventurous. He concluded that the one great force for development was the mixing of populations by migration. Therefore, if we adopt the philosophy involved in the Bill, I believe that we stand to lose a great deal more than we realise. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Under the homelessness legislation, a local housing authority has an obligation to secure accommodation for applicants who have become homeless unintentionally and who fall within a priority need group. Such applicants may have a priority need in their own right—perhaps because of vulnerability through old age or disability—or because priority need is conferred by a vulnerable member of their household, such as a pregnant wife or a dependent child.
The provisions in Clause 9(2)(a) will exclude immigrants who are in this country on limited leave or are here unlawfully from entitlement to assistance under the homelessness legislation. I have already explained that in some detail. This will ensure that no duty is owed to such immigrants who make a homeless application. The underlying principle is that people admitted to this country on the basis that they will make their own arrangements to support and accommodate themselves should not have access to public funds.
The same principle underpins the provisions in Clause 9(2)(b). These will ensure that no duty is owed where entitlement under the homelessness legislation depends solely on the presence of someone in the applicant's household who is an immigrant on limited leave or who is here unlawfully. It cannot be right that someone who entered this country on the basis that he would have no recourse to public funds should then rely on public funds when he wants to make a claim.
250
The noble Earl, in his usual way, gave a number of examples. I shall consider one of the examples and perhaps confirm his worst fears. However, at least I shall make the position clear. Let us consider the position of a British citizen who contracts a marriage overseas and starts a family there. He decides to return to this country and his wife and child subsequently decide to join him. Typically they will be granted visas on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds. It cannot be right that the presence of that child should then be used as the basis for claiming that the household is in priority need. This is no different from the position which the Court of Appeal held (in the 1993 Tower Hamlets judgment) as regards a situation which already exists where a homelessness application relies on the presence of an illegal entrant to confer priority need.
Let me make clear that the provisions of Clause 9(2)(b) will not prevent a duty being owed to any homeless applicant where there is an entitlement to assistance which does not depend upon an immigrant on limited leave. Nor will they prevent an authority from taking account of such an immigrant in assessing whether accommodation provided as a discharge of a homelessness duty was suitable for the whole household, for example, by reference to its size.
I shall take a hypothetical example of a family comprising two adults and a dependent child. The family is originally from overseas but all have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The family is visited by a cousin who lives overseas and enters the UK on limited leave. While the household is host to the cousin it becomes unintentionally homeless. The local authority is satisfied that homelessness and priority need are established, disregarding of course the presence of the visiting cousin. In such a case the authority would owe a duty to secure accommodation for the whole household. I hope that explanation helps to explain how authorities will deal with certain cases, although I doubt whether they will be many in number.
As usual, the noble Earl paints a vision of the streets being full of people sleeping on them. He overpaints that. Indeed at the present time, under present circumstances, single people and those without children have no entitlement to accommodation under homelessness legislation. They do not generally sleep on the streets. The previous count in November 1995 showed that only 272 people were sleeping rough on the streets of central London. The rough sleepers initiative has been extremely successful in helping and encouraging people to get off the streets and finding them somewhere to stay.
This amendment would remove the provisions in Clause 9(2)(b), leaving housing authorities with a commitment to secure accommodation where homelessness or priority need was established as a direct result of the presence of someone on limited leave. The amendment would, therefore, undermine the whole purpose of Clause 9(2) and I am afraid I must ask the Committee to reject it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Will the Minister deal with the case that was mentioned at the end of the previous debate where someone has entered the country as an asylum seeker and has validly made an application at the port of entry; therefore he is not included among those to whom the noble Lord referred who assure the immigration authorities that they will not have recourse to public funds during their stay here? They brought everything out into the open at the point of entry. They were admitted as asylum seekers but their applications were later refused. According to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—the Minister did not correct him—such people would then lose the entitlements under this clause at the point when the Minister refused the application for asylum.
If the asylum seeker—and his family—was duly accommodated for the period during which the application was considered by the Secretary of State, at the point when a refusal was issued he would suddenly become ineligible and the local authority would have to evict him from the accommodation which it had previously offered him as a legitimate person who had become unintentionally homeless. Can it really be the purpose of the Government that the asylum applicant, having been here legitimately according to the Government and having made an application in the form which the Minister has said is required, is then denied the provision we are discussing during the period of his appeal hearing? That may be a long process, as we all know. It has been conceded that some asylum applicants can be here for as long as five years. Is it the case that during the whole of this four-and-a-half years—or whatever the time is between the refusal notice being given by the Secretary of State and the appeal being finally heard—this family which had become unintentionally homeless is not entitled to the benefits of the homeless accommodation which would be available to anyone else? I hope that the Minister will deal with that point before we decide whether we wish to vote on this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think anything I shall say will convince the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, not to vote in favour of this amendment. I thought I had made the position clear over and over again, not only today but on previous occasions when we have debated the interaction of asylum seekers and social security. The position is simple. When someone applies for asylum at the point of entry, he is entitled to income support, housing benefit and, if this is needed, he is entitled to be considered under the homelessness legislation. If, however, a person enters this country and makes his application after entry, he is not entitled to income support, housing benefit or consideration under the homelessness legislation. I return to the person who has made an "at port" application. It is worth reminding the Committee that in 1995, out of every 100 applications to the Home Office only five were granted refugee status. A further 16 were granted exceptional leave to remain and 79 out of every 100 were refused. At that stage people can appeal, as indeed United Kingdom citizens can make an appeal against any other decision as regards social security.
252
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that citizens of the United Kingdom who make an appeal in those circumstances against decisions of the social security system do not receive benefits while they are awaiting the results of that appeal. We believe that a negative decision by the Home Office to withdraw the income support and housing benefit from a person stands four square with the way the system deals with appeals from people in the United Kingdom against other parts of the social security system and other decisions of adjudicating officers and the like. The noble Lord is quite right that after the Home Office has turned down an application the person is no longer eligible to receive income support and housing benefit—which is what we decided at the end of January when that was voted upon in this Chamber—and he is not eligible for consideration under the homelessness legislation.
Lord Avebury: I hope that the Minister will answer the other point that I raised, which is whether a local authority, having granted the asylum applicant and his family emergency housing under the homelessness provisions during the time when his application was pending before the Secretary of State, would be obliged to evict him on the day when the Secretary of State issued his refusal.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It would be up to both the local authority and the family themselves to decide what they would do in those circumstances.
It is well worth saying that in 1995 only 3 per cent. of those appeals were successful. It cannot be right that we should continue to pay benefit, which, quite frankly, encourages people to remain here and appeal, when only 3 per cent. at the end of the day are found to have a legitimate right to be here and to be successful in the refugee status.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may seek clarification from the Minister. Let us consider a family who receive benefit because they applied for asylum status at the port of entry and as a result were in accommodation, receiving housing benefit which covered it. Subsequently they lost the decision to be considered as asylum seekers, or to be granted exceptional leave to remain. At that point, housing benefit would stop. They would not be able to pay the rent, so they would become homeless.
Under the Children Act 1989, do social services immediately take over the responsibility of rent payment in lieu of the housing benefit they would otherwise have received on the ground that in that way they ensure the continued health and development of the child, as they are required to do and as the Minister in another place, John Bowis, insisted that they would do under the legislation? That would be a cheaper way of ensuring that aim rather than taking those children into care.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness heard me explain at length the benefit changes that came about on 5th February. The position is, as I again make clear, if the Home Office decides that the person should not have either refugee status or be granted exceptional leave to remain, that person ceases to be eligible for

253
income support and housing benefit. If the local authority was housing the family under the homelessness Act—not all families will be housed under the homelessness Act—at that stage it would be up to the local authority to decide what it should do. Indeed the people themselves have some responsibility. They have come to this country; they must have worked out what they were going to do. They have made the application and it has been found wanting. They are given the right to appeal.
I made it clear earlier that if there are children, it is indeed the case that the Children Act can then trigger in and the local authority can come to their aid under the Children Act. If that is what the local authority decided to do, it could pay the rent. I made that perfectly clear in a previous answer. That is the position.
In case anyone asks the next question, I repeat the answer that I have already given: we are discussing with local authorities the costs which will arise. We have made it perfectly clear that we will be prepared to reimburse them on agreed costs up to 80 per cent.
Earl Russell: Before I reply to the Minister, I have, first, to make a Statement on behalf of the party. I hope that it will not take long, but it is, I think, of some importance.
We have decided that this Bill contains so much that is offensive to the freedoms of genuine asylum seekers that we cannot support any part of it. We would repeal it and replace it with such legislation as is necessary to reform and improve the system for processing asylum applications—a system which the present Government have grossly mismanaged and allowed to deteriorate into a state of crisis. We do not believe that any clause, or any line of the Bill, goes any distance towards meeting those objectives.
The Minister tempted me with his statistics to repeat myself. I heard his noble friend Lord Lucas on the last day in Committee. I shall not do so. He knows what my answer to that point is. I do not think that he needs to hear it again.
As regards his counts of rough sleepers, he ought to remember the sad case of the Irishman's pigs. The Irishman could not count them because they never stayed still. But if you are sleeping on a stone surface, you sometimes want to move in the middle of the night. Those counts of rough sleepers are notoriously unreliable, especially since some individuals tend to move as soon as they see anyone coming.
The Minister made a point about rough sleepers which tends more to illustrate our arguments than his. The rough sleepers' initiative was set up because so many people appeared on the streets. The Department of the Environment identified the significant factor in street homelessness as the removal of benefit from 16 and 17 year-olds and the fact that most people, being single, were not able to gain help from their local authorities. That is what we expect to happen again. In the light of that precedent, I believe that it is a realistic fear.
254
I understand that Ministers are allowed to have imagination only when they are off duty. I do not blame them for that. But I cannot help regretting it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) No order under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that no racial discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Local Government Act 1985 will result from the order.
( ) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult organisations appearing to him to be representative of the authorities concerned and other relevant organisations.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that local authorities accept their responsibilities to promote good race relations when making orders under Clause 9 and to make sure that they consult with the relevant organisations first.
The fear is that this provision will lead to discrimination against our ethnic minorities and that a local authority will have to vet the immigration status of an individual to see whether he or she, or the family, qualifies for homelessness accommodation or whether the local authority has to reject the application under the terms of the Bill.
The likelihood is that a local authority will be far more concerned to vet and possibly refuse the applications of people whose skins are black because it will say, "It's much more likely that a person with a black face is not eligible under the terms of this Bill". The result is that people who may have lived in this country, who may have been born in this country and who happen to have black skins will be faced with a discriminatory process when they apply to a local authority for housing. That is surely an outcome which no one in this Chamber wants because it would lead to the most blatant forms of discrimination.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that before an order is made under this section,
"the Secretary of State shall consult with organisations appearing to him to be representative of the authorities concerned and other relevant organisations",
having an interest. The Secretary of State must ensure that he does not make an order unless he is satisfied that no racial discrimination will result from such an order. It is a simple proposition. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I strongly support the amendment. It is not that racial discrimination will necessarily take place. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the ethnic minority community will believe that it is taking place. On the basis of my experience up to now, there are good grounds for it to expect that that will be the case. We need to take every conceivable step to ensure that there is no justification for those fears.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I begin by saying, as I did in an earlier debate although in different words, that we are alive to the need to ensure that the application of the housing provisions does not damage race relations.

255
But while I appreciate the concerns behind Amendment No. 109, outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I doubt that we need the provision envisaged in the amendment.
As the Committee may be aware, there are already restrictions in place on access to the homelessness legislation by certain persons from abroad. Twice today I have mentioned that the Department of the Environment issued a revised Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities in 1994. It was drawn up in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality and contains advice on the subject of concern to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
The code suggests a screening procedure applicable to everyone applying for assistance under the homelessness legislation that allows a housing authority to filter down to people who have spent a significant amount of time abroad in the past few years. Only those people are asked further questions about their immigration status. That avoids the need for housing officers to make a preliminary judgment on whether to probe an applicant's immigration status solely on the basis of his ethnic origins, accent or the style of his name.
So far as we are aware, the procedure has worked well and given rise to no complaints. It is the kind of procedure that the Department of the Environment proposes to commend to local authorities in applying the new legislation. In preparing its guidance, the department consults, as a matter of course, the local authority associations and other interested parties.
The experience we have had of the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities and the way it has worked over the past two years, as well as the consultation we shall have with interested parties and local authorities, give us confidence that we will be able to bring forward procedures for local authorities to follow. Those procedures will not give rise to the problems which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness fear. We have a good record of race relations in this country which we wish to preserve. We believe that we have the means of doing so in this case, with the code of guidance which has already been in operation for the related subject of homelessness. I hope that with that assurance and explanation the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister. I am still apprehensive about the way in which the clause will work in practice, but I wish to consider what the Minister said in more detail. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) No order under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that no disproportionate extra costs will be incurred by local authorities fulfilling their social services responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 or providing services as community care services within the meaning of section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 as a result of the order.
256
( ) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult organisations appearing to him to be representative of the authorities concerned and other relevant organisations.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment because it is concerned with an issue which the Minister has already mentioned this evening: the reimbursement of the additional costs which local authorities will incur. In principle, we believe that transfers of responsibility from central to local government are good, but in this case, with geographical distribution, the responsibilities fall largely on a few London boroughs and a few other local authorities. That makes implementation impossible unless there is reimbursement. I emphasise the limited scope of the amendment. We are only concerned with the Children Act 1989 which deals with children at risk in terms of their health and development, and with the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, in particular Section 67.
I recognise that the word "disproportionate" is not suitable to be put into the statute because it could mean anything according to one's wish. On 11th January, the Secretary of State, Mr. Lilley, said that unavoidable additional costs involved because of the homelessness legislation and the Children Act would be reimbursed. The Minister has confirmed that the reimbursement would be, he now says, up to 80 per cent., rather than 80 per cent.
The local authority associations, particularly the Association of London Government, already know that they must provide income sufficient to meet the rent and living expenses for families who find themselves in a difficult position. The figures from 5th February, when the regulations came into force, to 30th April are pretty low. I understand that in London there have been of the order of 300 claims. However, the trap which was set on 5th February has not yet been fully sprung because it needs the legislation to be complete. The Association of London Government expects there to be 7,000 claims in the current financial year. The costs could be of the order of £50 million, so it is important that, even though we shall not press the amendment to a vote, the Minister should agree with the second part of the amendment to consult with the local authority associations or,
"organizations…representative of the authorities concerned and other relevant organisations".
I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I shall not comment on the wording of the amendment; I intend to speak on the principle raised by the noble Lord. On many occasions when Bills have been discussed in this House I have spoken on the issue of how the burden falls by chance on one authority or another. It is sometimes related to whichever ethnic minority has friends or relatives living in a certain place. As the Committee knows, Earls Court was originally "Little Poland" and then "Kangaroo Valley" and so on. It seems that when the first person arrives, everyone else follows. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, supporting me when I said that it was almost a national responsibility.

257
As I understand it, at present unaccompanied children are the greatest expense for local authorities. The education and social service costs and special counselling are quite a worry. I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is important to discuss the issue with local authorities and agree on a basis which is fair. It is impossible for people to set a council tax rate without knowing what new burden might fall on them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I wish to express my thanks and those of other noble Lords to my honourable friend Mr. Curry who met some of us this morning to discuss the issue. My noble friend Lady Gardner mentioned Kangaroo Valley. It reminds me of another more historical migration. People often ask why so many Irishmen are to be found in the London area of Kentish Town round to Kilburn. The answer is that it was as far as they could carry a suitcase from Euston or Paddington. That is where they stopped.
There are concentrations of people in areas and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right that costs fall on relatively few local authorities quite disproportionately. A number of consequences flow from that and Mr. Curry was helpful in explaining and discussing the problems. The matter cannot be dealt with by one-off payments. The collective memory of Whitehall remains hung up on the jumbo jet full of refugees from Skopje in the former Yugoslavia. It arrived at Stansted Airport some years ago and the leader of the Uttlesford District Council said firmly to Her Majesty's Government that his council could do absolutely nothing. It is a small rural district and it could not look after the people without help. That was an extremely effective tactic and the council received a substantial one-off special grant for that purpose.
In London we are dealing with a regular process which has gone on year after year and the result of the legislation will be to impose additional costs on the local authority. The first point I make to my noble friend is that special grants are not the right way to deal with the problem. They must be specific grants which form a regular part of the system whereby central government support the expenses of local government. Happily, my noble and right honourable friends have recognised that in relation to the Children Act. The announcement by my right honourable friend Mr. Lilley in January has already recognised that there is to be a specific grant to local authorities which incur costs under the Children Act.
The trouble is that, as so far drawn up, that proposal does not give a great deal of help. The grant is cash-limited to £3 million, while the local authorities believe that their expenditure (I do not differ from the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh) may well amount to £50 million or more. Secondly, the grant is subject to a very substantial threshold.
I should perhaps declare an interest, along with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. We are joint presidents of the Association of London Government. That body has estimated that for the local authorities in London that are specifically affected, that may mean a
258
threshold of £1 million of expenditure before the specific grant comes in. As was said, only 80 per cent. of the expenditure above that threshold will be reimbursed. So, while one must not be ungrateful for small mercies, it is perfectly fair to point out to my noble friends that this a very small mercy indeed.
The central point, made quite forcefully by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, is that this is a matter of national policy. I spoke at Second Reading, and I support the major provisions of the Bill. I was very interested in the remarks made a moment ago by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to his party's view on the matter; we shall no doubt see that carefully spelt out in the party's manifesto when it comes to fight the election, and I wish it good luck. As I said, I support the Bill. But as a result of national policy, additional expenditure will be faced by local authorities. It will be incurred as a result of the Children Act, the Housing Act and the National Health Service and Community Care Act; and other provisions may also be relevant. That being the case, it is up to national government to use part of the savings that they are making under the change in social security legislation to see that disproportionate costs—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whose misgivings I share—do not fall onto the shoulders of local council taxpayers in relatively few local authority areas.
It is important to have some of these points on the record. Mr. Curry told us this morning that the Government are now ready to come forward with specific proposals, but they wish to discuss them with the local authorities first. I am advised that appointments are being sought for next week so that the local authority associations can meet Ministers. We must understand the difficulties that Ministers have had in this respect. After all, this is a policy being promoted, perfectly properly, by the Home Office and the Department of Social Security. The additional costs will fall on the Department of the Environment in relation to housing, and on the Department of Health under the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which will be a consideration in relation to its public expenditure allocation. So I can well understand that my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary has had quite a difficult job to try to juggle, as it were, all the different departmental budgets. It may well mean switching some costs from one department to another.
If the figure of £50 million is anywhere near right—and it may well be of that sort of order; indeed, the first few months of the effect of the social security regulations suggest that that is not in any way an exaggeration—and the Department of Social Security is saving £200 million (the figure given to us), the Government ought to be pretty pleased with their £150 million and not leave any part of the balance to fall on the shoulders of local council taxpayers in those relatively few London authorities and possibly one or two outside London, in Kent and so on, to bear the burden.
The thresholds should therefore be purely nominal. The figure of 80 per cent. should in fact be 100 per cent.; or if insisted that some amount should fall, it should be a very small percentage indeed. I hope that

259
when my noble friends discuss these issues with the local authorities next week, they will listen very carefully to what the local authorities have to say. Those who are in full support of the policy would find it very difficult to defend higher council tax payments in a few boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Camden, and, I am told, Croydon. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentions Haringey. I am told that that is not one of the "big ones" at the moment, but it could well be. It would be difficult to defend the idea that they should pay extra as a result of what is essentially a piece of national policy brought to bear through this legislation.
My noble friend will not he free to respond very fully this evening. However, I hope that the concerns expressed in all parts of the Committee will impress upon my noble friends and their right honourable friends the need to meet this requirement fully and in that way to win the support of people in local authority areas for the overall policy of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, underlined how ill considered this legislation is. He remarked on the figure of £50 million, which is not even in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. He talked of discussions to be held with the local authority associations next week to try to resolve the question as to what is to be done as between the Government and the local authorities. It is extraordinary that we are three-quarters of the way through the Committee stage and we still do not know the answers to those questions. Nor can the Minister, who replied to the previous amendment but one, tell us exactly what happened at every stage in the process. He says these are choices that have to made on the spot. The particular example we were then discussing was of an asylum applicant family that had been successful in gaining emergency housing under the homeless provisions but was to be deprived of entitlement on the day when the Secretary of State made the decision that the application was not well founded. From that point onwards until the date of the appeal, the applicant was not entitled to any benefit.
The Minister said that this question would be dependent on the choice of the parties. First, he said that the asylum applicant himself had a role to play in the decision—as if someone with absolutely no resources was in a position to make any choice whatsoever. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, just underlined, the local authority will have to make some very important choices. As I understand it, it has an option of allowing the family to remain in the accommodation, notwithstanding the fact that they would be disentitled under the homeless provisions; in some way, extra-statutorily, the local authority may allow the family to remain in the accommodation and to continue to pay for the cost of the accommodation so as not to have to incur the additional, or larger, costs of taking the children into care or fostering them with another family. The Minister assured the Committee that, if it is decided to take the children into care, the
260
local authority will be reimbursed as to 80 per cent. of the cost (not of the additional cost, but the total cost) that will be incurred thereby.
That raises a further question; namely, local authorities then have an incentive to have such children taken into care or have them fostered, since they will then receive 80 per cent. of the money back from the Government; whereas, if they continue to leave such families in homeless accommodation, they will not receive the 80 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. It is important to have this spelt out. As I say, the fact that so many of these matters have to be dealt with across the Floor of the House by means of assurances from the Minister indicates that the Bill should not have come before us in this form. These points should have been properly spelt out and we should have been able to know exactly what the financial effects were before we agreed to this clause.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for the trouble that he has taken over this amendment. I do not think he would believe me if I were to say that I agree with everything that he said. But I agree with practically everything he said that related specifically to local authorities. This is, after all, a matter of all-party concern. It is something which we all have to make work and we all experience common difficulties.
The noble Lord made the point that the burden fell on a small number of local authorities, mostly in London. It is a point of considerable substance. For some local authorities that burden can be very heavy. My own local borough of Brent is one of those affected, as are Westminster, Lambeth and Southwark. What may be quite a small burden for the Exchequer when spread over the whole of national resources, may be very heavy indeed if it is all concentrated on one point in Southwark or Lambeth.
On 4th March I asked a Question on this subject which was sympathetically answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. She came up with the formula that the Government would meet 80 per cent. of the costs above a certain threshold. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to tell me tonight, but I should be interested to know the threshold and the reasoning by which it was settled. No matter how much practical help a local authority receives, it will depend very heavily on the level of that threshold.
I also want to know why it has been decided that it is necessary to have a threshold. One would imagine that the theory was that the local authority had a certain amount of spare fat. But that is not true of most local authorities now. Most of them, faced with an additional financial burden, will have to do things like sacking teachers. One would have thought that in an election year the Government might possibly wish to avoid such a consequence. Indeed, we might all wish to avoid it.
I should like to have answers to two specific points. First, I should like to know whether obligations under the National Health Service and Community Care Act will be recognised as well as obligations under the Children Act. Secondly—this is a question on which I have received representations from the London Borough

261
of Sutton—what exactly will be the position in relation to school meals? There has recently been a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Tope which, on the whole, was reassuring. But we have all had Answers which were, on the whole, reassuring. Government Answers need to be looked in the mouth. We need something specific because in the diet of those people, and therefore in the capacity of the children to learn and keep the school running, the school meal will be very important indeed.
It has been quite a long time since 4th March. I am very glad that it seems that an announcement will not now be long delayed. I hope that it is genuinely imminent. I should be grateful for an assurance that, when it comes, it will be retroactive to 5th February when that burden took effect, because quite a lot of money has been spent already.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall try to respond to the various points made in relation to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding looked ahead to the amendment in the name of himself and some of his noble friends; namely, Amendment No. 123.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. That amendment will be separately debated. It raises a separate point about the procedures. I hope that I shall be allowed to move that amendment later.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suspected that my noble friend would move the amendment. However, there is quite a considerable overlap between the two amendments. I expect that I shall address some of the same points again later tonight.
We recognise that our reforms to social security benefits for asylum seekers result in some additional costs falling on local authorities and, indeed, on certain local authorities. We recognise that aligning the scope of the homelessness legislation with the benefit rules will result in a further shift of some of those costs to social services authorities. That is why we have announced our intention to make special grants available to local authorities for 1995–96 and 1996–97.
I hope that that answers—I suspect perhaps indirectly—one of the points about 1995–96 put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Clearly, I should only say that if it were going to cover the time between the coming into force on 5th February of the social security provisions and the end of the financial year.
The special grant for housing authorities will end when we use the order-making power in Clause 9 to align the scope of the homelessness legislation with the rules on housing benefit. However, in recognition of the fact that social services authorities will still have to bear costs, the special grant for social services authorities will continue for the remainder of the year. We shall also consider how we should support any such expenditure by social services authorities in the future.
Officials from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health have been discussing details of the grant with local authority associations. As
262
my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, they plan to hold a further meeting on 20th May to consider the draft grant report and hence the full details of the grant. We expect to see that report approved before the Summer Recess.
On a number of occasions I have mentioned that reimbursement will be at 80 per cent. of the additional unavoidable costs. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that local authorities will he expected to act in the most cost-effective manner when deciding what to do with children who come within the ambit of the Children Act. I believe he is asking whether it will be cheaper for the local authority to put the children into care or keep them where they are. That will be for the local authorities. Part of the reason for their having to fund the 20 per cent. is to concentrate their mind on the matter. It will be for the local authorities to find the most cost-effective manner in which to fulfil their obligations under the Children Act.
Lord Avebury: Will the local authorities be obliged to act in the most cost-effective manner irrespective of the needs of the children?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not say that they would be obliged. I said that we would expect them to act in the most cost-effective manner, taking other factors into account. They will take them into account. I hope that that answers the noble Lord. They will act sensibly as one would expect them to do. But, obviously, one hopes they will not opt for the most expensive solution if there are no great merits in it. That is the point that I am trying to make to the noble Lord.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a point about school meals. I should prefer to write to him rather than give him an answer this evening in order to make sure that I am correct in my reply. He also asked about community care. That is not covered because there is no evidence of any need of community care legislation by asylum seekers. The cases put to us largely seem to have involved families of young children who would fall within the Children Act and not within the community care Acts.
As with so much of this debate, painting of a black nature has been placed on the canvas about what will happen when people find that their application to the Home Office has been turned down and they are no longer eligible for benefits and the cover of homelessness legislation. But, as I said when we last discussed this matter, currently more than three-quarters of those who apply for asylum end up at the end of some road or other being refused. So, three-quarters of all those who apply already have to face the kind of problem—if it is a problem—that noble Lords predict will happen as a result of this legislation. I ask rather rhetorically: what does happen to them? They seem to manage. There is no great evidence that the people turned down after appeal form a huge pool of people sleeping on the streets or whatever the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, thinks they do. They appear to be able to look after themselves. It is to be hoped that most of them return to their countries of origin. They do not seem to cause the problems that noble Lords have conjured up in their imagination about these issues.

263
Therefore, we can reasonably assume that the arrangements that those people make at the end of their appeal they will also make at the end of the Home Office decision if they receive a negative answer. They will be able to do whatever it is they do now to look after themselves.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: The Minister has a great deal of confidence in those counts of rough sleepers, but his evidence does not accord with what many others involved find. Does he expect everybody who is afraid of proceedings under various immigration legislation to hoist a notice saying, "I am an asylum-seeker"?
The Minister talks about the National Health Service and Community Care Act. I was disappointed by that answer. He has considerable experience of mental health problems among those who have escaped from great hardship, which is common among victims of torture but can occur with other forms of hardship such as where family members have been killed in their presence and situations of that sort.
This is not something that should be dismissed out of hand. I beg the Minister to allow it to be at least considered in the negotiations with local authorities. In regard to the 80 per cent. threshold, the Minister talks about concentrating the minds of local authorities. If they are any more concentrated than they are, they will be invisible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had understood that the Minister would respond in particular to the powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and would discuss consultation with local authorities.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I had responded to my noble friend. I will be responding to him again later on, but I confirmed, as my noble friend was told by Mr. David Curry this morning, that the next meeting between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and local authorities is scheduled for 20th May. We hope to make progress towards seeing a result by the Summer Recess. Those consultations are going on and that is the assurance that my noble friend was asking me to put on record, establishing what the costs are for the various local authorities.
I feel that I responded to my noble friend, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will accept that. But as I am on my feet, perhaps I can say that my figures in relation to rough sleepers have been questioned twice by the noble Earl, who obviously suspects that government apparatchiks have gone out at night and made this count. Of course, they do not quite see double; they only see in halves because they do not want the count to be very high. However, the rough sleepers count that I mentioned was made by the voluntary organisations which support rough sleepers. If the noble Earl does not
264
believe the figures, he should take the matter up with those organisations and not accuse the Government of being unable to quantify the numbers.
Earl Russell: I have discussed the counts with them. They do not have the confidence in them that the Minister does.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for his repeated assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 121 not moved.]
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill be resumed not before five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th April be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to strengthen the measures available to deprive convicted criminals of the profits of their criminal activity. It will provide more effective powers at all stages of the confiscation process—enhanced investigation powers, more effective confiscation procedures in the courts and improvements to the enforcement powers once a confiscation order has been made.
The proposed order will update and restate Northern Ireland's legislation relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and other serious crime. It seeks to bring Northern Ireland broadly into line with the rest of the United Kingdom by introducing provisions already in force in England and Wales by the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995. The order will also introduce additional investigation powers into the proceeds of crime which are not generally available in other parts of the UK.
As your Lordships will appreciate, many of the provisions in this order either re-enact provisions already in force in the Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (NI) Order 1990 or replicate measures which are already in operation in England and Wales. I shall therefore comment briefly only on the main changes to the law in Northern Ireland which this order will introduce. Those include: an obligation on the court to confiscate the proceeds of offences where that is requested by the prosecution; an obligation on the court to assume that all property in the possession of the convicted drug

265
trafficker and property which has passed through his hands in the past six years represents the proceeds of drug trafficking; the abolition of the £10,000 threshold for confiscation orders in respect of crime other than drug trafficking; and where a person has been convicted of at least two qualifying offences, discretion for the court to make the statutory assumptions about the origins of the defendant's property.
The order will also ensure that a convicted criminal cannot satisfy a confiscation order by opting to serve a prison sentence instead of paying the amount due. Other changes will be to give the court the power to reconsider making a confiscation order in a case where it did not previously do so or to revise its original assessment of an offender's proceeds of criminal conduct within six years of a conviction. The court will also have power to make a confiscation order against the estate of a convicted criminal who has died or against a defendant who has absconded. In addition, the order will extend to general criminal conduct the investigative powers currently available only in drug trafficking cases.
The order also provides for additional powers of investigation which are not generally available elsewhere in the UK. Under Article 49 of the order the court is empowered to appoint a financial investigator to assist the police in specific inquiries where it is considered that the investigation could be more effectively carried out with the involvement of specialist assistance. It is the Government's view that those powers are necessary in Northern Ireland due to the existence of a racketeering problem which is different in nature and extent to that which exists elsewhere in the UK.
Much of the racketeering which goes on in Northern Ireland involves terrorist organisations or persons linked to them. That activity includes armed robberies, drug dealing, extortion, protection rackets and counterfeit goods and money. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 contains additional powers of investigation—the authorised investigator provisions—into the finances of terrorism. Similar additional powers of investigation in relation to the proceeds of crime, whether or not it is connected to terrorism, are now proposed in this order. These provisions will be at least as wide as the existing terrorist finance powers which they will replace when the current EPA is repealed.
In conclusion, the measures contained in this draft order are designed to provide a more effective system for depriving convicted criminals of their profits. As some noble Lords will be aware, honourable members on all sides in the other place gave this proposed order a warm welcome. I hope that your Lordships will see it in a similar light. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th April be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I speak from the Dispatch Box as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, as noble Lords will know, speaks from these Benches on Northern Ireland matters and is unable to be with us this evening.
266
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for identifying and explaining the key new provisions of this complex and extremely important order which was promised by the noble Baroness in the course of the Second Reading debate of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill on 21st March. I have also benefited considerably from reading the debate on the order which took place in the Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the House of Commons on 2nd May when, as the noble Baroness has said, it was not challenged. On the contrary, it was warmly welcomed.
While the order re-enacts some provisions of existing law which are to be found in three different pieces of Northern Ireland legislation, it more importantly brings Northern Ireland law broadly into line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom and also introduces the significant new powers which the Minister has outlined. It should therefore provide a powerful weapon in the fight against serious crime referred to by the Minister and the investigation of the proceeds of such crimes and their confiscation. It meets a very important need. I am aware that there has been a particular sense of outrage at the present state of affairs which seemed to allow paramilitary organizations and international organisations in Northern Ireland and the shadowy figures associated with them too easily to enjoy the financial proceeds of serious crime.
Among the other important provisions, the order empowers the court to confiscate benefits—whether they be large or small—acquired in consequence of crime. The basis on which that power rests is not novel. I recall that almost 60 years ago the distinguished Law Lord, Lord Atkin of Aberdovey, a part of the country I know well, ruled that public policy requires that,
"The Court should not recognise a benefit accruing to a criminal from his crimes".
That is the dictum of Lord Atkin of Aberdovey. It seems to me that the confiscation of the proceeds of criminal conduct is a development of Lord Atkin's principle.
I have one question of detail that I wish to raise with the Minister. I tried to follow her speech very carefully. Would she be good enough to clarify whether the court can make a confiscation order where the prosecutor has not asked for such an order under Article 8?
I now turn to a point which has fuelled some concern. Will a confiscation order made under this legislation be legally enforceable against assets overseas? Legal rules differ between jurisdictions. The Minister will be aware that anxiety has been expressed that the recovery provisions contained in the order may not always be enforceable where the assets are situated in some countries overseas. This is a difficult and taxing matter. The Ministerial colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in the standing committee in another place said, when questioned on this issue, that the matter went,
"beyond the confines of the order".
I am not so sure. It would certainly assist if we could have information, to the extent that the Minister is able to give it, as to whether the powers in the order will be available against assets in all the countries which are

267
signatories of the Brussels and Locarno Conventions. Subject only perhaps to the question of burden of proof, to which I shall come, I find it difficult to believe that the enforcement in another jurisdiction of an order of confiscation made under the terms of this legislation would be contrary to any reason of public policy in any democratic country. If international law is insufficiently developed in this respect, I venture to hope that the problems experienced in Northern Ireland, together with the order, will be an incentive for other countries to cooperate decisively to confiscate the proceeds of criminal conduct.
Although the order is uncontroversial, I should put down a marker for a point that is potentially controversial. We are aware that some people of unblemished character are much concerned that the burden of proof on the prosecution in confiscation proceedings against a convicted drug trafficker has been shifted from guilt beyond reasonable doubt to that of the balance of probabilities. That is a significant shift. They would argue that even in the context of Northern Ireland the fundamental human right of the presumption of innocence should prevail. That may present a moral question and it may present also a legal question. I do not wish to press the point too hard but I would mention that before very long it may well be the subject of comment and possibly censure in the Strasbourg court. However, to my own mind—not that my personal view is relevant—the need for this provision is of sufficient importance in the context of Northern Ireland to warrant overriding a fundamental human right of the individual living in a democratic society.
With those few comments I welcome the order on behalf of the Official Opposition in this House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate. My noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who normally speaks on Northern Ireland for the Liberal Democrats, was taken ill with 'flu last night and I therefore stand in his stead to welcome this order, which very much follows the lines which Liberal Democrats have supported in this House and in the other place in recent years. It is a useful consolidating measure and as such we all welcome it.
My concerns, so far as I have them, very much echo those of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in terms of the burden of proof and the international aspect. It seems clear that what we now face in Northern Ireland, as we have faced in Italy for some time and as we appear to be facing in Bulgaria, Russia and elsewhere, is that peculiar mixture which is partly terrorist, partly criminal, partly drug trafficking and partly money laundering which overlaps criminal activities, political activities and financial fraud. In the nature of the case, that is rarely confined to one country. I remember a member of the Serious Fraud Office saying to me some years ago that there was no longer any such thing as domestic financial fraud—all financial fraud was, in the nature of the case, international. I therefore have a question for the Minister on Articles 42 and 43, which refer to the extraterritorial and international dimension. I wish to know whether they are strong enough as they stand, and how far they
268
relate to co-operation, particularly with other European Governments under what is now Pillar 3 of the Maastricht Treaty, in terms of ensuring that we have full co-operation with other governments which often face similar concerns across Europe and beyond.
I am also a little concerned about shifting the burden of proof. Mention has already been made of a case in the High Court which may go further, in which the question of whether confiscated property had been clearly shown to have been accumulated in the course of crime or in other ways is being challenged. It seems to us that on civil liberties grounds—and even where terrorism in Northern Ireland is concerned—we must be careful before shifting the burden of proof from the criminal standard to something much more like the civil standard.
Having said that, I welcome the order. We give it our full support. Again, I apologise that my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham is unable to be here this evening.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their welcome for the order. It is important in building a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. Attention has rightly been drawn to the tightrope that needs to be walked in terms of protecting people's rights while ensuring that those rights are not taken away by terrorism.
We have always been fortunate in this House in that when absence is unavoidable members of the substitute bench, if I may put it that way, are welcome to our debates and are knowledgeable on the issues raised. However, I should like to send the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the wishes of the whole House for a full and speedy recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me to clarify whether the court could ask for confiscation if the prosecution did not. I can confirm that the court will have discretion to ask for confiscation if the prosecution does not do so.
Both noble Lords expressed concern on the question of balance. There is no intention to change the standard of proof in determining guilt for an offence. That remains the criminal standard. It has always been the case that the confiscation procedure should operate to the civil standard of proof. That has been the case since 1990. However, the assumptions that the court makes are rebuttable. If the defendant can prove that his property was legitimately paid for, the court may not make that assumption. I hope that that gives noble Lords some comfort.
Both noble Lords also referred to the necessity of working closely with other countries. The problems that we have experienced are not, unfortunately, unique to Northern Ireland. This problem has spread throughout the world. Like just about everything these days, the financing of terrorism in its various forms has global connotations. There is no such thing as isolation of activity.
The order makes provision for reciprocal arrangements with other countries for the enforcement of each other's restraint and confiscation orders, but any

269
such activity involves two partners. The United Kingdom has ratified the 1988 United Nations Drugs Convention and the 1990 Council of Europe Confiscation Convention and has, I am pleased to say, concluded bilateral co-operation agreements with many countries, particularly those where the question of drugs is relevant, such as Holland. We are also concerned about the possible paths that criminals might take to the United States with which we also have a bilateral agreement. We continue our work to bring forward such agreements. We see evidence that people are moving towards signing such conventions and thus participating in that co-operation. Like both noble Lords, we believe that those provisions are important to the success not only of this order but of other such legislation throughout the United Kingdom. This is a high priority. We hope that in due course all the necessary signatures will be put to the conventions.
I thank the noble Lords for their support for the order and commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.25 to 8.5 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 122A:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
INCOME SUPPORT
(".—(1) Section 135 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) below,".
(3) At the beginning of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) below,".
(4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) In relation to a person who submits a claim to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which is not finally determined, for asylum under the Convention, no amount (or aggregate of such amounts) may be prescribed which is less than the amount (or aggregate of such amounts) which would be applicable to him if he was not such a person, except that, in the case of income support, the amount in respect of himself or, if he is a member of a married or unmarried couple or of a polygamous marriage, the amount in respect of both or all of them may be reduced by no more than 10 per cent.
(2B) For the purpose of subsection (2A), "Convention" means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1961 and the Protocol to that Convention.".").
The noble Earl said: The Minister will not be surprised to hear me utter the word "vires". Vires are like the Hydra: if you cut off one of the Hydra's heads, it grows 10 more. If one wanted to kill the Hydra one
270
had to break its back. If one wishes to get rid of regulations it is no good revoking them; one has to get rid of the powers under which the regulations are made. That is the purpose of this amendment. The amendment addresses the power to provide a nil applicable amount of income support for asylum seekers.
It is a good principle that appeals are allowed on grounds of important fresh evidence. I will not attempt to reopen the arguments that we had on 30th January but I will attempt to bring forward fresh evidence of what has happened since 30th January; indeed, since the regulations came into force on 5th February.
In dealing with a previous amendment the Minister suggested that one did not find the number of asylum seekers in difficulties that had been suggested. That is not our experience from collecting information since 5th February. I have here a considerable number of cases—I assure the Committee that I will not quote all of them—which have come to light since 5th February. The Refugee Council has come across no fewer than 300 people altogether without anywhere to sleep except the street. In many cases all that it has been able to do is to provide those people with blankets. There is also a considerable number of people who, although they may have had help from local authority social services, have obtained it in a piecemeal way, often in a way that gives rise to a considerable number of legal problems.
To take one particular case—one wonders whether it has been rightly decided—an asylum seeker from Zaïre arrived here in August 1991. He still has not had a decision on his application. He had been working for most of the time since he came here but was made redundant in January 1996, paid two weeks in lieu of notice and claimed benefit on 12th February 1996. It is not clear whether that person had ever before claimed income support as an asylum seeker. If he had done so, he would be entitled to income support under the saving provisions. If not, he is a person who has earned and paid British taxes and national insurance but who has been refused the protection which normally goes with that. I wonder whether that case was correctly decided.
It appears from the case law that when a couple claim benefit and then split up only the one who claims the benefit is able to go on claiming after 5th February 1996. That surprised me. I am sorry that I did not notice that when the regulations were dealt with. It immensely increases the danger faced by those women who turn out to be married, as some do, to violent partners. It has the effect of turning marriage into a prison, which is not what it is supposed to be.
We have another case: applied for asylum on 2nd February, but did not claim benefit until 7th February; refused under the new rules. Again, I cannot help wondering whether that case was decided correctly. That person has been refused help by social services, presumably because the local borough was facing extreme pressure. He is living on a certain amount of food provided by the local Sikh temple. It is not an adequate way of keeping alive.
Another case arrived on 9th February and applied for asylum two days later; was counted to be an in-country applicant, from which the point arose that "on arrival" in the regulations is not defined. I should have thought that that was about as immediate as one could get.
I shall not detain the Committee with many more of these cases. But I wonder whether we are doing anything sensible here, or whether we are creating a great deal of hardship which will lay up problems for us as well as for them in the future, and serving no useful purpose. From a number of those cases the fact that a number of them did not claim at the port, and indeed in some cases say that they were given no hint that it made any difference whether they claimed at the port, it should emerge that the assumption that all asylum seekers are market sensitive to changes in our regulations is, as I have been arguing all day, wide of the mark.
We have gross hardship here. That is already clear. Considering that it is so early for evidence to come in, we should be surprised by the amount that has come in. I beg the Minister to consider it possible that he may be mistaken. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches support the amendment which would restore income support, removed by regulation, to asylum seekers. Both Opposition Benches resisted its withdrawal in the debate on 30th January when I prayed against the regulations. Nothing that has happened since has suggested that any of our fears were exaggerated, any of our alarms were unnecessary, or that any of the Government's promises have been fulfilled.
Why did we resist that withdrawal of income support? Why do we seek to reinstate it through the Bill? There are three reasons. First, when the Government removed the right to means-tested benefits from those who applied for asylum after they had entered the country, they did so because they were making a distinction between those who sought asylum at the port of entry and those who sought asylum in-country. It is a distinction which we believed then, and believe now, is bogus. The evidence supports us.
That distinction does not separate the genuine from the fraudulent. If it did, we might have rather more sympathy for it. What the distinction does is merely separate the confident—those who apply at port of entry—from those who are not confident or who are insecure or frightened, who apply once they are safely inside the country. It separates those who can speak and read English who apply at port of entry, from those who do not and cannot. It separates those who already have friends here from those who do not.
The fact, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said earlier this evening, that over 80 per cent. of all those coming to the Refugee Council apply for asylum within one week of being inside the country shows that all the mythology of benefit tourism, people on holiday, people changing their stories in order to live here gratis, courtesy of the British taxpayer, is rubbish. They do what you or I or, I hope, my children would do in a
272
similar situation: first get inside the country, seek help, and then apply immediately to legitimise one's status. That is the sane and sensible thing to do. It is what so many asylum seekers have done.
We know, too, that at least the same proportion, if not a higher proportion, of those who apply once in-country, as opposed to applying at port of entry, subsequently gain refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. They are more likely to be genuine asylum seekers if they apply in-country than if they apply at the port of entry. The statistics show it. Therefore, to have the test of whether one obtains benefit depend upon where one applies, is not a good enough test for the giving or withdrawing of benefit.
So far as I am aware, no other European country draws the distinction—not Scandinavia, not France, not Germany, not Italy—that one's fate depends upon where one applies rather than upon the test of one's need. We are the only European country which refuses all welfare assistance to those who apply one day or two days after they have entered this country and not at the port of entry.
The first argument for trying to reinstate income support was that the distinction that the Government drew—those who apply at the port of entry are genuine; those who apply later are changing their story and are fraudulent, and it is therefore legitimate to drive that wedge between them—was bogus, and remains so. All the subsequent evidence shows it to be so.
The second argument that we advanced—it still remains true—is that much of the problem that we experienced with benefit is due not to asylum seekers' "fault" but to our fault—the fault of all of us around the Chamber and on the Government Benches—which is the delay in processing asylum applications.
At December last, 15 per cent. of all those who applied in 1991 had still not been heard; 15 per cent. of those who applied in 1992 had still not been heard; 15 per cent. of those who applied in 1993 had still not been heard; 25 per cent. of those who applied in 1994; and 25 per cent.—this is more understandable—of those who applied in 1995 had still not been heard. If the Home Office fails to resolve the status of asylum seekers when it should—and it does not—it is unreasonable, unfair, and improper to expect the DSS to sort it out by denying them benefit.
Because asylum seekers are not having their applications heard on time on asylum grounds, we seek to deter them from remaining on financial grounds. Because we do not hear them when we should, we try to avoid having to hear them at all by refusing them the benefit upon which they might live in the meantime and by forcing them into destitution. That is an appalling basis upon which to make public policy.
The third reason for opposing this regulation back in January—all the evidence subsequently confirms that we were right to do so, and all that we have heard this evening shows that we were right to do so—is that as members of a civilised society none of us can allow these families literally to starve. Churches, charities, and, above all, local authorities using their powers under the Children Act are obliged morally to respond to

273
families with children. The Children Act 1989 gives local authorities no choice. The cost of taking a child into care if unaccompanied, or sustaining a family in a bed-sit life, will be horrendous.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will be able to persuade the Government that it would be right to reimburse local authorities to 100 per cent. of their costs. That would be the right and proper thing to do. We believe that the costs incurred by local authorities are likely to outweigh the savings in benefit hugged in by government, especially given the concession tonight that local authorities will sustain families in the housing that they are in.
For those reasons we support the amendment, because we believe that restoring the benefits cuts effectively would be cost neutral, that it is our responsibility, that we have failed to accelerate the time in which hearings should be determined, and, above all, because we and, I hope, every Member of the Committee recoils from being a member of a society where families with children are left destitute to live on and off the streets.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I support the amendment and the reinstatement of the means-tested benefits. There is a worrying movement by which a growing number of claimants are being excluded from the basic means-tested benefits which exist to protect people from destitution or to provide essential housing costs. That is not questioning what the Minister said about there being an end of the road when an appeal was turned down. These are asylum seekers.
I believe that we are crossing a line by introducing a regulation to remove the whole safety net from a sizeable group; namely, those asylum seekers. The phrase has been used "people without a proper case". That is arguing in circles. The point is that someone is appealing, hoping to prove that there is a proper case. The steady proportion of those who appeal does prove that they have a proper case.
In autumn last year I led a delegation from all the Churches to see the Home Secretary when the removal of benefits was only an idea. I asked him how someone should expect to live while they were appealing. He said that a person could pursue an appeal from outside the country. In the reality of the situation, that is no right at all.
Those regulations would have serious consequences on the health and welfare of some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I give as an example pregnant women and babies left without financial support, or with inadequate financial support, or who receive financial support from local authorities which is far lower than the payments of income support.
An Afghan refugee arrived in this country on 9th February this year and applied for asylum on 14th February. He had received no advice at the port of entry that there was a requirement to apply there. The family consists of a couple. The woman was pregnant, the baby being due on 14th April. They were placed in a hostel by Ealing Council and were refused assistance by social services. With the intervention of an advice
274
bureau, social services paid a total of £65.25 a week partly in food vouchers. The advice bureau got together pots, pans, blankets and towels. The clients did not have much clothing. Under the urgent cases' provision of income support once the child is born, the family would be entitled to £94.68 a week, which is a substantial difference.
Your Lordships' House has another interest in the matter. During debates on the Social Security Bill 1986, Lady Faithfull, moved an amendment providing that in urgent cases income support should be payable. From the Government Front-Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, accepted that some of the needs should be met by the social fund but others should be met within the weekly benefits system. As a result of that undertaking, the amendment was withdrawn. Will the Minister tell me what is happening to that undertaking, which was of some importance in your Lordships' House?
How effective is such an Act in achieving what it set out to achieve? After all the publicity about the withdrawal of benefits, the number of applications for asylum increased from 2,900 in February to 3,145 in March. People are not coming to seek asylum because of the benefits that they might receive. I believe that a high proportion are coming out of desperation and our regulations will not change that.
Lord Hylton: I support what has been said by the right reverend Prelate about the practical difficulties of conducting an appeal from a third country against a decision given in the United Kingdom. How on earth are such appellants supposed to obtain adequate advice in order to present their case in the best possible light? How are the problems of interpretation and translation of documents to be overcome? Surely it is completely illusory to expect that in Holland or Denmark, for instance, such experts will be available. The right reverend Prelate made a most important point.
Baroness Rawlings: Having read the amendment with great care, I wonder whether it would not destroy all the previous legislation and, in reality, support the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, before withdrawing Amendment No. 106?
Earl Russell: No. The effect of the amendment is simply to withdraw the power to prescribe the nil applicable amount for refugees. It allows the 10 per cent. deduction which existed under the previous law and restores the position to what it was before 30th January last. That is all it does.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That answer from the noble Earl to my noble friend Lady Rawlings means, "Yes, it does destroy the legislation we passed at the end of January by secondary legislation". I make no complaint about that. Ironically, it does not destroy it in the way in which the noble Earl intends because it attacks only the income support part of the regulations. It leaves the housing benefit and council tax part as we agreed on 30th January. I am sure that that is more of an oversight on the part of the noble Earl than a deliberate policy.

275
The regulations which came into force on 5th February were widely debated in this House. I apologise to Members of the Committee if I repeat some of the arguments tonight. If the amendment, which is narrowly drawn to income support although not in cost terms, were accepted, the taxpayer must continue to find more than £100 million a year in order to provide social security benefits for people who come to the UK claiming to be asylum seekers. I return to my argument about the numbers because the huge majority are found not to be asylum seekers.
Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that I would be more concerned about the validity of his argument if the statistics were not so clearly in favour of the case that most of the people who come here do not succeed either in obtaining refugee status or being given exceptional leave to remain. It may be that the right reverend Prelate, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness will argue that what is fundamentally wrong is the fact that we do not recognise those people as refugees the moment they knock on the door and say, "I am a refugee". Given the attacks which are made on the way in which we deal with asylum seekers, I remain a little puzzled about what would be put in place of our immigration and asylum-seeking procedures.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: The Minister asked what might he put in place. No one on either side of the House is saying that there should be no regulations. Strict regulations have been in place for a very long time. The noble Lord argued about percentages. Last week I had the percentages at my fingertips but tonight I have not. However, I can tell him that what is now a 79 per cent. rejection of applications for exceptional leave to remain and for asylum was of the order of 20 per cent. or less under the same Government with their regulations a few years ago. What has happened is not that fewer legitimate asylum seekers have come but that the regulations have been changed and tightened.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may make a point in support of the right reverend Prelate. The fact is that the onus of proof has been shifted since 1987. A far greater burden has been put on the applicant in a climate which has been totally changed by disbelief and the minute questioning of every single assertion in an application.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The figures are quite simply that in 1995, the Home Office decisions resulted in 5 per cent. being granted refugee status and 16 per cent. being granted exceptional leave to remain. Therefore, 79 per cent. were refused either. That was the outcome after careful consideration.
The problem is not just those statistics. If Members of the Committee had their way, it would seem that the people coming here should receive all our benefits while they stay here, right to the end of their appeal hearings which can sometimes take quite a long time—and I shall return to that. Therefore, they can come here and do that, but at the same time they are clogging up the procedures which we have in place to deal with asylum seekers.
276
Members of the Committee need to address the serious figures in relation to what is happening in the rest of Europe. Most of our friends in the European Union, have, over the past two or three years, tightened their procedures. In the main European countries, the numbers have shown a very steady and quite dramatic decline over the past four or five years. In our case, it has been the opposite. Our figures have actually shown a considerable increase. No matter how hard we try to deal with applications as quickly as possible—and that is our objective—if we receive even more applications, we will literally be trying to run hard in order to stand still.
For example, the Home Office has increased the number of case workers since 1988 from 100 to 700 and £37 million has gone from my budget to the Home Office and to the Lord Chancellor's Department in order to expand their work. We are making every attempt to speed up the procedures, but every attempt, including that extra expenditure and those extra people, is being confounded by the increases in the numbers of people here and claiming asylum. There were 57.000 last year as opposed to 42,000 the year before. That is a 10-fold increase over the numbers 10 years ago. Over the 10 years to 1994, our share of all European asylum claims trebled.
In a recent report, Amnesty International said that the truth of the matter is that since 1992, immigration controls and asylum procedures, particularly those applied at the border, have been tightened far more in some European countries than in the UK. It added that no doubt that works to make the UK a more attractive destination than some other European countries for would-be asylum seekers.
Baroness Seear: I believe that I am right in saying that until very recently, Germany had practically open immigration, so it is no wonder that it has tightened its rules.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness does not approve of open immigration policies. But other countries in Europe are exactly the same. When we discussed this matter on 30th January, I told the House that the same downward trend applies in all the major countries in Europe while our trend continues to be an upward trend.
If it were an upward trend because people were genuine, then we should be seeing a quite different figure from the 5 per cent. granted refugee status by the Home Office which we are now seeing. It may be that the Members of the Committee contend that that is far too tight a test and that they wish to weaken the test and let through many more asylum seekers, including many who would not fulfil the tests which comply with our international obligations.
Therefore, in my view the position is perfectly clear. The number of people coming here is increasing. More important, a very large percentage-75 per cent. or 80 per cent.—are found after a very long procedure not to fulfil the qualifications for refugee status or indeed even to fulfil the qualifications for exceptional leave to remain.

277
The noble Baroness usually uses the word "traumatised" when referring to people coming to this country and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, goes along the same track. They reach the port of entry which they consider to be a safe haven. After all, why have they come here if they do not believe that it is a safe haven? Why have they crossed other countries, including many of our European Union partners, to get here if they do not consider it to be a safe haven? They have gone to a lot of trouble to reach this country. They have arranged their journey carefully and have obtained papers, if they need them, whether they are genuine or false. They have planned their entry and have made up a story, true or false, to satisfy the immigration officers that only a visit is intended. They know what they are doing. If they are genuine asylum seekers, they are coming here because they believe that it is a safe country. If that is their belief, I cannot understand the argument that for some reason or other, they should not apply for asylum at the moment at which they arrive here.
If they do that, we shall consider them for all our benefits including income support, housing benefit and consideration under the homelessness legislation. That is the position for those who come into the country and appeal in-country. If they are genuine asylum seekers, they have the opportunity to apply when they get here.
I have heard the figures before. The noble Baroness says that 80 per cent. apply within a week. That was a very narrow study and looking at all the figures, as we do, Home Office figures show that 60 per cent. of people who apply for asylum after entry have not applied within a month of arrival, and 40 per cent. have not applied within three months of arrival. That underlines the point which I made earlier. Many of them come here and after a time they decide that the way to stay here is by applying for asylum. That is often done while being advised, aided and abetted by people who make quite a lot of money out of that business. That is the simple fact of the matter. The Government cannot turn a blind eye to that situation.
I do not like to contradict the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, but it is interesting to note that over the past few months there has been a decline in the numbers compared with the comparable month of the previous year. There is a variation month by month and we have seen a decline since January over the previous January, February and so on. Indeed, although the figures are only provisional, in April there was quite a dramatic decline in the numbers not only over last April but over the first three months of this year. I suggest that that may indicate that the people who are the links—and there are links—between this country and overseas countries, especially those countries from where the majority of asylum seekers come, are telling people that it is not nearly as easy to come here and when here to claim the benefits; to appeal when refused; to manage to spin out the amount of time which they are allowed in this country; and to be paid income support, housing benefit and so on.
I do not blame people who come from some countries for wanting to come here as economic migrants. It is sensible for them to want to do that. It is perfectly
278
understandable, even if they only receive social security. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, always tells me that it is at a disgustingly low level although I do not believe that her party is making any promises that in the unlikely event of being elected, it will do anything to change the current level. It will then suddenly become an acceptable and proper level, given all the checks and balances which governments have to put in. Those people come here and, frankly, it is a good deal better than the countries from where they have come. I understand that. It would be nice if we could let many more of them in on that basis, but I do not believe that we can.
Earl Russell: I do not believe that the Minister was in the House on Thursday night when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked us not to repeat ourselves. I have tried to take that advice. There are many amendments before us. Perhaps the Minister will also take that advice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to take that advice but the noble Earl has tabled an amendment which seeks to undo the work which we did on 30th January. Clearly the speech that I made then fell on deaf ears. I am sorry that I am repeating myself, but I do so in the hope of conveying what I believe—and on that occasion the House believed—was the perfectly sensible case which the Government were putting forward on the subject of changing the way in which the benefit system impacted on asylum seekers.
If the noble Earl does not wish to hear my case any more, I hope that he will take to heart his own advice for the rest of the evening and will not repeat himself, because during most of today I have heard nothing but repetition of the arguments put forward on 30th January. Just to show that I do take advice, I recommend to the Committee that the amendment be rejected. If it is not withdrawn, I urge my noble friends to join me in voting against it.
Earl Russell: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 123:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
(". The Secretary of State shall, following consultation with local authorities, make an annual report to Parliament on his proposals for reimbursing the additional costs placed on local authorities as a result of their duties to refugees and asylum seekers under the Housing Acts 1985 and 1996, the Children Act 1989 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.").
The noble Lord said: I can assure the Committee that I shall heed the advice just given by the noble Earl; indeed, I shall not repeat any of the arguments that I advanced when speaking to Amendment No. 110. The proposed new clause seeks an opportunity for Parliament to be informed and to have a chance to discuss the arrangements for the support of local authorities such as they may turn out to be.
During the earlier debate my noble friend mentioned that that would be achieved by the device of a special report for local government grant. Of course, he would be entitled to say that that would provide the opportunity for Parliament to discuss whether the arrangements were working properly. However, I should like to make two remarks in that respect and then I shall sit down. First, it appears that the argument that they should be specific rather than special grants is being won and that, therefore, they will form part of the entire SSA settlement in normal years. With the enormous interest that always focuses on the aggregate figures and the effect that they are likely to have on the levels of council tax in different authorities, my guess is that Parliament would probably not spend too much time on discussing the rather narrower questions which have engaged the Committee tonight. Therefore, that is one reason for having a separate report; namely, to enable us to scrutinise the issue carefully.
Secondly, it has become apparent—and I do not believe that this is a matter for which anyone can be regarded as blameworthy—that there are considerable uncertainties as to what the effects will be. Mr. Curry informed the noble Earl, myself and my noble friend Lord Goold this morning that it is the view of the Treasury that the whole of the legislation will ultimately reduce local government expenditure because of the impact that it will have on the total numbers coming in and, therefore, on the demand for services. That may well be right. But it may not be right in the early stages, because the first three or four months have shown a significant increase in the expenditure of those authorities which are particularly affected.
However, given the fact that there is uncertainty and that there may well be some quite sharp trends both as regards the number of people applying for asylum and those not entitled to social security payments, housing benefit and so on and who will, therefore, be thrown on the resources of the local authorities, there are likely to be quite substantial variations. I believe it is appropriate that this Chamber should have an opportunity to look at the process.
If it is part of the normal rate support grant settlement, or whatever it is called these days, it will in fact be a matter only for debate in another place; indeed, such matters are not normally debated in this Chamber. If we had a report on the asylum provisions and the asylum effects of the sort suggested in the amendment, we would have an opportunity to discuss the matter. Therefore, for both those reasons—first, the variation and the uncertainty and the likely variability in the figures; and, secondly, the fact that I believe it is something which each place will want to look at as regards the effect of what is obviously controversial legislation—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to consider whether such a subject should be put in an annual report to be placed before this Chamber each year so that we can follow its progress. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am fascinated by what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, says about the privileged information that he received from the
280
Minister this morning. If the noble Lord looks back at the figures for asylum applications, I believe that he will find, although I am sorry to say this, that the Treasury is likely to be wrong. That is not to say that legislation does not have an immediate effect but rather that the effect wears off rather quickly. That is the reason why we have an Asylum and Immigration Bill only three years after the last one.
However, whether or not there is a case to be made for a total reduction in public expenditure, the argument put forward by the noble Lord for his amendment and for proper scrutiny of the real costs to local authorities was very well put. Without repeating what was said on my previous amendment, I do not know whether such costs are significant in total in relation to public expenditure; they are probably not. Nevertheless, they are enormously significant for those few local authorities which are immediately affected by the entry into this country of asylum seekers. I strongly support the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Taking the strictures of the noble Earl to heart, I shall try not to repeat some of the remarks that I made earlier when we discussed this subject in relation to previous amendments. However, as I indicated, I understand my noble friend's concern that local authorities should have the opportunity to explain to the Government their views on financing any additional expenditure which they expect to incur in discharging their statutory responsibilities towards refugees and asylum seekers and that Parliament should be able to consider and discuss the issue.
I should like to reassure my noble friend—as, indeed, I believe I have already—that those objectives are met by the current statutory and practical arrangements for the local government finance settlement in England and by comparable procedures operated elsewhere.
Each year local authorities have ample opportunity, through service working groups and in other consultative fora, to inform central government of their views about any additional costs they may face and how such expenditure should be financed. Local authorities are then consulted about the Government's proposals for supporting local authorities' expenditure before the final proposals are laid before the House of Commons in the Local Government Finance Report and debated. My noble friend asked me whether such matters could he debated in this Chamber. I am afraid that that is not possible because, as he knows, finance matters are normally the province of the other place. Such a matter is clearly a finance matter and, therefore, would not fall to be debated here.
As I have already said this evening, officials from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health have been discussing the details of the grant with local authority associations. They are planning a further meeting on 20th May. A draft grant report will be considered then. At that time full details of the grant will also be considered. We would expect to see that report approved by the Summer Recess.

281
Of course I accept that it is possible that other issues may arise late in the day. However, I believe the procedures are there to deal with them. We have also announced that we will make available a special grant for local authorities to cover a substantial part of their unavoidable additional costs. The provisions under which such a grant is made (Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988) require that the grant may only be paid following the approval of the report setting out the details of the grant by resolution in another place. Therefore, proper scrutiny will be given in the other place to the matter.
I do not believe that it would be sensible to create an additional bureaucracy by establishing the new statutory procedures which the amendment proposes. That would only duplicate the effect of existing provisions and practices. Without going on and thereby raising the eyebrows of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, by repeating myself, I hope that that reassures my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment, thus enabling us to get on speedily with the rest of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. Obviously it is most difficult to form a judgment on the matter until we have the details of the Government's proposals, which will be laid before local authorities on 20th of this month. However, there will be further opportunities for us to reconsider the matter at later stages when all the information is available. Therefore, in the circumstances I am sure that the right course for me now is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. In that way we will be able to get on and complete the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Entitlement to child benefit]:
[Amendment No. 124 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 126 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was not present to move his amendment to,
"leave out ("immigrant") and insert ("relevant person")—
Noble Lords: This is the clause stand part debate!
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I was talking about Amendment No. 125. I realise that it was not moved because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was not present. I wish to refer to "immigrant" and not to "relevant person" during my remarks. This is a clause which I am quite sure we should do without. I have no hesitation in asking the Committee to vote "Not Content" when the Question is put. This clause, together with Clause 9 which we have just debated, and social security regulations which came into effect in February this year,
282
withdraw social security entitlements which would otherwise enable immigrants to live free from destitution.
The question is: do we wish immigrants and their children—not all, but some—to live in destitution and thereby reduce their chances of living long enough in this country to exercise their rights of appeal? I submit that the answer must be, no. I believe that these legislative proposals are coercive and inhumane, and none more so than Clause 10 which we are discussing, which denies child benefit to any child immigrant unless he satisfies prescribed conditions. What those prescribed conditions are we do not know, so what we are being asked to do is to buy a pig in a poke.
The clause is indiscriminate, and I do not believe that legislation should be. I wish as much as anyone to attack welfare tourism and bogus asylum seekers, but not at the expense of genuine asylum seekers who flee from terror at home. There must be some better way than this of attacking bogus applicants without exposing to force majeure—because that is what it amounts to—those who are in genuine need. This is legislative overkill. This proposal to remove Clause 10 has all-party support. I am glad to see the right reverend Prelates are present. I feel confident that the late Lady Faithful!, if she were still with us, would have been the first to advise the Committee against this clause, which particularly affects children. I know that other Conservatives wish to support the proposal to remove this clause. I ask the Committee to vote against the clause and remove it from the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My noble friend the Bishop of Ripon is not able to be here today and has asked me whether I would support this amendment. I do so from the heart. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said. It is something we can do without. In the Glidewell Panel report Barnardo's submitted that,
"the withdrawal of benefit would leave many families with no way of paying for accommodation or for feeding or clothing their children".
Barnardo's estimate, based on Home Office statistics, was that this might affect more than 4,000 dependent children. The Children Act obliges local authorities to provide assistance to children in need and to accommodate any child in need because the person caring for that child has been prevented from providing suitable care and accommodation.
The object of saving public money would hardly be achieved if local authorities had to take 4,000 children into care, let alone the effect on the children and families! Child benefit is much less expensive than social services. It is easy to administer; it is cheap to run and it does not distinguish between people. There is no stigma to being on benefit. Those involved in Church community projects say that people with a perfectly legitimate right to be here are now facing detailed questioning and form filling from staff in local benefit offices. That annoys, frustrates and frightens both clients and DSS staff. How does that help race relations? Scores of people are now becoming dependent on Churches and charities for accommodation, food and clothing. It has been described to me as a creeping crisis as resources are used up.

283
A Government Minister, Ann Widdecombe, from another place stated in a letter to William Powell, MP,
"The Government do not wish to see NGOs providing support to destitute asylum seekers as this would mean that the incentive to economic migrants would remain".
I had not thought of the Church before as an NGO (non-government organisation) but I suppose that is what we are. This seems to me to be a case of the Government not only ordering their officials to pass by on the other side but to stop a Good Samaritan from helping some of the most vulnerable people. I must assure the Committee that this NGO will not obey the Minister.
In the judicial review of 25th March this year, which found that the Government had not acted unlawfully in issuing the regulations, Judges Beldam and Buxton acknowledged that the removal of access to benefits under the regulations,
"operates, and is intended to operate, as a disincentive to asylum seekers from using the appellate procedure".
We heard the Minister make much play on numbers. He appeared to be close to saying that we have to find a quota that is acceptable. While of course there is a genuine concern for proper and fair regulations to be in place, the cause of justice being properly done must be maintained.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches wish to be associated with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. Child benefit is different in all sorts of ways from all other benefits in the benefit book. First, one may be eligible for it only after one has already been in the country for six months. Therefore no one can argue that the hope of child benefit is an incitement for people to become benefit tourists. One only obtains it if one has already been here for six months.
Secondly, I argue that child benefit is a matter of right. Something like 29 per cent. of refugees—we believe as many as those who are asylum seekers—are in employment after those first six months. They are paying to, and contributing to, national insurance and taxation—in just the same way as British citizens—from which child benefit is paid. Child benefit as a tax allowance is a recognition of the responsibilities of those without children to those who have children. It should apply within the immigrant community as it applies within the British national community. It is a matter of right.
Thirdly, it is also a matter of poverty. Child benefit was not just a tax allowance; it was also a tax allowance together with family allowance. It is paid to the mother to help support the child. These families and these children we are discussing have lost income support and housing benefit, and they may lose school meals. At least child benefit would give a couple with two children £25 a week. That is all we are talking about, but it may help them escape the worst poverty.
The fourth reason for supporting this amendment concerns public expenditure. Under the Children Act 1989 these families will have to come within the purview of the local authority as regards the Children Act. That Act was designed for children who are
284
damaged by their parents, not for children who risk being damaged because their parents would have to remove themselves from them. Child benefit would enable those families to stay together to prevent the very damage that the Children Act is in place to avoid. If child benefit were withdrawn it would save only £15 million of a budget of £90,000 million in social security. However, payment of benefit might allow many families to stay together.
What is the alternative? We shall see children, as in the Victorian period, wide eyed, with begging bowls on the street, plucking at your sleeve in cafés, plucking at you as you go by, selling their bodies if they are sick and selling their bodies if they are well, in order to survive. We do not have to allow that. We can support child benefit. I hope that Members of the Committee tonight will support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in seeking removal of the clause from the Bill.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: There is no point in saying more. On these Benches, we strongly oppose this clause.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As Members of the Committee will know, this clause is intended to bring payment of child benefit for people from abroad into line with conditions of access which now apply, as from 5th February, to recipients of the other non-contributory social security benefits. It provides powers to make regulations. These are currently absent in respect of this category of cases, and but for this the change to child benefit would have been made at the same time as the change to other non-contributory benefits, and agreed to by noble Lords on 30th January. It was our clearly stated intention to exercise those powers to do for child benefit what the House has already approved for other benefits—no more, and no less.
As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, I wondered why we had not divided on the previous amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If the Question had been put, I would have divided on it. However, the Question was clearly not posed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I had thought that the amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The amendment was not moved.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It was not moved, and it was not put to the test on that point. I was chided a little while ago about not getting on very quickly. I am happy to stay here for an hour to discuss this important matter and then parade the arguments. But I do not think that that would be popular, so I do not intend to do so. However, before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, intervenes to stop me, I intend to be as brief as I can.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no desire to detain the Minister, but we had an assurance from the

285
noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, earlier in the course of the Bill that the word "immigrant" would not appear in the Bill, and amendments would be moved. That is why these amendments were not moved.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am afraid that we are at cross purposes. I am talking about the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 122A, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That amendment would have removed what we agreed on 30th January so far as concerns income support. If the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, were really serious about the points he made, that is the amendment that he would have wished to pursue to a Division because that is the kernel. What we are now doing is bringing child benefit into line with the decisions we made on income support—
Earl Russell: Before the Minister reproaches me for not calling a Division, he might remember that this is only Committee stage of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suppose that I should have kept my mouth shut. Normally the Chamber is more than happy to hear me at length, but clearly tonight there is some pressure on the timetable. However, the Committee will be happy to hear that I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward briefly in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and in response to the right reverend Prelate. We believe those arguments to be valid. The Government cannot ignore the increasing numbers of asylum seekers and the large numbers found after our exhaustive procedures not to merit either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain.
Child benefit could not be dealt with in the same way as we dealt with income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit on 30th January. So we are dealing with it in this Bill this evening.
We have not prescribed conditions on face of the Bill because we would like to keep the conditions under which child benefit is paid to those from abroad in line with those applying to the other non-contributory benefits. To have the detailed conditions for access to child benefit set in primary legislation when they are in secondary legislation for other benefits would not be compatible with this aim.
We have laid before the Committee an outline of the regulations likely to be made under the clause. I hope that this will reassure noble Lords that the powers will only be used to mirror in child benefit the provisions already applying to other benefits.
That is the point. We are putting child benefit on all fours with the income support system for asylum seekers.
I listened, as I always do, with great interest and admiration to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, as she expanded on the importance of child benefit to families, the importance of it being paid to the mother, and so on. I agree with her in many regards about child benefit. It is important. That is why we have kept it and uprated it in this Parliament, as we said we
286
would do in our manifesto commitment. Perhaps the noble Baroness might be well advised not to say too much for the next few minutes because I find it ironic that the Labour Party will divide this Chamber, I presume, in order to vote for child benefit for people coming from abroad with only limited leave to be here. Those people will be testing whether they can obtain leave to stay here for a long period as refugees or can be given exceptional leave to remain, with most of them not achieving that status.
Earl Russell: If the noble Lord will forgive me, the decision as to whether the Committee should divide rests neither with the Labour Party nor these Benches, but with the mover of the amendment who is on the Cross-Benches.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think that we are beginning to nit-pick. However, I come back to the point that I was making, whether or not we have a Division. If we have a Division, it will be interesting to see whether the party opposite goes into the Division Lobby with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in favour of paying child benefit to people who have just arrived in this country and who have no settled right to remain here when, at the same time, that party is committed to taking child benefit away from 16, 17 and 18 year-olds.
Baroness Seear: It is not my business—it is the last thing I want to do—to defend the Labour Party. But that is the weakest argument I have heard from the Minister this evening, and we have had some pretty weak arguments.
At its very worst, the Labour Party has never suggested taking child benefit away from anybody except people over 16. That is a very poor line to take.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is exactly what I am saying. The Labour Party proposes to take child benefit away from people in this country with a settled right to remain: Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen whose children stay on at school after the age of 16. It will put a tax of £500 to £600 a year on families who encourage and approve of their children staying on. That is what it comes to. Yet tonight, if a Division is called, perhaps they will go into the Lobby in support of child benefit being paid to people who have just arrived in this country.
I see noble Lords opposite are about to go into the Lobby to vote to keep child benefit for people who have just arrived in this country, while at the same time their party proposes to take it away from 16, 17 and 18 year-olds. I find that incomprehensible. The Government's position is perfectly logical and correct and I am convinced that my noble friends will support me.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I now find myself involved in party politics, much to my surprise. I wish to thank the right reverend Prelate particularly for describing the Church of England as an NGO. I am sure that it is and I shall cherish the expression. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for giving the Labour

287
Party's view and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her speech. As for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I merely wish to echo King Lear who said to his ungrateful daughters:
"Oh reason not the need!".
I hope that the Committee will go into the "Not-Content" Lobby when the Question is put.
9.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Ailsa, M.

Inglewood, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Annaly, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kingsland, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Balfour, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Leigh, L.

Berners, B.

Long, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bowness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Burnham, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Byron, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moyne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of lindisfarne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Northesk, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Courtown, E.

Peel, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Cuckney, L.

Portman, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of WakefiekL, B.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Dudley, E.

Renwick, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selsdon, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goold, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hambro, L.

Stockton, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Harris of Peckham, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Tebbit, L.

Holderness, L.

Teviot, L.

288

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilcox, B.

Wynford, L.

Vivian, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kennet,L.

Addington, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McCarthy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair.L.

Borrie, L.

McNally, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu,B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Meston, L.

Chandos, V.

Mishcon,L.

Chichester, Bp.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Harwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B

Rochester, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

St John of Bletso, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Taverne, L.

Healey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thurso, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Hollick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hooson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 10 agreed to accordingly.
9.19 p.m.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Other amendments and repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 127A:
Page 7, line 40, after ("Act") insert ("and a related amendment of the Immigration Act 1988").
The noble Baroness said: As my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated earlier, I shall deal with Amendment No. 127A which, although it would amend Clause 11, is closely related to Amendment No. 133ZA in Schedule 1.
The first of this pair of amendments is a minor enabling amendment which is consequential to the amendment to the Immigration Act 1988 proposed in Amendment No. 133ZA. It will have no effect if Amendment No. 133ZA is rejected; and therefore it seems sensible to explain the intention behind that amendment.
It should be clear that one of the aims behind the non-asylum provisions contained in this Bill is to harmonise our approach towards different kinds of immigration offender. We intend to ensure that complementary and appropriate measures and powers are available to deal with all kinds of offender. The amendment continues that approach. Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1988 states that those who have breached the conditions attached to their leave will have only a restricted right of appeal against any decision to deport them. That right of appeal focuses solely on the question of whether there is a power in law to make a deportation order for the reason stated in the notice of decision.
Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1 to the Bill extends liability to deportation to those who obtain leave to remain by deception. This amendment would mean that those who have obtained leave to remain by deception would have only a restricted right of appeal against any decision to deport them, just like those who have breached the conditions attached to their leave.
That must be right. I cannot think of any compelling reason why those who obtain leave to remain by deception should be provided with wider rights of appeal than those who have infringed our immigration laws in other ways. I commend both amendments to the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister and the Committee will know that we have very grave doubts about the decisions taken by this Committee in earlier consideration of the Bill about the phrase "obtaining leave by deception".
We have always said that there are circumstances in which perfectly genuine asylum seekers cannot possibly reach the position of seeking asylum in this country without some form of deception in order to get out of their own country and, on occasion, to get into this country. However, I do not feel that we should have that argument again. It is clear that the amendments are in line with the position taken by the Government on earlier clauses of the Bill. We do not wish to divide the Committee against them.
Earl Russell: Following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I too shall not repeat myself. I ask a question only of clarification.
The amendment speaks of deception. Is it speaking of attempting to obtain leave to remain or asylum by deception, or is it speaking of entering through the port as an ordinary entrant and then applying for asylum in
290
the country? Is the second deception within the meaning of this amendment or not? It makes a big difference to the reaction of these Benches as of the other Benches.
Baroness Blatch: In answering the noble Earl, I shall also reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We have never said that there is not often very good reason why somebody should, by deception, leave their own country and even travel en route to this country. It may be the only way that such person can escape from his country of origin.
We are talking about deception at the port of entry into this country; that is to say, deceiving the immigration officials at the port of entry. Some people who come in by deception continue that deception in the country. Those are the people who enter by deception and who would be caught by these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Does the amendment say that? Does Section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 say that?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord knows that there have been two newly created offences. One is coming in by deception and one is staying by deception. We say that anybody who is an offender under this new Bill shall be treated equally. Therefore, these amendments bring that new offence into line.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness knows that I think that her position is in contravention of Article 31 of the UN Convention on Refugees. She knows that I am of another opinion. The international court will be the judge between us.
Baroness Blatch: May I ask the noble Earl what is in contravention? If somebody seeks leave to enter this country and remain by deception, how does that fall foul of that particular section of the convention?
Earl Russell: That section specifically states that it shall be lawful to enter for the purpose of claiming asylum and it shall not be an offence to have done so by deception. It says that people may enter and "then" without delay claim asylum.
We have been through this argument many times. It will have to go to court. The Home Office has not done well on court cases. We shall see.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 128 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): If Amendment No. 129 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 130 and 130A.
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 8, line 6, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 7 and insert ("and for whom such leave has not been given").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is unable to be present for reasons beyond his control, I rise to move this amendment for the purposes of asking a question. I understand that since the word "immigrant" is to be replaced, we will need to redraft the clause. It seems foolish therefore to divide on an amendment to amend it now.
I wish to ask about the words at the end of the clause,
"'immigrant' means a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given)".
Why are the words,
"whether or not such leave has been given",
necessary? What is the objection to people to whom leave has been given? I do not understand this and never have. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 130A would have the effect of limiting the application of Clauses 8, 9 and 10 to people who require leave to enter or remain in this country and to whom such leave has not been granted. In effect, those clauses would bite only on people who are granted temporary admission from a port or who are in breach of our immigration laws by entering illegally or staying beyond their leave. While we welcome the implicit acceptance that employers should not be permitted to employ such persons and that such persons should not have access to housing and child benefit, the amendment would limit the scope of the relevant clauses too narrowly.
For example, it would be an offence for an employer to employ an illegal entrant or overstayer, but it would not be an offence to employ a person who had been admitted as a visitor on condition that he would not engage in employment. But surely a person who gives such an undertaking and then breaches it is just as culpable. If we cannot use Clause 8 to strengthen the enforcement of employment restrictions, then much of its value will be lost.
Similarly, the amendment would mean that the restrictions on access to council housing and entitlement under the homelessness legislation could not be applied to people who had been admitted, for example as visitors, on the basis that they will maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. That, too, is unacceptable, just as it is unacceptable that such people should retain entitlement to child benefit.
I am surprised that the noble Earl should seek to advance an amendment which would enable people with impunity to gain access to employment, housing and benefit in breach of undertakings given on admission.
In response to the noble Earl's question, I am advised that the provision deals with people who are here illegally, without leave.
Earl Russell: We are having a dialogue of the deaf. In the way of justice, none of us should see salvation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of the 1971 Act]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 133ZA:
Page 9, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1) of section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 (restricted right of appeal against deportation), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) by virtue of section 3(5)(aa) of that Act (leave obtained by deception); or".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 133AA:
Page 9, leave out line 26 and insert—
(".—(1) After subsection (2) of section 14 of the 1971 Act (appeals against conditions), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2ZA) A person shall not be entitled to appeal under subsection (1) above against—

(a) a variation of his leave which adds such a condition as is mentioned in section 3(1)(c)(ii) above; or

(b) a refusal to vary his leave by revoking such a condition."

(2) In subsection (2B) of that section, for").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor technical and transitional amendment which is consequent to the measure in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Bill which will allow a condition requiring a person to maintain and accommodate himself and any dependants without recourse to public funds to be attached to the grant of leave to that person.
This amendment is concerned with those people who already have leave in the United Kingdom which is not subject to the condition referred to above in anything other than an understanding of their entry into the country. If the condition requiring non-recourse to public funds was attached to subsequent grants of leave to such people, they would receive a right of appeal against the variation of the conditions attached to their leave. These appeals would be of little value and would create additional, nugatory work for the already overstretched appellate authorities. The amendment would remove the right of appeal if it was available solely on the ground that a condition requiring non-recourse to public funds had been added to the leave of a person who had been granted leave previously without such a condition.
It is not our intention to impose any new requirements on foreign nationals. It has long been a requirement of the Immigration Rules that certain categories of people such as students, visitors and the dependants of people settled here should be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. The Bill provides a power to make this requirement a condition of leave to enter or remain, and for such a condition to be placed, where appropriate, in a person's passport. The Government are not seeking to impose any requirements other than those already contained in the Immigration Rules and there would be nothing to be gained by preserving a right of appeal in such cases.
In conclusion, it is worth emphasising that this is essentially a transitional measure. In future, when leave to enter is granted, a condition requiring maintenance and accommodation without recourse to public funds can be attached formally to the grant of leave. The same condition can be attached to any subsequent variation of that leave, and there will be no question of an appeal right in these circumstances. The amendment simply avoids the prospect of a considerable amount of unproductive work altering the conditions of people who are already here. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133B not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 10, line 22, at end insert—
("Powers of detention
6A. In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 of the 1971 Act (detention pending examination), after the words "refuse him leave to enter" there shall be added the words "for a period of seven days".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 137A, which is consequential upon it. There is a fundamental point of principle here. In this country we do not deprive individuals of their liberty unless there is due process of law. Except for those unfortunate individuals who are detained under Immigration Act provisions I can think of no circumstance in which, on the decision of an official, people can be locked up and denied their liberty without any judicial process. I cannot believe that this point is properly understood; otherwise I do not believe the Government would have persisted with this policy. It is in breach, so far as I know, of every international human rights convention. As a country which has always prided itself on the rights of individuals and a proper sense of justice, how can we allow people to be deprived of their liberty without any judicial safeguards?
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act individuals can be detained for not longer than seven days without the Home Secretary giving his assent. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act a person may not be detained for more than 36 hours before being charged, at which point a court has to say that detention may continue, and never more than 96 hours in any case, with a second provision at 72 hours. Yet here we have people against whom there is no criminal charge, people who are in every sense innocent, who can be detained indefinitely under the present provisions. That is surely wrong in principle.
The amendment is very modest indeed. All it says is that when an individual is detained under Immigration Act provisions, after seven days an immigration adjudicator should give his or her agreement for that detention to continue. That is all. It is surely a minimal safeguard against an abuse of power. I am not saying that Home Office officials abuse their powers deliberately, but sometimes mistakes happen. An individual person detained has no proper recourse. It can
294
be argued that he could apply for bail. That is true. But that itself is a very difficult issue because sometimes the sum of money people have to raise to be let out on bail—around £2,000 in the case of many asylum seekers—is so large that it would be the equivalent of about £500,000 for most ordinary people. That is simply untenable. It is impossible to expect asylum seekers to raise such a sum of money. They do not have the resources themselves and they do not have affluent friends. When the amount of money that has to be raised for bail is set so high, we are not really talking about bail at all. It is my contention that this is a process of detention outside the judicial process and without any safeguards.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has issued some guidelines on the detention of asylum seekers. There are three procedural safeguards. The first is that the detained person shall have the right to be informed of the reasons for detention. That is reasonable and it probably happens in most cases. The third is the right to contact the local UNHCR office. I am not sure whether that happens, but it would not be difficult to arrange. It is the second procedural safeguard which is the key. It refers to,
"the right to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty promptly before a competent, independent and impartial authority, where the individual may present his arguments either personally or through a representative".
The amendment seeks to do precisely that and no more. It seeks to provide one hearing before a special adjudicator to decide whether or not the detention should continue.
I have visited Campsfield House which is one of the places where asylum seekers are detained. Being there is a depressing experience, as is talking to the people there—sometimes through an interpreter. Having reached what they thought was a free country, they are utterly bewildered at being detained without any knowledge of what has happened to them and whether they have any chance of being released. It is a deeply depressing experience. I think that it is a blight on this country that we lock up innocent people at Campsfield House and other such centres.
This is a modest amendment. Frankly, if it were earlier in the evening I suspect that the Committee would support it, but perhaps the Committee will not be minded to do that at this hour. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): I should point out that the first line of the text of the amendment should refer to,
"paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act",
and not to "Schedule 1" as is printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord Hylton: It seems to me that the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has moved and spoken to are better, more comprehensive and more far-reaching than my amendments to which we shall come shortly. For those reasons, I support them.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches very strongly support these amendments, which stand also in the name

295
of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is unable to be here tonight. We believe that the provisions breach an absolutely fundamental human right. When we think of the anxiety with which we have discussed the question of the detention of terrorists, it seems appalling that we should be so indifferent to the rights of people who are not even suspected of anything of any seriousness.
Baroness Blatch: I should perhaps start with a technical point. I am sure that Amendment No. 134 seeks to alter paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act. Although the amendment actually refers to paragraph 16(1) of "Schedule 1" of the 1971 Act, that must be a drafting error because Schedule 1 did not contain 16 paragraphs and was, in any case, repealed by the British Nationality Act 1981. The amendment makes sense only if "Schedule 1" is read as "Schedule 2" to the 1971 Act, as was pointed out by the Deputy Chairman of Committees.
I turn now to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about his visit to Campsfield House. I can only say that the noble Lord cannot have availed himself of the stream of information that is given out there routinely on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. There is nobody there who does not know what they are doing there, why they are there and what they can expect to happen next. I can tell the noble Lord that great efforts are systematically made to keep the people there well informed, including in their own language. They are seen regularly by senior members of the Immigration Service as well as routinely on a daily basis by other officials. I believe that it does the officials and the service a discredit simply to say that there are people there who from week to week do not know what is happening to them.
The intention behind this pair of amendments is fundamentally to alter the existing arrangements for the release from detention of passengers who seek to enter the United Kingdom. Currently a passenger who may be required to submit to examination by an immigration officer may be detained on the authority of the immigration officer pending examination or a decision on whether to grant or refuse him leave to enter. Once seven days have elapsed from the date of his arrival in the United Kingdom, it is open to the detained passenger to apply to an adjudicator for release on bail. If accepted, these amendments would turn the current arrangements on their head. Instead of the detained applicant seeking bail from an adjudicator, the immigration officer, after the passage of seven days, would have to seek an adjudicator's authority to maintain detention.
Decisions to detain are not taken lightly and are subject to regular review by the Immigration Service. Requiring an immigration officer to seek the authority of an adjudicator to maintain detention would undermine the integrity of the on-entry control and would create a bureaucratic and inefficient system. Such a system would place extra burdens on the Immigration Service and the already hard-pressed appellate authority without producing any obvious benefits.
296
The bail system currently in operation for those detained under powers in the 1971 Act clearly sets out the arrangements for seeking and granting bail and the responsibilities of the various parties to the system such as the adjudicator and immigration officer. The change proposed by Amendment No. 137A removes this clarity and replaces it with a void—absolutely nothing. Are we to understand that once an immigration officer has successfully argued in front of an adjudicator that detention should be maintained that is the end of the matter? The detainee's right to seek bail would have been removed, and in a long running on-entry case it is possible to imagine a passenger remaining in detention for a very long time without access to any kind of independent review if this change is accepted.
It seems very strange that a change of this type is being proposed when measures have been included in this Bill to ensure that in future everyone detained under powers in the 1971 Act will have the right to apply for bail. We were conscious that small sub-sets of people had previously been denied the right to apply for bail because of the circumstances or position of their cases. But we have now taken the opportunity in this Bill to ensure that in future anyone detained under powers in the 1971 Act will be able to seek bail. For those reasons—not simply because the amendments are flawed—I hope that the Committee will not accept them.
Lord Dubs: I regret that there is a technical flaw in the amendments, for which I apologise to the Committee. But, having said that, I am sorry that the Minister has taken the attitude that she has. I did not seek to criticise the staff at Campsfield House. I am aware of the trouble to which they have gone to try to inform the people detained there. I went there some time ago. Despite all the trouble to which the staff went to inform those detained there—after all, it is a prison surrounded by barbed wire 12 or 16 feet high—the people were bewildered.
I refer the Minister to the recent report by Judge Tumin, Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons. He specifically criticised the lack of information at Campsfield regarding individual cases and the legal position in general. I did not make that precise criticism. I said that in Campsfield House and the other place where people were detained there were bewildered individuals. The Minister appears to be sceptical. Perhaps she would care to go there, if she has not been recently, to find out for herself.
However, the key point is the liberty of individuals. The Minister has said that these amendments would drive a coach and horses through the procedures. I cannot understand that attitude. One is talking of denying liberty to people against whom there are no criminal charges. As a country are we to continue to do that? Over the past two or three years people to whom I have spoken in various European countries are appalled by this policy. People are appalled that this country, which is supposed to be the bastion of liberty, should say, "Never mind, some official can keep you locked up, and that's it".

297
The Bill may improve somewhat the scope for bail, but I repeat, if the limit is set at £2,000—it often is—that is meaningless to people who do not have that sort of money. Bail does not mean anything if the amount of money that has to be raised to achieve one's liberty is so large that it is beyond reach. It is meaningless. No matter that there are procedures, and that this is important, the liberty of the individual has surely to count for something. I had a meeting about this matter some years ago with the Immigration Minister when I was at the Refugee Council. I tried to persuade him that the system in Scotland, where the amounts required as a condition for bail are normally set at a low level, could be applied to England and Wales. I was told that that was not possible for some reason.
Let me now run the risk of repeating myself. We are talking about the liberty of individuals who have not committed any offence. All the Minister's arguments against that proposition are secondary. If this country does not believe in the liberty of individuals, what in heaven's name do we believe in?
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I wonder whether I may ask the Minister to explain something. She said at one point that the amendment would create a bureaucratic system. I think I listened carefully to what she said. My understanding was that the present proposals of the Bill are that the decisions are all taken by officials. Is not that a bureaucratic system? I understood that the amendment was seeking that there should be recourse to a court if someone's liberty is taken away and—the point has properly been made—no criminal charge is brought.
Baroness Blatch: We are saying that it can be dealt with simply. We have given the right of appeal to all people detained under the Act, which is something that we had hoped might have been welcomed by the right reverend Prelate and others in the Chamber. Secondly, the matter can be dealt with by a senior immigration official. Under the amendment, there would have to be an application to the adjudicator, the case would have to be made, there would have to be consideration of that case, and it would be bureaucratic and cause delay.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: Perhaps I may make my point. Is the Minister saying that the proposal in the Bill is not bureaucratic?
Baroness Blatch: I am certainly saying that. I am saying that it is simpler, it is fair, and it is not bureaucratic. To accept the amendment would add considerably to the bureaucratic procedures, given that an adjudicator rather than a senior immigration official would have to take the decision.
Baroness Seear: Could the Minister name any other circumstance in which someone in this country is deprived of his liberty without going to a court in any shape or form, or being handled by the police? Can she
298
give an example of where a person's liberty is taken from them by an official and not someone in the judicial system?
Baroness Blatch: If the system did not allow people an appeal. Context is important in replying to the noble Baroness and others who have raised these points. First, detention is used extremely sparingly. We are talking about possibly one case per week. Out of 80,000 cases which are awaiting decision or appeal, we are talking at the most of about 700 cases. The great majority of detained asylum seekers have already had their claims refused by the Asylum Directorate. We are not talking about the first stage; we are talking mostly about people who have already had their cases considered substantively and had their claims refused.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, used the Prevention of Terrorism Act as an analogy. The difference between this and the Prevention of Terrorism Act is that this provision is about people whose right to be here has not been established—that is important—whereas the Prevention of Terrorism Act powers relate in general to people who are entitled to be here. There is a very real difference in that. We have extended the right to seek bail and that should be welcomed. There is a system for releasing people from detention if that is thought appropriate. I believe that that is as far as we should go. To add yet another bureaucratic system is not consistent with what we are trying to do in the Bill.
Earl Russell: I believe that there is a drafting error in the Bill. I have been looking at the repealing schedule. It should have included the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, the Petition of Right Act 1627 and Magna Carta.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I tried to listen to the Minister most carefully. She said that the provision would greatly increase bureaucracy but she then told us that there was only one case a week. Are we to believe that justice is such a cheap or difficult thing that one case a week is something that this country cannot afford?
Baroness Seear: The Minister has not answered my question. Can she give any other case in which someone can be deprived of his liberty without any kind of judicial process? The fact that that is done by a bureaucratic or an administrator—let us not use the word "bureaucrat", which has unfortunate connotations—is extraordinary and quite contrary to the principles of justice in this country.
Lord Hylton: A small matter may have been overlooked. It is that an adjudicator is a quasi-judicial person appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Dubs: It is true that some 700 people are detained at any one time. Some are detained for only a few weeks but some are detained for much longer. The net effect is that several thousand people a year are detained under these powers by the processes that have been described.
The Minister said that the present system is simple and fair and that the alternative that I have proposed in the amendment would be more bureaucratic. Those are

299
trivial arguments when set against the rights and liberties of an individual. I do not believe that we can dismiss the concept which is fundamental to what this country is or ought to be about simply by saying, "It's a hit complicated. It's a bit difficult for us".
Over the years I had meetings with Home Office Ministers on this issue and I was given assurances that there was a thorough internal scrutiny of people detained by Home Office officials. I suggest that that internal scrutiny would take at least as long as it would take to go before an adjudicator and establish the point made in the amendment.
The Minister said that the point about the Prevention of Terrorism Act is different because it relates to people whose status in this country is not in doubt. After all our arguments about the Prevention of Terrorism Act, is the Minister really saying that asylum seekers who are accused of nothing, who have no charges against them, are somehow to have less liberty than people who are detained under that Act? Surely that makes a nonsense of our whole system. I am talking about innocent people and I say to the Minister that it would take just a little trouble to protect the liberty of individuals. Will the Minister please think again now?
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may add that I was appalled to hear the Minister say that only one person a week was detained. Justice is justice, whether it is one person or 1,000 people.
Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that we are talking about something that is unjust. We are talking about people who have not established a right to stay here. Most have had their cases for staying considered and they have not been proven. They are waiting for appeals and a judgment has been made that they ought to be detained because, rightly, someone has considered that there may be a risk of disappearance. We have extended the right to apply for bail, which will be a consideration for all people subject to the 1971 Act. I should correct myself. It is not one asylum seeker per week but 1 per cent. of asylum seekers. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness would still wish to make the same point. All asylum seekers, whether on the fast track or the normal track, are given rights of appeal. Therefore, they are not being denied rights of appeal in relation to their particular case for asylum.
I have already made the point in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Act that under that Act we are talking about people who have a right to be here. In this case we are talking about people whose right to be here has not been established. Therefore, they are still in the asylum application system and their right to appeal is already established under this Act. I believe that noble Lords are rather labouring their point. I have made the point very carefully that people who are detained are usually detained for very good reasons indeed.
Earl Russell: If I repeat myself, it will be only briefly. Throughout this Bill I have been asking the noble Baroness to explain the priority which she gives to keeping asylum seekers away from this country. It seems to us altogether disproportionate and unintelligible. I do not understand why this country is
300
thought to be in such great danger from a few weak, helpless asylum seekers. Is our fabric really so weak that they can tear it all down? I genuinely do not understand.
Baroness Blatch: In the course of this debate the noble Earl has asked us more than once not to be repetitive. I should like not to be repetitive. But the noble Earl constantly poses questions in a very repetitive manner. I say just once more that there is a fundamental difference between those of us on this side of the House—I exclude from that right reverend Prelates who are at one with Members of the Committee opposite on this issue—and Members of the Committee opposite. There are 84,000 cases awaiting the conclusion of their consideration. The number of those applying is about 40,000 per year. That is more than the number of cases which we can process. Even with an eight-fold increase in staff and a massive increase in the amount of funds made available for that processing, we are not keeping pace with the number of applicants.
The final point that I wish to make, which is the rationale for the Bill, is that the number of people who turn out to be genuine asylum seekers is very small indeed. Those given exceptional leave to remain outnumber those who qualify under the 1951 convention. For those reasons, we wish to have a fair system—a system which is fairer and quicker, so that we can process more efficiently those genuine asylum seekers who we believe are disadvantaged by the present clogging-up of the system.
Lord Dubs: I am very sad to hear what the Minister said—that people are detained for only very good reasons. The only thing that this amendment asks for is that those reasons should be stated to a special adjudicator. Special adjudicators are judicial appointments by the Lord Chancellor in the same way as judges. They are independent of the Home Office. Surely those people could consider whether the reasons are good. If the reasons are good, they will allow the detention to continue. It is a simple proposition.
I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to agree to what I believe is a significant point of principle. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to return to this matter on Report because I believe that the Minister is speaking without the support of the majority of people on her Benches. I have looked at their faces. If people are honest, I do not believe that there is that level of support for what she says. I may well wish to return to this matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 10, line 25, at end insert—
("Liability for the expenses of the first seventy-two hours of detention
7A. In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act (liability for the expenses of detention) for the words "at any time after his arrival" there shall be substituted the words "for the first seventy-two hours after his arrival.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 deal with what I have referred to already in Committee; namely, injustice and unfairness. In this

301
case, they relate to an aspect of the Immigration Act 1971 which airlines and ferry companies have long felt was unjust. Again, I declare an interest as a director of British Airways. The issue that I am addressing is the fact that carriers are expected to bear the detention costs of any passenger stopped and detained by the Immigration Service when he or she arrives in the United Kingdom, irrespective of how long such detention lasts. In other words, there is an issue of indefinite liability. Amendment No. 135 seeks to impose a cut-off point at which carriers cease to pay detention costs and Amendment No. 136 seeks to exempt carriers completely when the circumstances are patently beyond the carrier's control.
As I stated in Committee on 30th April (col. 1616 of Hansard), carriers accept responsibility, albeit a trifle reluctantly, when they make a mistake and transport passengers who have invalid documentation. They are fined. But they happen to spend significant sums of money trying to ensure that mistakes do not occur; but, if they do, they accept the penalty. However, passengers can arrive with completely valid documentation and still be detained. Actual cases that have occurred are, for example, someone clutching a return ticket who arouses suspicion because he or she is carrying very little cash; someone who fails to give a convincing reply when questioned about how long he or she intends to stay; someone who behaves in what could be described as a shifty manner, thereby arousing the suspicion of the immigration officer; or, indeed, someone who simply triggers off what one would call the sixth sense of the immigration official.
As an aside, what I am about to say is not a criticism of the Immigration Service. Indeed, I should like to pay tribute to the immigration staff because they have a horrendously difficult job to do. I have in mind all the responsibilities that legislation puts upon them, with the need to be, in effect, trained sleuths or psychologists, with their unenviable task of dealing with huge numbers of people who are tired after travelling—we all know about the red-eye as a result of overnight flights—and with situations which must tug on their heartstrings, reminiscent in fact of the words on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbour:
"Your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to break free".
Yet those people are always conscious, as, of course, they have to be, of the responsibility placed upon them by legislation. It is not an easy job; it is not an easy job for anyone, be they trained immigration officials or untrained check-in staff or ferry staff dealing with passengers who wish to travel to the United Kingdom.
If a passenger arrives at a port or an airport in the United Kingdom having disposed of his or her documents between the time of boarding the ferry or the aircraft and arriving in the UK—sadly, this is quite a common occurrence—the carrier is liable to a fine of £2,000. I am not questioning that for the moment because that has been dealt with under a previous amendment. The issue is the fine plus the costs of detention which can last indefinitely. The passenger may be detained for three hours, three days, three weeks,
302
three months or even longer. It is entirely up to the Immigration Service. That is patently an unsatisfactory loophole in the 1971 Act. It provides little incentive for speedy resolution of the case and is to the detriment of the passenger, who is left in a state of insecurity about what is going to happen; and that also applies to the carrier.
I submit that there must be a point where the responsibility for such a situation is transferred from the carrier to the Immigration Service. A cut-off point has never been agreed, but the organisation called the Board of Airline Representatives, which represents some 90 airlines operating into the United Kingdom, believes that three days is a reasonable period for carriers to pay detention costs. That is the reason for the 72-hour limit on liability included in Amendment No. 135. However, there are many circumstances where, I submit, carriers should not be expected to pay any detention costs whatsoever, and where indeed it is quite unjust to expect them to do so. I have previously referred to cases where passengers have all the correct documentation hut are still detained. Most interestingly, in these circumstances the immigration service refuses to tell the carrier why the passenger is detained; in effect stating that it has nothing to do with the carrier. If it has nothing at all to do with the carrier, it seems to me a prima facie case of the detention costs having nothing to do with the carrier either.
Carriers have guidance from UK immigration. I quote from a letter which I have received:
"It is our normal practice to say to carriers … that it remains a matter for them to decide whether or not to carry passengers who appear to have genuine documents, but who nevertheless arouse the suspicions of check-in staff'.
As I described in Committee on 30th April at col. 1617 of the Official Report, six seconds per passenger does not give much time to check the validity of tickets and passports, to allocate seats, to check in bags and to accommodate the relatively new requirement of asking questions relevant to security—for example, "Did you pack this bag yourself? Has it been left anywhere since you packed it? Is there anything electronic in this bag?", and other questions. The letter from which I have just quoted suggests that in addition to all of that the check-in staff should take into account,
"unusual levels of nervousness or anxiety on the part of the passenger, or an amount of luggage not commensurate with the proposed length of journey".
There is a classic example of this, of which I was made aware when I went to Frankfurt recently to observe the workings of the check-in staff attempting to comply with UK immigration requirements. There were 40 Indians who came on a shopping trip to Frankfurt. They flew from Bombay to London to Frankfurt. At London they only transitted and so they did not go through the immigration procedures. When they arrived at Frankfurt the German immigration officials let them in and there were no questions asked. One week later, having completed their "shopping trip"—note the word "shopping"—they checked in late at the British Airways desk at Frankfurt to commence their return journey Frankfurt/London/Bombay. Between the 40 of them there were eight pieces of luggage. I repeat that they

303
were supposed to have been on a shopping trip. This did not look right to the eagle-eyed check-in staff. Alerted to a possible problem, they phoned immigration at Heathrow and sent by fax copies of the Indians' passports. In response to the question, "Do we allow these people to travel? they were told, "It is up to you". As the staff at Frankfurt were still concerned, they contacted the British Airways staff at Heathrow. We must remember that this was all carried out within minutes of the scheduled departure time of the aircraft. The British Airways staff at Heathrow, mindful of their obligations to transport passengers who had paid for their tickets—in effect, a contractual obligation—took the decision to agree to their transportation.
Obviously all these shenanigans had alerted the prospective travellers that they were being scrutinised and suddenly they decided not to travel. That was rather strange. The following day the British Airways staff at Frankfurt contacted the local police to inquire what had transpired. They were told that, mysteriously, tickets and passports for all but six of the 40 passengers had been lost. The point of this story is that if the passengers had travelled it seems quite likely that they would have tried to claim asylum as they transitted London and the carrier, having received no guidance from immigration, would have been liable to unlimited detention costs for the UK immigration's 40 Indian guests. Those costs would probably have totalled more than £5,000 per night.
The proposal that carriers should not pay detention costs when passengers are carrying correct documentation is supported by the International Air Transport Association. The international civil aviation organisation is currently considering adding a recommended practice to its code of conduct, based on IATA's suggestions, stating that operators should not be held directly responsible for any costs related to official detention of passengers where admittance is denied for reasons beyond the control of the carrier.
There is no opportunity for a carrier to avoid paying detention costs or to appeal against them. There is no incentive for UK immigration to provide proper guidance on whether or not individual passengers will prove acceptable once they land in the United Kingdom. There is no incentive for UK immigration to process detainees quickly, as it does not have to finance the costs of such detention out of its budgets.
I submit that there are good reasons to support my amendments. I am unaware of many good reasons against them. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I support the amendments to which I have added my name. There are three reasons why people at present can be prevented from entering the United Kingdom or be expelled from it. The first relates to incorrect documentation, in which case those people are denied entry by the immigration service. I do not necessarily argue with that. The second relates to correct documentation but, because the immigration service is suspicious, it denies entry. The third relates to people who, having entered as businessmen or students, overstay their visit.
304
The amendment deals with the second situation. People come with perfectly correct documentation but because the UK immigration authorities have reason to be suspicious they are denied entry. In that case the carrier is liable for the costs of detention, however long that may be. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable that the authorities should take a view on this. However, it seems unreasonable that that view should be for longer than a certain length of time. Whether 72 hours is the correct period, or whether a little longer might be correct, I am not certain. But if the immigration authorities take longer than 72 hours, the blame should hardly be put on the carrier.
As my noble friend said, at present the system hardly presents an incentive for officials to process such cases speedily. It is neither in the interests of the passenger nor the carrier that there is no incentive to process these cases reasonably quickly. The carrier gets the bill at the end of the day.
My name is also down to the second of my noble friend's amendments. It deals with the anomaly whereby carriers are required to pay detention costs even when detailed passengers are properly documented on entry or the carrier can prove that valid documents were presented at the point of embarkation.
Airlines and shipping staff are not immigration officials and should not be expected to do their job for them. No airline or shipping company will deliberately seek to incur a fine if it makes a mistake. There are genuine reasons why it should not wish to do so—not least that it can be fined £2,000 each time that it makes a mistake.
A number of airlines have gained what I understand is called approved gate-check status at foreign airports. I believe that that would be the best way to deal with the problem. If the airlines are fulfilling those requirements at the foreign airport, they should not have to be responsible for those individuals who might destroy or lose those documents in the course of their journey. There have been many cases where documents have been deliberately lost. For example, with a ferry company it is particularly easy to throw one's documents overboard. Yet when the ferry arrives, the carrier is liable for the detention costs for that period. It does not seem to be fair, if the airline or shipping company has done everything it can to ensure that documents are in order, yet when the immigrant arrives something has gone wrong and someone has deliberately destroyed or lost the documents. I therefore support the amendments.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I strongly support the amendments. The whole policy of putting obligations on the airline companies is quite unacceptable. I can see no reason why airline companies should carry the responsibility for finding out whether or not people are legal immigrants. I realise that that is not the major point of the amendment, but I wished to put it on record.
I also believe that it is totally unsuitable that the future of would-be immigrants should be decided by check-in staff. As the noble Baroness said, they have

305
many other things to do and are in no way trained to make proper judgments as to whether or not people are suitable, genuine immigrants. It seems an appalling way to carry out the Government's policies on immigrants.
Lord Mountevans: I too am happy to support my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, as I did earlier in the Committee stage. I speak for myself and also on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who would have been here if he had not suffered a bereavement. He would have put the argument for the shipping companies. We have tended to believe that it is an airline argument, but it is not because shipping is also involved. It is more burdensome on shipping companies because if someone is charged £10 to go from Calais to Dover as opposed to £200 or £300 to fly from Paris to London, the £2,000 penalty is that much more vicious.
Last week I supported my noble friend, tonight I am happy to do so again. I wish to put on record my endorsement of her concept. An open-ended commitment over which the airlines and ferry companies have no control is something which I find morally indefensible. That is my principal reason for supporting the amendment. I simply repeat a point first made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon and also by myself. The penalty on airlines is morally indefensible, and it is much more difficult for shipping companies. At the end of the day their staff should not be the first line of our immigration control.
Baroness Rawlings: I agree with my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that carriers should not be responsible for the fine if the traveller has managed to be accepted by the local immigration officer, even if that person is proved later to have used false documents. However, it would be totally wrong to waive the fine completely as the carriers would then have little incentive to check all their travellers' documents as diligently as they do now. It would make it that much easier for the illegal asylum seekers. We are not discussing the genuine asylum seekers here but the illegal ones. That is surely wrong.
Lord Hylton: Is the noble Baroness aware that we are not discussing fines on this occasion but detention costs?
The Earl of Kinnoull: It seems almost unfair to support the amendment when so many others have already done so. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point that it was unfair that a carrier's check-in staff should make a judgment about people while checking them in. They are not making a judgment, they are only checking the tickets and passports.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we were told that the check-in staff could object on the grounds that a person looked nervous or had luggage which seemed excessive. The staff are making judgments about people.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I shall leave my noble friend to reply to that point but I understood that the staff only checked that the passports and visas were in order as well as the tickets.
306
I support my noble friend's amendment. She made a very powerful plea for my noble friend the Minister to examine this burden on carriers. It is an indefinable contingency liability that has continued for 25 years. It is interesting to note that, in 1971, the onus of the cost was considered fair. I suspect that it was regarded as a mild form of discipline on carriers.
Twenty-five years later the whole situation has changed considerably. There is a boom, an explosive growth, in travel—and particularly in air transport. Heathrow had one-fifth of the passengers in 1971 that it handles today. It may handle even more. With this massive growth in travel comes the growth in the numbers of immigrants wishing to enter this country either by fair means or by foul. It must be an absolute jungle when the criminal, the desperate and the economic elements are mixed, with all the cross-frontier complications that can occur within Europe.
My noble friend covered the ground very thoroughly. It was interesting to note how responsible carriers have been. She mentioned in particular British Airways. They have been very responsible in the training of their staff. In fact, one wonders whether immigration officers, if invited to man some of the check-in desks at the approved check gates, would be as successful as airline staff presently are.
I ask my noble friend, in replying, to say whether Immigration has a firm policy, and resources, to step up the approved gate check policy and whether the current 66 airports will be increased fairly rapidly over the next few years.
Like others, I feel that the present situation leads to what could be described as a dubious form of income which, I imagine, is passed to the Treasury. Does the Treasury therefore have to be consulted if any change occurs under the 1971 Act as a result of my noble friend's amendment?
Natural justice can hardly be served at the present time when a traveller shows correct documents to a carrier and, as my noble friend said, that carrier becomes liable for detention costs, the cost of security escorts and even the danger that passengers may not be accepted and may be flown back to their original destination. I hope my noble friend will look favourably upon this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support these amendments. We have debated this subject not only in relation to this Bill. I remember debating it years ago. Even then, we were very much in favour of life being made a little easier for the airlines. It is right that there should be some sanction against an airline. There was a time when no one looked at any documents. Now, as an Australian passport holder, my visas are checked and required for pretty well every country in the world that I visit. I am therefore accustomed to that time and detail. It must be totally impossible for any check-in staff to know whether the visas in my passport are real, or are very good forgeries. I certainly would not know when looking at someone else's passport. We cannot expect them to have that expertise.

307
Most worrying statements have been made as to how people get on board having their documents checked and they are all apparently in order. When they arrive, they dispose of them, perhaps down the toilet on the aircraft or overboard from a boat. Therefore no one has any way of checking whether they were real or were forgeries.
That brings me to the point of the approved gate procedure, which sounds excellent. At least it means that someone with a degree of responsibility should be doing the checking there. It is also very important that someone monitors those doing the checking on the approved gate. It could be a marvellous money-spinner for someone. I have heard so many stories from friends who have been to Africa. A patient told me that, when he wanted to fly out, he was told, "You are not on the manifest, I can't see your name". The man said, "Yes, I am. There is my name". The airline man picked up a pencil, drew a line through his name and said, "No, that is not you". After his palm had been crossed with silver he pulled out a rubber and said, "Oh yes I can see that you are on the flight after all". If people are going to do that simply when getting on a plane, there is an opportunity for corrupt documents—forgeries—to be accepted.
A dentist who once worked with me went to Ghana just when the revolution was taking place. He said that no one could forge any documents because there were no exit visas at all and no one knew what to forge. But the day the first exit visas were issued, forgeries were rife. It is a major industry in some countries.
Returning to the amendment before us, 72 hours seems a very fair compromise. It would mean that there is still some sanction against the carrier, yet it would not be so onerous that it would be quite off-putting. I think it is fair to support the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I give my support to these very modest amendments. I am not happy that either airline staff, in the case of this amendment, or local authority housing staff, in the case of an earlier amendment, should be used as a front line of immigration control.
Anything that provides a safeguard for an intending passenger is a good thing. I bear in mind that asylum seekers may have forged documents as the only proper way in which they can escape. It can happen that these provisions prevent a person who is escaping from fear of torture, imprisonment or death from flying to safety.
For that reason, rather more than the well-being of the airlines—although I believe that it is a burden on the airlines which they should not have to that extent—I give my support to these amendments, which I believe are very modest.
Baroness Blatch: I note that both the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, do not consider that there is any case for liability whatsoever. The noble Lord said that he does not believe that the airline should be regarded as part of the process of making sure that people do not travel illegally and arrive illegally in this country. The noble Lord should know that it has been known for whole aeroplanes to be filled
308
with people trying to gain entry into this country. Therefore, there ought to be some liability on the carrier in such a situation. However, noble Lords disagree.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, we do not ask the airlines to act as immigration officers. We ask them to check documentation. That is the particular responsibility of the airlines. We should like to think that the airlines are responsible for checking the documentation of any passenger coming in, irrespective of whether or not somebody may at the end of the day be seeking to enter this country. It is an important function. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She puts words into my mouth. I said that I was unhappy about airline staff (or housing staff) being used as a front line of immigration control. I stick by that proposition.
I am fully aware that there are difficulties and understand why the carriers' liability Act was introduced. I gave the example of an asylum seeker with forged documents seeking safety. I am concerned that the way in which the carriers' liability now operates can have a damaging effect on the ability of an asylum seeker to find safety, because the documents may not be accepted by the airline.
I was more enthusiastic about the amendment put forward the last time we were in Committee which would have exempted airlines from the fine if the individual could have demonstrated his right to stay here on one basis or another. I believe that that was the more important amendment. It is not the amendment that is before us tonight. I rest my case on that other amendment. There is an argument, but I did not go as far as the Minister said.
Baroness Blatch: I simply take the words that I heard from the noble Lord. We all read Hansard and I have no doubt that, on reflection, we shall return to this debate. These are not straightforward issues. A decision to detain a passenger is not taken lightly. Temporary admission is granted readily if the individual appears likely to comply with its terms. It is not our policy, for both humanitarian and financial reasons, to keep passengers in detention for any longer than required. Cases are kept under constant review at senior levels to ensure that detention does not continue unnecessarily and removal is effected as soon as is practical. Some delays are inevitable; for example, where representations have been made, asylum has been sought or where there are documentation problems. But passengers are not detained where there is no impediment to their removal.
The total annual cost to carriers of detention is not significant in real terms; it is only about £1.8 million. Nor are carriers liable for detention costs in all instances; in a great many cases the cost already falls to the taxpayer. Where someone has an entry certificate, visa or work permit the costs of detention are met out of public funds. Additionally, the legislation already protects carriers from unreasonable costs; the appeals system does undoubtedly have the effect of prolonging

309
detention but the provisions of paragraph 19(4) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 effectively "stop the clock" while an appeal is outstanding.
Carriers do feel strongly about this—I understand that—and a number have begun to take matters into their own hands. Many already limit the amount they pay, in clear defiance of the law. That begs the question: is it right to water down legislation which is already ignored, or should steps be taken to reinforce it? There is a very large debt—some £3.1 million—owed to the Government, which will need to be addressed whatever the outcome of the proposed amendments.
Certainly the proposed amendment seeks to accept cost for only 72 hours of detention. I am sympathetic to the difficulties experienced by carriers where substantial delays have been caused either by administrative action or where the person concerned attempts to exhaust every avenue of appeal. In those circumstances I sympathise with the view that it does not seem fair to expect carriers to continue to carry liability on an "open-ended" basis. The Government are already keen to look closely at this to see how we might effectively reduce this burden by simple administrative means.
The proposed Amendment No. 136 would have the effect of restricting liability for detention costs solely to the narrow band of cases where a passenger is found to be improperly or inadequately documented. That defeats the purpose of paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
In a number of areas regarding the relationship between the carriers and the Immigration Service the Government see little scope for change. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 is one of those. The principle there is too important for us to contemplate any change. But in the wider case of detention costs under the Immigration Act 1971 I have some sympathy with some of the concerns this amendment represents, and that have been spoken to by Members on all Benches.
The present system of collecting costs is not particularly satisfactory. The Government agree that it is not right for carriers to have to cope with an open-ended commitment to meet costs, particularly where the delay is caused by administrative issues, or where a substantial amount of time has passed between entry and detection.
I believe that my noble friend's proposals go too far and I cannot support them. But there is merit in her concerns, and we will look further at the point to see if we could put some limitation on the period of liability for detention costs. If we think that it would be appropriate to amend the 1971 Act in this way we will bring forward an amendment during Report stage. I know that my noble friend is also concerned about the related point about detention costs which arise in the case of detected illegal entrants who are admitted by an immigration officer and then removed some time later.
I will report the concerns which have been raised today to those of my colleagues who are responsible for discussions with the carriers. Those discussions need to
310
cover all the liabilities which the carriers have, including the important issue of outstanding charges awaiting payment.
I accept the principle of the cut-off point, and the issue of a person who both travels and arrives by deception—another point made by my noble friend—is one that I shall discuss further as a defence that can be produced by airlines against the costs. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendments while those discussions continue.
Baroness O' Cathain: I wish to express my gratitude to the seven noble Lords on all sides of the Committee who supported the principle of my amendments. There were a couple of errors in people's interpretation of the amendments but that was not surprising because this is a quite difficult situation and has been confused with the situation dealt with by the amendment moved by me and then withdrawn last Wednesday.
The carriers accept that they are liable if they make a mistake. My noble friend Lord Brabazon raised the issue of the gatecheck status. It would be wonderful if every airport in the world had gatecheck status, but I do not think that is feasible. We cannot dictate to other countries how they should build or run their airports. It is a case of negotiating and seeing how far we can get the status improved. The gatecheck status would not have met my concern about the people coming through with proper documentation then being faced with an immigration official in the UK who has what I call the sixth sense and is suspicious. The gatecheck status would not help in that case. The carriers—the ferry companies and the airlines—are trying to do their best to transport people. That is their job.
I was greatly heartened by what my noble friend the Minister had to say. Of course, as she said, airlines accept their responsibilities and accept the fines. I agreed with that in Committee on 30th April. However, I take mild issue with her assertion that check-in staff are not immigration personnel. The check-in staff I have met and talked to at great length believe that they are unpaid immigration staff. That is what they call themselves. That is their perception on the ground. It is not for me to say that they are or are not, but that is their perception. My noble friend is right that the sums of money, when we consider the whole value of tourism and the amounts of money spent by ferry passengers and air passengers, are not that significant. However, as I said right at the beginning, those sums are unjust and unfair.
I am grateful for my noble friend's assertion that she is very sympathetic regarding delays in detention. I am greatly heartened by the fact that she will look at how the burden could be lessened. My noble friend also stated that the present system of collecting costs is not satisfactory. I can understand that she is not prepared to accept 72 hours just like that. I suspect that this is a matter for negotiation. I am also very grateful to my

311
noble friend for saying that we shall discuss this matter further. I shall read Hansard very carefully tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 137A not moved.]
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 11, line 3, after ("released") insert—

("(i) into the care or supervision of a voluntary organisation, or

(ii)").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 139 and 140. These amendments are designed to minimise the practice of detaining asylum seekers, and also in some cases immigrants, in custody. The first objection to this practice is that it is extremely costly. Here I am sure I have Her Majesty's Government on my side. I say that because I think that just about every Minister responsible for immigration since 1988 or thereabouts has assured me personally that detention is used only sparingly and as a last resort. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, more or less repeated that form of words again earlier this evening. I would also add that I accept and see that detention is necessary in certain cases as a preliminary to deportation so that the person does not avoid being expelled from this country. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I have visited Campsfield House near Oxford. I have also visited Harmondsworth detention centre near London airport. Both places strike me as being extremely claustrophobic and unsuitable for detaining people for more than very short terms.
A second reason why the practice is essentially unsatisfactory is that solicitors and barristers experienced in asylum and immigration matters are concentrated principally in and around London. The same applies to interpreters who are often needed to ensure that those trying to enter this country have a fair opportunity to do so. If the time of those experts and advisers is wasted by having to travel to remote places such as H M Prison Haslar, near Gosport in Hampshire, or Maidstone or other distant prisons, that is a bad use of a specialised expertise.
The third reason why detention is unsatisfactory is that it is deeply distressing to people who may have experienced persecution, imprisonment and victimisation in their home countries. Because it is so distressing, it delays the rehabilitation of the person in question and makes more difficult the obtaining of true case histories.
Fourthly, the practice of detention tends to criminalise those who experience it. It reinforces the incorrect perception that exists among some members of the general public that all asylum seekers and immigrants are somehow illegal or not quite within the bounds of the law. I suggest that it is important to have on the face of the Bill certain ways by which detention can if possible be avoided, but certainly minimised.
Amendments Nos. 138 and 140 point to the use of voluntary organisations. We are fortunate in this country to have a vast range of voluntary organisations from the
312
British Refugee Council and its specialised affiliates, via ethnic and community organisations on to housing associations and providers of hostels, not forgetting the importance of the Churches. I urge the Government to make far greater use than has been the case up to now of the voluntary organisations for the purpose of supervising asylum seekers while their applications are being processed and considered. I am confident that the voluntary sector would rise to that challenge and ensure that asylum seekers presented themselves when required to do so.
Amendment No. 140 is a concession to the Government. It enables the Secretary of State to pick and choose and to decide which NGOs he will accept for that important purpose.
Amendment No. 139 seeks to ensure that bail will be an effective alternative to detention. It must be wrong to have a theoretical possibility of bail and then to find that it is set at such a high level that it is beyond the means of those it is intended to help. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, quoted the practice in Scotland. I hope that that will be studied and, if possible, applied in England and Wales. In any case, the means and circumstances of those seeking bail must surely be considered when the amount is being set.
I suggest that the Government have at least two ways of reducing the costly use of detention. I very much hope that they will accept both methods and write them on to the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I warmly support these three amendments which represent a different but very worthy way of dealing with the terrible question of detention.
Earl Russell: I, too, support these amendments to which I have put my name. I give four reasons: it is cheaper; it is more humane; it is more likely to provide people capable of interpreting in the relevant language; and the Home Office will need every bit of detention space that it can get. I also endorse very strongly the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the high quality of our voluntary organisations. Whether or not the churches are voluntary organisations, I include them in that remark. I thought that I knew all this before we got to the Bill—I did not know the half of it.
Baroness Blatch: I am happy to endorse what the noble Earl has just said. Having had responsibility within my portfolio for the voluntary sector, I have nothing but the highest regard for voluntary organisations. Anything that I say in response to these amendments is not intended to be critical or disparaging about the voluntary sector. However, it is unclear why, when this Bill contains proposals which will widen access to bail to include all of those who are liable for detention under powers in the Immigration Act 1971, it is thought necessary to introduce a further method of obtaining release from detention. Release on bail

313
operates within a prescribed framework where adjudicators are charged with the responsibility of determining the conditions for release on bail. There is no indication that this system does not operate effectively; the major complaint about the bail system is that groups of people are currently excluded from it because of their immigration status, and this omission is being addressed by various proposals already contained in the Bill.
The system of release into the care or supervision of a voluntary organisation specified for that purpose by the Secretary of State promoted by these amendments is unstructured and apparently without any limits. There are no pre-conditions attached to such release, and there is no indication of how a person released under such an arrangement would have any incentive to comply with any subsequent requirement to appear at the required time and place. The bail system promotes compliance through the use of appropriate financial guarantees. Close supervision by a specified voluntary organisation would undoubtedly incur additional costs, and there is no indication of how such costs would be met. The amendments would also require that in the setting of any recognizance or bail bond regard should be paid to the personal circumstances of the applicant. This amendment appears to be superfluous. Subparagraph (2) of paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act already gives adjudicators complete control over the conditions of release on bail, and the power to dispense with sureties if that is appropriate. Currently, when sureties are required they are normally provided by the applicant's friends or relatives, so the applicant's own circumstances and means are to that extent irrelevant.
The amendments add only confusion to a system which generally operates well and which, with the widening of access to bail provided by various measures proposed in the Bill, should operate even better in future. We have praised the quality of our voluntary sector. I also praise the professionalism with which our officials operate in this respect. They use detention very sparingly. Because of its costs there is downward pressure to ensure that no one remains in detention any longer than necessary. If a person is detained, there are usually very good reasons. The notion behind these amendments that such individuals should be allowed out into the voluntary sector unconditionally, without the kinds of control that would be necessary if bail were allowed, is simply unacceptable.
Lord Hylton: I am surprised that the Minister should say that the detention system works well. I have known a number of cases over the years, and I have the impression that people linger in there until the case eventually reaches the Minister's desk. However, I am heartened by what she said about the power to dispense with bail. Perhaps she would be kind enough to write to me to tell me how often that power has been used in practice. I shall of course study what she has said
314
carefully. At this time of night I have no intention of pressing the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it unless the Minister wants to tell me something else first.
Baroness Blatch: I want just to correct what I said. I said dispense with sureties if that was appropriate.
Lord Hylton: Does the Minister mean other people putting up their money, or what?
Baroness Blatch: If the people approving it believe that bail is appropriate and sureties are not appropriate they can be dispensed with. Sureties are often put up by friends or relatives and so the applicant's particular circumstances are irrelevant.
Lord Hylton: The Minister will be well aware that a high proportion of asylum seekers have no friends or relatives in this country when they arrive. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 138A:
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("by an adjudicator") and insert ("in accordance with this paragraph.
( ) An immigration officer not below the rank of chief immigration officer or an adjudicator may release a person so detained").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 138A and 140A are designed to extend the powers already available to immigration officers of the rank of chief immigration officer and above to release on bail those who are detained under powers in the Immigration Act 1971. Consequently, I hope that they will be welcomed, along with the other measures already contained in the Bill which provide a right to apply for bail to all those who are detained. The inclusion of these measures in the Bill was delayed by the need for a trial to establish their effectiveness.
Currently, chief immigration officers are able to release on bail only those who have lodged an appeal which is still outstanding. These amendments would extend their powers to release on bail all of those who can be detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
We see two potential benefits. First, it should remove some pressure from the appellate authorities who would otherwise have to consider the requests for bail. Secondly, it would provide chief immigration officers with a greater degree of control when making a decision to release than is provided by the temporary admission arrangements.
I commend these amendments to the Committee as the last piece in the jigsaw which ensures that bail rights are as widely available as possible to all of those who are detained under powers in the Immigration Act 1971. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister invited us earlier this evening and now to welcome the bail provisions. I think that she will acknowledge that we did so on Second Reading and we do so again now. It seems a little curious, when my noble friend Lord Dubs has been objecting to bureaucratic procedures and

315
officials locking up people, if we now say that we have no objection to officials releasing people. But there is a real difference. There can be no objection to this further extension of the bail provisions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 11, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph—

(a) for the word "adjudicator", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "immigration officer or adjudicator"; and

(b) for the word "adjudicator", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "officer or adjudicator".

( ) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph—

(a) for the word "adjudicator", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "immigration officer or adjudicator"; and

(b) for the word "adjudicator", in the second and third places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "officer or adjudicator".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment 141 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 142 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 13, column 3, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 143 is purely consequential on government Amendment No. 1. The amendment replaces Clause 1 with a new version re-enacting paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act. That was in response to what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.